|
On October 10 2010 09:15 Williowa wrote:
You can't stimulate an economy by taking money from some people and giving it to others, not even if they are doing things we wouldn't normally pay people to do in a free market.
Nor can health care costs be controlled by bringing them under the efficiency of government, because almost any business operates tighter then the government does. Never does a business say "if we don't use all the money, they will cut our budget".
Obama is a horrible president, he will not keep the Bush tax cuts. He talked cap and trade when the economy was already uncertain. He also is spending billions upon billions of dollars that the government doesn't have to keep public sector union jobs in place. Even with all the extra spending, the latest unemployment numbers put government job losses way above the private sector.
But hey, I'm with the crowd that says Obama is TRYING to destroy the country, not trying to do any good what so ever. About the only positive thing you can say, is if you are a public sector union employee, he is probably looking out for you.
Dude you are so intelligent, what school did you attend? I want to send my kids there. Trying to destroy the country? If helping the poor is destroying America, let's destroy this bitch! Besides why spend billions and billions on fixing our own country when we can spend it on bombing arabs amirite
|
On October 10 2010 10:29 thedeadhaji wrote:
The most significant difference between the Obama administration and the Bush administration, is that about 80% of the officers around Bush had actual business experience. I believe the percentage of Obama officers who have had business experience (ie actually getting shit done with proper timescale and budget consciousness) is smaller than 10%.
This administration is "the politicians'" administration. It's the "if we can't get shit done in time and within budget, hike taxes" school of thought that they come from.
Actually, being a businessman has no bearing on whether or not you will do well in politics because business != politics. Businesspeople with the "get shit done with proper timescale and budget consciousness" are probably used to the ability to hire and fire at will, no can do in politics. Most of the time you have to work with what you've got and make it work. Also many times if you want to implement stuff its not a question of doing things in a timely, efficient manner, its about selling the idea to the American public and getting their senators to vote for it. You can't simply be more efficient or buy out your opponents to win, you've got to make people believe what you're doing is what's good. Public image is super important, if you're caught cheating on your wife as a businessman no one cares, if you're caught as an appointed employee you will get lambasted and your work will be impossible to accomplish. For some reason people have this idea that businesspeople are the end all be all of good politicians but the two professions and what is required of each are completely different.
Businesspeople aren't even historically that great as politicians. Some have done well but many have been catastrophic failures. Silvio Berlusconi? Third richest man in Italy. How's Italy doing? Yeah you gotta dig pretty far back to find anything positive. What about Donald Rumsfeld? Not a bad businessman, but everyone thinks of him as the guy that failed two wars. Corruption also comes hand in hand with businessmen come politicians. Cheney/Haliburton? Russia?
Unfortunately for Obama people have this idea that if you're not surrounded by businessmen you're going to be a slow ineffecient government so he's hiring businesspeople to his new economic team.
|
On October 10 2010 13:38 Hinanawi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 12:47 Belegorm wrote:
Most people's morals and ethics are formed by their religion. Scandinavian countries are full of atheists and they have much lower crime rates and higher standards of life than the U.S., which is full of Christians.
Honestly, this is probably more due to how freaking cold is it is there. I'd rather murder someone when I don't have to hike through 12 feet of snow.
|
Interesting trend in this thread:
People who attack Obama tend to have limited knowledge of their views and keep their attacks to personality based, unfounded claims,
while people defending Obama tend to try to rationalize the limitations that a president can have on the nation, and actually tend to have knowledge about fundamental properties of economics and politics.
Obama may not be the greatest president, but really, he's pretty decent in my book. To keep it simple, he was handed one of the worst situations our country has been in since FDR (the great recession being the worst economic crisis since the great depression, and could have been possibly worse if not for the bailout), and has one of the least supportive congresses considering he has a majority rule (politicians playing against the president in effort to avoid the incumbent cleaning out that will occur soon... :/). You guys make it seem like Obama has pocket aces on the flop and lost out to a 7 - 2 off suit, when in reality its the other way around.
|
On October 10 2010 08:05 unit wrote:
Obama is doing as i expected, i knew that he was going to be a bad president from the get-go but his amazing speaking skills and ability to tell people what they wanted to hear got him the position
this is merely an example that the skills to be a good president are not the same as the skills to win an election
Amen to this.
