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.
- 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.
So we knew 100% that Bin Laden was in Pakistan while we were in Afghanistan?
How do you think we got into Pakistan in the first place?
- 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.
So you're saying that for someone to be president, they have to be a rare 4-star general like Eisenhower. Also strategic decisions like this are always mired in different and legitimate opinions.
Also, Korean War != Iraq War.
- See my above post for my argument on Guantanamo
I responded to it. I think it's crazy if you think a president will willingly bring up some of the most high profile inmates (and even if they aren't, we think a lot of them are terrorists) onto American soil against the will of Congress and the American people.
- 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.
On the bolded point, that's BS. He's definitely said it.
As to everything else, he spent plenty on infrastructure and building up America's roads, schools, and buildings. It's just that a lot of Congress didn't give him more than what he requested. Let's also not forget that again, these deficits levels are a result of a massive recession that not only crippled our economy but exposed us to structural problems that we've managed to cover up with a strong economy.
These problems happened before Obama was in office, so you can't blame him for problems that already existed.
- 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.
Who has said he's a great hero of our time?
- 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.
So in your opinion, what should taxpayer dollars be spent on during the financial crisis?
Should we have done nothing and watched as the economy blew itself up? o_O Genuinely curious.
- 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.
Right, but not every Supreme Court justice has been a judge (mentioned by a previous poster too).
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
As for practical situations, Iraq and Afghanistan are not stable. Especially Afghanistan is a powder-keg with druglords leading at the moment and taliban ready to start anew after the international troops leave. Nobody wants the Guantanamo-prisoners. What do you want him to do with them? The rest of the points are either domestic or impossible to pin on situations.
As for Obama being bad, I would look to the single alternative in USA. The question would be: How would Romney have treated those issues? I think you can guess how he would stand on most of those points!
It is kind of funny: All of those talking points would go perfect with the far left party here! Anti-war and human rights are their number one points by far. They are strong on environment and would have nationalized the corporations instead of bailing them out.
That the same points work for libertarians makes you wonder about the political spectrum...
I don't think Obama's a great president, but I think that for what he did and what he had to work with, he did a pretty remarkable job. I'm not satisfied with his position on a lot of things, and he definitely spent political capital in places where I thought he could've saved till later (health care reform, for example), but I can't argue with a lot of his results. I can't see us doing a lot better than what we're doing right now.
- 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.
So we knew 100% that Bin Laden was in Pakistan while we were in Afghanistan?
How do you think we got into Pakistan in the first place?
- 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.
So you're saying that for someone to be president, they have to be a rare 4-star general like Eisenhower. Also strategic decisions like this are always mired in different and legitimate opinions.
I responded to it. I think it's crazy if you think a president will willingly bring up some of the most high profile inmates (and even if they aren't, we think a lot of them are terrorists) onto American soil against the will of Congress and the American people.
- 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.
On the bolded point, that's BS. He's definitely said it.
As to everything else, he spent plenty on infrastructure and building up America's roads, schools, and buildings. It's just that a lot of Congress didn't give him more than what he requested. Let's also not forget that again, these deficits levels are a result of a massive recession that not only crippled our economy but exposed us to structural problems that we've managed to cover up with a strong economy.
These problems happened before Obama was in office, so you can't blame him for problems that already existed.
- 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.
So in your opinion, what should taxpayer dollars be spent on during the financial crisis?
Should we have done nothing and watched as the economy blew itself up? o_O Genuinely curious.
- 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.
Right, but not every Supreme Court justice has been a judge (mentioned by a previous poster too).
Responding in order again
- I don't understand what you mean. The killing of Bin Laden is not connected to our continued military presence in Afghanistan since Obama took office. There is nothing that suggests that we found Bin Laden because of intelligence we gained in Afghanistan after 2009. My point is that we could have still killed Bin Laden even if we had pulled out of Afghanistan within a year of Obama taking office. We have long distance aircraft; we could've simply launched the mission from a naval vessel (like the one they ended up taking the body to) instead of a base in Afghanistan.
- I never said that someone had to be a great general to be President. My point was that if Eisenhower could pull out of a major war that quickly, why can't Obama? Yes, the wars are different, but I'd actually argue that pulling out of Korea was harder than pulling out of Iraq because we were much more militarily invested in the Korean War. We had about 130,000 troops in Iraq at the peak of the war. We had over 300,000 in Korea. Plus, comparing 2000s technology to 1950s technology, any sort of major logistical operation should be easier than it was back then.
