| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On January 22 2013 04:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Chuck Schumer is loving this, even the majority of Wines are from New York. Well as MSNBC put it he is the chairman of a commitee that is relevent only once every 4 years so this really is his only moment in the sun. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On January 22 2013 04:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Is Harry Reid okay, he looks exhausted... even ill. I think hes okay hes just not a very passionate speaker. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 22 2013 04:27 Adreme wrote: Also Im not argueing that a temporary increase wouldnt give people confidence for a month but no one is going to make long term investments when they are worried about something that huge. OK, I agree with that. But it depends on whether or not people believe that this is a serious concern or not. I think most people (myself included) are rolling their eyes, muttering "typical Washington politics" and won't significantly change our plans unless things turn really rowdy. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On January 22 2013 04:25 Adreme wrote: Interestingly enough for the first ever I actually read the 14th amendment and kind of understand how you could say that allows the president to raise the debt limit. First time someone ever said that idea I thought it was one of those crazy ideas based on a obtuse sentence in the constitution but actually reading it I can understand how you can logically raise the debt limit because of it. If you agree with Charles Beard's once-famous (though now largely forgotten) An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, pretty much the whole point of having a strong federal government in the first place is to ensure the repayment of debt. Taken in that sense, threatening not to raise the debt ceiling is more effectively anti-federal republic than even threatening secession (though of course the modern movement lacks the historical context, kind of like modern gold standard advocates not really being about preventing the dilution of farmers' debts). | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
-Kept us in the War in Afghanistan -Took 3 years to get us out of Iraq -Promised to close Guantanamo Bay, still hasn't (he has complete control over this) -Promised to halve the federal deficit, instead we had the 2nd highest deficit in US history in 2011 -Bombed 5 countries we aren't at war with, with no congressional approval -Repealed air pollution regulations -Gave billions of taxpayer dollars to bailout corporations -Ordered the assassination of US citizens abroad without any sort of trial or judicial oversight -Nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, even though she had never been a judge in her life | ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
On January 23 2013 05:53 Voltaire wrote: Here are some simple reasons why Obama is a BAD president: -Kept us in the War in Afghanistan -Took 3 years to get us out of Iraq -Promised to close Guantanamo Bay, still hasn't (he has complete control over this) -Promised to halve the federal deficit, instead we had the highest deficit in US history in 2011 -Bombed 5 countries we aren't at war with, with no congressional approval -Repealed air pollution regulations -Gave billions of taxpayer dollars to bailout corporations -Ordered the assassination of US citizens abroad without any sort of trial or judicial oversight -Nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, even though she had never been a judge in her life The US election thread has been closed for a long time now, but you can still peruse it for discussions of literally every single demagogic point you've so graciously outlined for us above. In fact, I daresay they've even been addressed in this very thread. Wouldn't want to be a BAD poster, now would you? | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On January 23 2013 05:57 farvacola wrote: The US election thread has been closed for a long time now, but you can still peruse it for discussions of literally every single demagogic point you've so graciously outlined for us above. In fact, I daresay they've even been addressed in this very thread. Wouldn't want to be a BAD poster, now would you? My post has nothing to do with the election. Also, I don't expect anyone to read this entire 82 page thread. I don't think there's anything wrong with me outlining my opinion on why I think Obama is a bad President. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
On January 23 2013 06:05 Voltaire wrote: My post has nothing to do with the election. Also, I don't expect anyone to read this entire 82 page thread. I don't think there's anything wrong with me outlining my opinion on why I think Obama is a bad President. Your post has everything to do with the election, as it is clearly a line-item regurgitation of the libertarian critique of Obama that formed the centerpiece of the early Ron Paul campaign. Also, refer to the mod note at the top and the referenced rule number 1: Show, do not tell. Your post is utterly bereft of context and description, with crafted declarations meant to inspire only one reaction in a reader, rather than allowing them to make a conclusion for themselves. You don't even name the countries Obama bombed, or the names of the citizens that have been killed abroad. Your post is literally everything wrong with US politics today, and belongs amidst the headlines of CNN and the daily talking points of Fox and Friends. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On January 23 2013 06:16 farvacola wrote: Your post has everything to do with the election, as it is clearly a line-item regurgitation of the libertarian critique of Obama that formed the centerpiece of the early Ron Paul campaign. Also, refer to the mod note at the top and the referenced rule number 1: Show, do not tell. Your post is utterly bereft of context and description, with crafted declarations meant to inspire only one reaction in a reader, rather than allowing them to make a conclusion for themselves. You don't even name the countries Obama bombed, or the names of the citizens that have been killed abroad. Your post is literally everything wrong with US politics today, and belongs amidst the headlines of CNN and the daily talking points of Fox and Friends. Stop talking about Ron Paul. I get it that you hate him, but nothing I've said has anything to do with Ron Paul. He probably agrees with some of the stuff I listed, but so do millions of Americans. The reason I didn't post tons of links and stuff is that I didn't want to bog it down and turn it into a massive wall of text that makes it difficult to read. A lot of people just skip over those types of posts. Every single point I made is factually correct, and if you want the evidence for it I'll be happy to provide it. As for the countries Obama has bombed that we aren't at war with (through the use of drones): Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Iraq (after the war supposedly "ended") | ||
|
mordek
United States12704 Posts
| ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On January 23 2013 06:05 Voltaire wrote: My post has nothing to do with the election. Also, I don't expect anyone to read this entire 82 page thread. I don't think there's anything wrong with me outlining my opinion on why I think Obama is a bad President. A lot of the greatest justices in the history of the country were not judges either. Also the bailout (which we profited from by the way) was done under Bush and was probably he best legislative accomplishment. The statement on halving the deficit was also made before the economy collapsed which sort of changed everything deficit related because as any smart economist will tell you balancing the budget during a recession only makes it worse. Im also actually not sure why you think he has complete control over whether to close guantanamo bay when there are things that you specifically need congress to do for closing it to work. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 23 2013 05:53 Voltaire wrote: Here are some simple reasons why Obama is a BAD president: -Kept us in the War in Afghanistan -Took 3 years to get us out of Iraq -Promised to close Guantanamo Bay, still hasn't (he has complete control over this) -Promised to halve the federal deficit, instead we had the 2nd highest deficit in US history in 2011 -Bombed 5 countries we aren't at war with, with no congressional approval -Repealed air pollution regulations -Gave billions of taxpayer dollars to bailout corporations -Ordered the assassination of US citizens abroad without any sort of trial or judicial oversight -Nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, even though she had never been a judge in her life Honestly, the bolded are not things I have an issue with. While I'm not sure I like the bombing without approval or the killings of US citizens, I understand WHY he did those things and I don't disagree with it. I was very against the bailouts and I don't know enough about the regulations you're referring to to say I liked or disliked them. | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
On January 23 2013 05:53 Voltaire wrote: Here are some simple reasons why Obama is a BAD president: -Kept us in the War in Afghanistan -Took 3 years to get us out of Iraq -Promised to close Guantanamo Bay, still hasn't (he has complete control over this) -Promised to halve the federal deficit, instead we had the 2nd highest deficit in US history in 2011 -Bombed 5 countries we aren't at war with, with no congressional approval -Repealed air pollution regulations -Gave billions of taxpayer dollars to bailout corporations -Ordered the assassination of US citizens abroad without any sort of trial or judicial oversight -Nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, even though she had never been a judge in her life - How would you have pulled out? We've pulled out a significant portion of our troops, not to mention we killed Bin Laden. - You could've done it faster? I'd like to know how you would've done it. - Fair enough, though I'm not sure what you mean he has "complete control over this" - Our deficit has gone down since then. How would you have cut it without hurting Americans? You had a ballooning deficit because of a massive recession that showcased deep structural problems with our economy. How do you expect to cut that in just a few years? - Fair enough, though I'm sure this isn't the first time that presidents have taken initiative without congressional approval and didn't get as much flack as Mr. Obama did. - That were returned and we made money off of. It's not like we gave it to all these companies and didn't ask for it back. - Fair enough. - Have you read all of her other credentials? It's pretty extensive. I'm not saying Obama is the best thing since sliced bread, but I think criticisms against the guy are pretty poorly put together. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On January 23 2013 06:48 Adreme wrote: A lot of the greatest justices in the history of the country were not judges either. Also the bailout (which we profited from by the way) was done under Bush and was probably he best legislative accomplishment. The statement on halving the deficit was also made before the economy collapsed which sort of changed everything deficit related because as any smart economist will tell you balancing the budget during a recession only makes it worse. Im also actually not sure why you think he has complete control over whether to close guantanamo bay when there are things that you specifically need congress to do for closing it to work. I'm talking about the auto bailout, not the bank bailout. The auto bailout was a lot smaller, but still, why should billions of taxpayer dollars be given to bailout corporations? Especially since Chrysler has already been bailed out before. I understand what you're saying about the economy crashing, but that only justifies why the deficit wasn't lowered. Under Obama we've had huge deficits every year. The huge $700bn bank bailout accounts for half of 2009's deficit (which Bush is responsible for). Why has the deficit been nearly as high every year since then? Spending has gotten out of control, which does pose a direct threat to our economy. This level of debt increase cannot be kept up for long, unless we want to end up like Greece or Spain. As for Guantanamo Bay, he has the power to relocate the inmates to a federal prison within the US. He didn't because "incoming officials of his administration discovered that there were no comprehensive files concerning many of the detainees, so that merely assembling the available evidence about them could take weeks or months" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/24/AR2009012401702_pf.html) Obama clearly gave up on closing GB because he signed the 2011 NDAA bill which specifically prohibits the transfer of inmates to other countries and prohibits any sort of modification to any federal facility to allow the GB inmates to be transferred there. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr6523enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr6523enr.pdf) | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
I'm talking about the auto bailout, not the bank bailout. The auto bailout was a lot smaller, but still, why should billions of taxpayer dollars be given to bailout corporations? Especially since Chrysler has already been bailed out before. The bailout is heralded as a booming success by both parties, it's like the one bailout that both sides seem to be agreeing on. The auto companies were in a lot of trouble and their problems were not just their own. Their failing would have a huge impact on multiple other industries, especially those that provided the electronics, tires, etc. to these companies to build the cars in the first place. I understand what you're saying about the economy crashing, but that only justifies why the deficit wasn't lowered. Under Obama we've had huge deficits every year. The huge $700bn bank bailout accounts for half of 2009's deficit (which Bush is responsible for). Why has the deficit been nearly as high every year since then? Spending has gotten out of control, which does pose a direct threat to our economy. This level of debt increase cannot be kept up for long, unless we want to end up like Greece or Spain. I mean....so you would've rather all the bailouts didn't happen? If that's the case, we'd lose trillions of dollars, have even more household debt as we stop helping people refinance their underwater mortgages, banks completely fail and the crisis globally would only get worse. I don't know which you'd rather prefer, a $700bn deficit that was already paid back (and we made money off of it), and a series of other bailout packages, or an economy that would have probably just tilted over. Spending has gotten out of control, but that's not Obama's fault. Problems with health care and Social Security have been concerns ever since people started living longer. Let's remember that back when these programs first started, average life expectancy was nowhere close to what it is now, and that's a large component as to why these programs are growing ballooning deficits. It's not enough to cut at this point. There needs to be careful considerations as to reforming the system itself. As for Guantanamo Bay, he has the power to relocate the inmates to a federal prison within the US. He didn't because "incoming officials of his administration discovered that there were no comprehensive files concerning many of the detainees, so that merely assembling the available evidence about them could take weeks or months" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/24/AR2009012401702_pf.html) Oh come on, you know how much crap the president would have gotten if he relocated these guys to US shores? I'm pretty sure everyone would have decried that and made him seem even more like Satan/Hitler/Stalin/Mao 2.0. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On January 23 2013 06:57 Zergneedsfood wrote: - How would you have pulled out? We've pulled out a significant portion of our troops, not to mention we killed Bin Laden. - You could've done it faster? I'd like to know how you would've done it. - Fair enough, though I'm not sure what you mean he has "complete control over this" - Our deficit has gone down since then. How would you have cut it without hurting Americans? You had a ballooning deficit because of a massive recession that showcased deep structural problems with our economy. How do you expect to cut that in just a few years? - Fair enough, though I'm sure this isn't the first time that presidents have taken initiative without congressional approval and didn't get as much flack as Mr. Obama did. - That were returned and we made money off of. It's not like we gave it to all these companies and didn't ask for it back. - Fair enough. - Have you read all of her other credentials? It's pretty extensive. I'm not saying Obama is the best thing since sliced bread, but I think criticisms against the guy are pretty poorly put together. I'll respond in order - Killing Bin Laden was not a result of our military presence in Afghanistan. He had been hiding in Pakistan for years, and there is nothing to suggest that intelligence gained in our last several years in Afghanistan helped