Folks need to pay more attention to actions (actually read up on the history of the person) and less to words.
There are plenty of people that can make you like them if you just hear 10 minute segments that they prearranged. These same people are not necessary the folks you want leading your country. Their personal history tells more of what they would be like as a leader than any amount of political-psychobabble.
Unfortunately Obama's history is very pro-union/big government and it shows in his actions today.
|
On October 10 2010 12:51 Floophead_III wrote:
As for comparing him to Bush:
Personally, I think Bush was an incredible president and a great man. I think he had some failed policies and blunders too. But, he did the 1 thing he needed to do - protect America - and he did it damn well. He united Americans in a moment of fragility and we've been safe ever since. There have been numerous plots and potential attacks averted because he put focus on strengthening national security and brought the war on terror back onto their soil.
You can't be serious?.....
|
On October 11 2010 04:21 VonLego wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 08:05 unit wrote:
Obama is doing as i expected, i knew that he was going to be a bad president from the get-go but his amazing speaking skills and ability to tell people what they wanted to hear got him the position
this is merely an example that the skills to be a good president are not the same as the skills to win an election Amen to this. Folks need to pay more attention to actions (actually read up on the history of the person) and less to words. There are plenty of people that can make you like them if you just hear 10 minute segments that they prearranged. These same people are not necessary the folks you want leading your country. Their personal history tells more of what they would be like as a leader than any amount of political-psychobabble. Unfortunately Obama's history is very pro-union/big government and it shows in his actions today.
And he never hid that he was from the left...
|
@ Von
Ok lets deal with this big government crap. You're in a recession and the Fed reserve is throwing everything and the kitchen sink. The majority of modern theory supports a sizeable fiscal stimulus twice teh size of what was presented (and in the context of state governments engaging in austerity programs).
The monopsony and the distortions in the healthcare market. Ofc. There is the fundamental arguement of how much healthcare should every american have access to, but I seems that arguement is just government brings inefficiency rar rar rar.
Also where the hell were you folks when the PoS that is medicare part D came into existence?
|
On October 11 2010 04:42 Mickey wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 12:51 Floophead_III wrote:
As for comparing him to Bush:
Personally, I think Bush was an incredible president and a great man. I think he had some failed policies and blunders too. But, he did the 1 thing he needed to do - protect America - and he did it damn well. He united Americans in a moment of fragility and we've been safe ever since. There have been numerous plots and potential attacks averted because he put focus on strengthening national security and brought the war on terror back onto their soil.
You can't be serious?.....
Good counter argument there. Of course I'm serious. My apologies for being one of the thinking Americans and one of the few people on this forum who aren't afraid to voice a conservative viewpoint on the internet.
You do realize the primary function of the President is to serve as commander-in-chief and to protect America, right? Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the President should help everyone by giving away gov't money or make sure every person is taken care of though.
That being said, the presidency is massively, ridiculously strong compared to what the founders anticipated. The Presidency has expanded wildly beyond what the constitution enumerates. Bush certainly bent a few rules with regards to national security, but at least he was doing so in order to carry out a constitutional duty. Obama is just trying to use his power to serve a liberal agenda that, constitutionally speaking, he does not have a duty to pursue. The fact is, I'd rather him just do his damn job instead of try to be an idealist.
I stand by everything I say with regards to politics, and I use reason and logic to back up my statements. Can you say the same?
|
On October 11 2010 10:19 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2010 04:42 Mickey wrote:On October 10 2010 12:51 Floophead_III wrote:
As for comparing him to Bush:
Personally, I think Bush was an incredible president and a great man. I think he had some failed policies and blunders too. But, he did the 1 thing he needed to do - protect America - and he did it damn well. He united Americans in a moment of fragility and we've been safe ever since. There have been numerous plots and potential attacks averted because he put focus on strengthening national security and brought the war on terror back onto their soil.