- I believe that the American people support closing GB. Also, the people that lived in a town that was a proposed location for the relocation of the inmates WANTED to have the inmates relocated there, largely because it would create a lot of jobs in an area that had a bad unemployment rate. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/michigan-standish-maximum-correctional-facility-prisoners-guantanamo-bay-article-1.393893)
- When did he say that he supported single payer universal healthcare? Obamacare is not even close to that. He never even suggested a single payer universal healthcare system.
- You're right, a lot of the problems I described existed before Obama came into office. What doesn't make any sense, though, is why deficit levels are still WAY higher than they were pre-2009. It's not like Medicare and Social Security became way more expensive overnight. Obama simply hasn't been able to be fiscally responsible.
- The mainstream media has be lauding him as some kind of demi-God lately. Also, a lot of people I know in real life keep talking about how great he is.
- I don't think the way to fix the economy is for the government to spend massive amounts of money. I don't support Keynesian economics. I think stimulus spending is like doing steroids. Sure, you'll see some short term results, but in the long run you're just causing long term damage to your body (the economy). What the government needs to do is create an economic environment that allows the private sector to thrive and create as many jobs as possible.
- I don't think those were good nominations either. I'm not aware of any specific examples of other Supreme Court Justices who were never judges before, but I think that in order to be qualified to be a judge on the highest court in the country you should at least have SOME judicial experience.
On January 23 2013 07:40 radiatoren wrote: As for Obama being bad, I would look to the single alternative in USA. The question would be: How would Romney have treated those issues? I think you can guess how he would stand on most of those points!
This isn't about the election. Obama won. Romney is irrelevant now. I'm just trying to point out why I think Obama has been a bad President.
On January 23 2013 07:40 radiatoren wrote: That the same points work for libertarians makes you wonder about the political spectrum...
Shrug, politics in the US has become so warped and distorted that you can pretty much throw all spectrums and ideologies out the window. It's all meaningless now. For example, when someone says they are a "liberal" here I have no idea what that means anymore, because so called "liberals" seem to support all kinds of things like indefinite detention and wars overseas.
Historically, I don't think most justices have been appeals court judges before joining the supreme court. In Brown vs Board of education(1954), of the 9 justices, only one had been an appeals court judge.
Earl Warren- Governor of California and Presidential candidate. Hugo Black- Senator Stanley Reed- Solicitor General Felix Frankfurter- Presidential Advisor and Harvard law Professor William Douglas- SEC chairman Robert H. Jackson- Solicitor General and Attorney General Harold Burton- Senator Tom Clark- Attorney General Sherman Minton- Senator and Appeals Court Judge
Additionally, Solicitor general is one of the best positions to prepare someone for becoming a judge. The whole job is to prepare and make arguments in court and the solicitor general is the person actually going to the supreme court to argue. The whole point of having non-judges on the court is to make sure they understand the impact of the decisions that they make.
The best example I can think of is Citizens United. While granting unrestricted free speech rights to corporations sounds good in theory, someone who has actually run for office would likely see it differently. The whole decision is based off the assumption that the money would not lead to corruption and I could easily see a politician seeing it differerently.
- I believe that the American people support closing GB. Also, the people that lived in a town that was a proposed location for the relocation of the inmates WANTED to have the inmates relocated there, largely because it would create a lot of jobs in an area that had a bad unemployment rate. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/michigan-standish-maximum-correctional-facility-prisoners-guantanamo-bay-article-1.393893)
- When did he say that he supported single payer universal healthcare? Obamacare is not even close to that. He never even suggested a single payer universal healthcare system.
- You're right, a lot of the problems I described existed before Obama came into office. What doesn't make any sense, though, is why deficit levels are still WAY higher than they were pre-2009. It's not like Medicare and Social Security became way more expensive overnight. Obama simply hasn't been able to be fiscally responsible.
- The mainstream media has be lauding him as some kind of demi-God lately. Also, a lot of people I know in real life keep talking about how great he is.
-I don't think single payer was ever on the table from Obama's standpoint, but at least he got the ball rolling. Yeah I was pretty disappointed with the HCR act but it's better than doing nothing.
-I wonder why deficit levels are way higher than they were 2009? Maybe something to do with a recession, more people going on welfare and fewer tax receipts? Even if Obama did nothing, the deficit would get worse. If you want to say Obama hasn't been fiscally responsible then you've got to make a better argument than that.