find Bin Laden. We could have easily pulled all our military out of Afghanistan by the end of Obama's first year in office. Staying there these last several years hasn't done anything to stabilize the country. Whether we pulled out in 2010 or pull out at the end of 2014, the country is going to fall back into disarray once we leave. Staying is accomplishing nothing but creating more death and destruction. - Yes, we could have done it faster. We could have pulled out of Iraq entirely by the end of Obama's first year in office. Nothing was accomplished by staying there until the end of 2011. Dwight Eisenhower knew how to pull out of a war; he got us out of the Korean War in a little over 6 months after taking office. - See my above post for my argument on Guantanamo - These deficit levels are incredibly high compared to where we were pre-2009. Where is all that money going? Very little of it is going to things that benefit the economy, such as infrastructure spending. It's mostly going into broken entitlement programs (social security, medicare, medicaid) that will completely bankrupt this country if not reformed. And don't say that I'm trying to deprive people of healthcare, switching to a universal single payer system would both save money AND increase health coverage. The US government already spends more money per person than any other country in the world, and we don't even have universal healthcare! Obama has never once said that he supports a universal healthcare system. - I agree, other Presidents have done this before, and I am just as angry at them as I am at Obama. I'm just trying to point out why he's not the great hero of our time that some people claim he is. His Presidency is really just an extension of the George W Bush years. - It's not about getting the money back. It's about the principal. Corporations should never be bailed out with taxpayer dollars. I understand that people would have lost their jobs if these companies went under, but businesses fail all the time. Why should certain businesses get special handouts for the government? I (and most Americans) just want a fair and equal playing field for all businesses. - We agree here - I agree that Kagan has a very impressive resume, but I don't think that makes her qualified for the Supreme Court specifically. Is she qualified to be a high ranking member of the Obama administration? Certainly. But I don't think that someone who has never been a judge in her life is qualified to be a judge on the highest court in the country, especially when there are plenty of federal Court of Appeals judges with years and years of judicial experience that Obama could have chosen. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On January 23 2013 07:00 Voltaire wrote: I'm talking about the auto bailout, not the bank bailout. The auto bailout was a lot smaller, but still, why should billions of taxpayer dollars be given to bailout corporations? Especially since Chrysler has already been bailed out before. I understand what you're saying about the economy crashing, but that only justifies why the deficit wasn't lowered. Under Obama we've had huge deficits every year. The huge $700bn bank bailout accounts for half of 2009's deficit (which Bush is responsible for). Why has the deficit been nearly as high every year since then? Spending has gotten out of control, which does pose a direct threat to our economy. This level of debt increase cannot be kept up for long, unless we want to end up like Greece or Spain. As for Guantanamo Bay, he has the power to relocate the inmates to a federal prison within the US. He didn't because "incoming officials of his administration discovered that there were no comprehensive files concerning many of the detainees, so that merely assembling the available evidence about them could take weeks or months" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/24/AR2009012401702_pf.html) Obama clearly gave up on closing GB because he signed the 2011 NDAA bill which specifically prohibits the transfer of inmates to other countries and prohibits any sort of modification to any federal facility to allow the GB inmates to be transferred there. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr6523enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr6523enr.pdf) The NDAA is often a way politicians slip stuff in that the president doesnt like because the president will very rarely veto that bill. Also the Auto Bailout was in the best interest of the country as a whole and it worked. Countries often subsidize there homegrown companies so that they stay in business because in long term it is a net profit to the country (which the auto bailout might be depending on how the auto companies stocks go). Spending hasnt gotten out of control at all by the way because spending hasnt been allowed to change due to the lack of a budget passing. The debt is a measure of medicare and medicaid getting more expensive, lack of tax revenue due to a recession, and the big one which is the increasing yearly cost of the Bush Tax cuts (which we only got rid of 20% of the cost of). To put the last one in perspective they 1 trillion dollar tax cuts in 2001 and they are 5 trillion dollar tax cuts now (we kept 4 trillion of that). Also I ignored Afghanistan and Iraq in your first post because those were the things he campaigned on and if doing what you say will do makes you a bad president than I dont want a good one. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Horang2 Stormgate 5907Bisu 2544Shuttle 2307Flash  1945EffOrt  893BeSt 787Jaedong 756Mini 649Zeus 641Larva 487[ Show more ] Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games singsing2027 B2W.Neo954 DeMusliM505 Fuzer  378crisheroes360 XaKoH  282Lowko257 QueenE35 ZerO(Twitch)24 |
|
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