You can't be serious?..... Good counter argument there. Of course I'm serious. My apologies for being one of the thinking Americans and one of the few people on this forum who aren't afraid to voice a conservative viewpoint on the internet. You do realize the primary function of the President is to serve as commander-in-chief and to protect America, right? Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the President should help everyone by giving away gov't money or make sure every person is taken care of though. That being said, the presidency is massively, ridiculously strong compared to what the founders anticipated. The Presidency has expanded wildly beyond what the constitution enumerates. Bush certainly bent a few rules with regards to national security, but at least he was doing so in order to carry out a constitutional duty. Obama is just trying to use his power to serve a liberal agenda that, constitutionally speaking, he does not have a duty to pursue. The fact is, I'd rather him just do his damn job instead of try to be an idealist. I stand by everything I say with regards to politics, and I use reason and logic to back up my statements. Can you say the same?
Hats off to this guy.
|
On October 11 2010 10:19 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2010 04:42 Mickey wrote:On October 10 2010 12:51 Floophead_III wrote:
As for comparing him to Bush:
Personally, I think Bush was an incredible president and a great man. I think he had some failed policies and blunders too. But, he did the 1 thing he needed to do - protect America - and he did it damn well. He united Americans in a moment of fragility and we've been safe ever since. There have been numerous plots and potential attacks averted because he put focus on strengthening national security and brought the war on terror back onto their soil.
You can't be serious?..... I stand by everything I say with regards to politics, and I use reason and logic to back up my statements. Can you say the same?
I haven't seen much logic. You made statements based on your perception. Your idea of a President's tasks is pretty bad - but even if you had it right, it still wouldn't be called logic.
|
On October 11 2010 10:19 Floophead_III wrote:
That being said, the presidency is massively, ridiculously strong compared to what the founders anticipated. The Presidency has expanded wildly beyond what the constitution enumerates. Bush certainly bent a few rules with regards to national security, but at least he was doing so in order to carry out a constitutional duty. Obama is just trying to use his power to serve a liberal agenda that, constitutionally speaking, he does not have a duty to pursue. The fact is, I'd rather him just do his damn job instead of try to be an idealist.
I'm not very good with politics but I'd like to ask some sincere questions.
What is this "liberal agenda" you speak of, and why do you view it as a bad thing?
Disregarding how you feel about the presidential role.
|
On October 11 2010 10:19 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2010 04:42 Mickey wrote:On October 10 2010 12:51 Floophead_III wrote:
As for comparing him to Bush:
Personally, I think Bush was an incredible president and a great man. I think he had some failed policies and blunders too. But, he did the 1 thing he needed to do - protect America - and he did it damn well. He united Americans in a moment of fragility and we've been safe ever since. There have been numerous plots and potential attacks averted because he put focus on strengthening national security and brought the war on terror back onto their soil.
You can't be serious?..... Good counter argument there. Of course I'm serious. My apologies for being one of the thinking Americans and one of the few people on this forum who aren't afraid to voice a conservative viewpoint on the internet. You do realize the primary function of the President is to serve as commander-in-chief and to protect America, right? Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the President should help everyone by giving away gov't money or make sure every person is taken care of though. That being said, the presidency is massively, ridiculously strong compared to what the founders anticipated. The Presidency has expanded wildly beyond what the constitution enumerates. Bush certainly bent a few rules with regards to national security, but at least he was doing so in order to carry out a constitutional duty. Obama is just trying to use his power to serve a liberal agenda that, constitutionally speaking, he does not have a duty to pursue. The fact is, I'd rather him just do his damn job instead of try to be an idealist. I stand by everything I say with regards to politics, and I use reason and logic to back up my statements. Can you say the same?
After this post, i'm returning to my original concept of avoiding all political and economic threads on TL.
I'm not going to comment on your opinion much else but suggesting your logic is somewhat broken - in that you blindly cling to the constitution (as well as calling things "unconstitutional" when they really are not - which is humorous since Bush did many "unconstitutional" acts as well) as if it is infallible and that it could never be abused under any circumstances, which is just plain wrong.
Edit: also, you imply that stepping out of bounds of the constitution MUST be bad.
I disagree with that train of baseless logic as well.
|
On October 10 2010 09:15 Williowa wrote:
You can't stimulate an economy by taking money from some people and giving it to others
Quit reading there. I love it when people display a fundamental lack of reality right away so you can disregard the rest.
Borrowing money on a bond market does not equal taking money from one party through taxes and spending it on another. Tax revenues are at a fairly historic (in modern terms)low of 15% of GDP.
http://i53.tinypic.com/2qixm4m.png
Do you, by any chance, visit Mises.org or listen to conservative talk radio on a regular basis? That would go a long way in explaining the divergence from reality.
|
On October 11 2010 10:19 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2010 04:42 Mickey wrote:On October 10 2010 12:51 Floophead_III wrote:
As for comparing him to Bush:
Personally, I think Bush was an incredible president and a great man. I think he had some failed policies and blunders too. But, he did the 1 thing he needed to do - protect America - and he did it damn well. He united Americans in a moment of fragility and we've been safe ever since. There have been numerous plots and potential attacks averted because he put focus on strengthening national security and brought the war on terror back onto their soil.
You can't be serious?..... Good counter argument there. Of course I'm serious. My apologies for being one of the thinking Americans and one of the few people on this forum who aren't afraid to voice a conservative viewpoint on the internet. You do realize the primary function of the President is to serve as commander-in-chief and to protect America, right? Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the President should help everyone by giving away gov't money or make sure every person is taken care of though. That being said, the presidency is massively, ridiculously strong compared to what the founders anticipated. The Presidency has expanded wildly beyond what the constitution enumerates. Bush certainly bent a few rules with regards to national security, but at least he was doing so in order to carry out a constitutional duty. Obama is just trying to use his power to serve a liberal agenda that, constitutionally speaking, he does not have a duty to pursue. The fact is, I'd rather him just do his damn job instead of try to be an idealist. I stand by everything I say with regards to politics, and I use reason and logic to back up my statements. Can you say the same?
That wasn't a counter-argument. It was a statement, because I honestly couldn't believe you just typed that. As in I seriously thought you were a troll, that kind of thing.
Nowhere in your post did you cite information nor argue in a logical manner. You basically stated things and then explained that you use reason & logic to support them.
Your post was nothing, but a mini tirade against the president for supposedly pushing the "Liberal Agenda", which may I add I never hear outside Fox News. While, praising Bush for violating international and federal law for the sake of internal security.
|
On October 11 2010 01:19 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 10:29 thedeadhaji wrote:
The most significant difference between the Obama administration and the Bush administration, is that about 80% of the officers around Bush had actual business experience. I believe the percentage of Obama officers who have had business experience (ie actually getting shit done with proper timescale and budget consciousness) is smaller than 10%.
This administration is "the politicians'" administration. It's the "if we can't get shit done in time and within budget, hike taxes" school of thought that they come from.
Actually, being a businessman has no bearing on whether or not you will do well in politics because business != politics. Businesspeople with the "get shit done with proper timescale and budget consciousness" are probably used to the ability to hire and fire at will, no can do in politics. Most of the time you have to work with what you've got and make it work. Also many times if you want to implement stuff its not a question of doing things in a timely, efficient manner, its about selling the idea to the American public and getting their senators to vote for it. You can't simply be more efficient or buy out your opponents to win, you've got to make people believe what you're doing is what's good. Public image is super important, if you're caught cheating on your wife as a businessman no one cares, if you're caught as an appointed employee you will get lambasted and your work will be impossible to accomplish. For some reason people have this idea that businesspeople are the end all be all of good politicians but the two professions and what is required of each are completely different. Businesspeople aren't even historically that great as politicians. Some have done well but many have been catastrophic failures. Silvio Berlusconi? Third richest man in Italy. How's Italy doing? Yeah you gotta dig pretty far back to find anything positive. What about Donald Rumsfeld? Not a bad businessman, but everyone thinks of him as the guy that failed two wars. Corruption also comes hand in hand with businessmen come politicians. Cheney/Haliburton? Russia? Unfortunately for Obama people have this idea that if you're not surrounded by businessmen you're going to be a slow ineffecient government so he's hiring businesspeople to his new economic team.
By Haji's logic, his candidate in the last election would have been Mitt Romney.
|
On October 11 2010 10:19 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2010 04:42 Mickey wrote:On October 10 2010 12:51 Floophead_III wrote:
As for comparing him to Bush:
Personally, I think Bush was an incredible president and a great man. I think he had some failed policies and blunders too. But, he did the 1 thing he needed to do - protect America - and he did it damn well. He united Americans in a moment of fragility and we've been safe ever since. There have been numerous plots and potential attacks averted because he put focus on strengthening national security and brought the war on terror back onto their soil.
You can't be serious?..... Good counter argument there. Of course I'm serious. My apologies for being one of the thinking Americans and one of the few people on this forum who aren't afraid to voice a conservative viewpoint on the internet. You do realize the primary function of the President is to serve as commander-in-chief and to protect America, right? Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the President should help everyone by giving away gov't money or make sure every person is taken care of though. That being said, the presidency is massively, ridiculously strong compared to what the founders anticipated. The Presidency has expanded wildly beyond what the constitution enumerates. Bush certainly bent a few rules with regards to national security, but at least he was doing so in order to carry out a constitutional duty. Obama is just trying to use his power to serve a liberal agenda that, constitutionally speaking, he does not have a duty to pursue. The fact is, I'd rather him just do his damn job instead of try to be an idealist. I stand by everything I say with regards to politics, and I use reason and logic to back up my statements. Can you say the same?
So you think the primary job of the President is to be the nation's general. Wow. Conservatives are really starting to go off the deep end...
You're not really using reason and logic. It's more like you gave an opinion on what you think the President should do, then talked about how America has a strong central gov't, gave an opinion on the Bush presidency, then shared some additional paranoid opinions about Obama's presidency.
None of this is reason or logic, it's purely opinion. How you don't see this is beyond me.
And from what I'm getting out of your post, you basically thing we should return to a confederate system, in which the national government provides military protection and almost nothing else. Is that what you're saying is in the constitution?
I think it's kind of sad that Republicans consistently try to justify rank selfishness by claiming taxes are "unfair" and "unjust." Why don't people just pack up and go live on a deserted island on their own, where they can profit off their "own work" and nobody takes anything from them. It seems these kinds of Republican tenets have completely forgotten the basis of human civilization.
|
United States238 Posts
I think people expected way too much from him during and after the campaign with so many things that were wrong in the country for him to fix at the time.
|
Obama is an alright president. I wish he could be more liberal and attack the Republican Party more but lets face the Democrats a little pussies.
Health Care Reform didn't reform anything honestly. Yeah now they can't deny you coverage for having a preexisting conditions but it didn't stop the health insurance companies from sky rocketing premiums. Who could have seen that coming amirite? And this year the insurance companies have to let kids with preexisting conditions get health insurances and you know what the companies did? they cut all children from health insurance so they don't have to cover the kids with preexisting conditions. And he didn't even fight for the Public Option SERIOUSLY that was the one thing that would get America closer to a Universal Health Care and stop the insurance companies from sucking up every single dollar.
The Financial Reform sucked as well. It was PROVEN that stimulus money slow downed the recession but because of the attacks from the right Obama stop doing stimulus spending. Now with the Bush Tax Cuts he stalled the vote till after the Nov. elections WTF? NO THE WEALTHEST AMERICANS DO NOT NEED A TAX CUT. THEY NEED TO PAY MORE. TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH WILL NOT CREATE JOBS IN AMERICA THEY WILL MAKE JOBS OVER SEAS!! And he has the people responsible for the bailouts and the financial crisis in his administration and he isn't getting rid of them of course. Oh and they never stopped the problem at the core. Derivative trading remains untouched so later in the future the same problem will occur.
Bush was a HORRID PRESIDENT. I can understand the war in Afghanistan but really do we need to send THOUSANDS of troops there to fight what 20-50 Taliban? And did we have to go to war with Iraq when we already had a war. There were no evidence that Iraq was helping Al-Queda and there was no evidence that Iraq had or in the process of making nukes in any way but who cares about evidence?
If the Republicans really cared about the deficit they would stop the two wars, tax the rich, and have more stimulus spending. But they won't why cause they are all in it to protect the rich who pays for their campaign ads and when they retire they can work for those companies as lobbyists and the Democrats and Obama are to much of a pussy to call them out and most of them are paying the same game.
Nothing has changed in Washington and nothing would have changed if McCain was president either, it probably would be worse if McCain was president.
|
Yo. I really couldnt be bothered to follow news of America since the election but can any of you Americans tell me if your personal situation has been improved since the previous president? Like you actually have access to new services or lost them etc.
It seems like most of this discussion is about the moral fabric of leaders rather than what they have done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