- Oh no, people like Obama and you don't. Boo hoo.
On January 23 2013 07:40 radiatoren wrote: That the same points work for libertarians makes you wonder about the political spectrum...
Shrug, politics in the US has become so warped and distorted that you can pretty much throw all spectrums and ideologies out the window. It's all meaningless now. For example, when someone says they are a "liberal" here I have no idea what that means anymore, because so called "liberals" seem to support all kinds of things like indefinite detention and wars overseas.
For the record, I do not generally support indefinite detentions or the wars overseas.
- I believe that the American people support closing GB. Also, the people that lived in a town that was a proposed location for the relocation of the inmates WANTED to have the inmates relocated there, largely because it would create a lot of jobs in an area that had a bad unemployment rate. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/michigan-standish-maximum-correctional-facility-prisoners-guantanamo-bay-article-1.393893)
- When did he say that he supported single payer universal healthcare? Obamacare is not even close to that. He never even suggested a single payer universal healthcare system.
- You're right, a lot of the problems I described existed before Obama came into office. What doesn't make any sense, though, is why deficit levels are still WAY higher than they were pre-2009. It's not like Medicare and Social Security became way more expensive overnight. Obama simply hasn't been able to be fiscally responsible.
- The mainstream media has be lauding him as some kind of demi-God lately. Also, a lot of people I know in real life keep talking about how great he is.
-I don't think single payer was ever on the table from Obama's standpoint, but at least he got the ball rolling. Yeah I was pretty disappointed with the HCR act but it's better than doing nothing.
-I wonder why deficit levels are way higher than they were 2009? Maybe something to do with a recession, more people going on welfare and fewer tax receipts? Even if Obama did nothing, the deficit would get worse. If you want to say Obama hasn't been fiscally responsible then you've got to make a better argument than that.
- Oh no, people like Obama and you don't. Boo hoo.
The poll I looked at was from 2007 so I guess people have changed their minds
As for the deficit, it is more than double what it was in 2008. I understand that during a bad economy the deficit will likely go up, but more than double? Clearly it's a combination of the economy and poor fiscal responsibility on the part of the President. Back in the 2008 campaign, he went around claiming that he would cut the military budget. I specifically remember a video of him promising to do that at a speech at a university. I'm digging through youtube now looking for it, but tons of his recent speeches are clogging up the search results. Anyway, instead the military budget has gotten higher and higher (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png)
Edit: what really baffles me is that the deficit was under $200bn in 2007. Now it's over 5 times that amount. I understand that Bush didn't count the wars, but we're only in one of them now. Why has the deficit quintupled in just a few years? Fiscal irresponsibility is clearly a major part of that
On January 23 2013 07:40 radiatoren wrote: That the same points work for libertarians makes you wonder about the political spectrum...
Shrug, politics in the US has become so warped and distorted that you can pretty much throw all spectrums and ideologies out the window. It's all meaningless now. For example, when someone says they are a "liberal" here I have no idea what that means anymore, because so called "liberals" seem to support all kinds of things like indefinite detention and wars overseas.
For the record, I do not generally support indefinite detentions or the wars overseas.
- I believe that the American people support closing GB. Also, the people that lived in a town that was a proposed location for the relocation of the inmates WANTED to have the inmates relocated there, largely because it would create a lot of jobs in an area that had a bad unemployment rate. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/michigan-standish-maximum-correctional-facility-prisoners-guantanamo-bay-article-1.393893)
- When did he say that he supported single payer universal healthcare? Obamacare is not even close to that. He never even suggested a single payer universal healthcare system.
- You're right, a lot of the problems I described existed before Obama came into office. What doesn't make any sense, though, is why deficit levels are still WAY higher than they were pre-2009. It's not like Medicare and Social Security became way more expensive overnight. Obama simply hasn't been able to be fiscally responsible.
- The mainstream media has be lauding him as some kind of demi-God lately. Also, a lot of people I know in real life keep talking about how great he is.
-I don't think single payer was ever on the table from Obama's standpoint, but at least he got the ball rolling. Yeah I was pretty disappointed with the HCR act but it's better than doing nothing.
-I wonder why deficit levels are way higher than they were 2009? Maybe something to do with a recession, more people going on welfare and fewer tax receipts? Even if Obama did nothing, the deficit would get worse. If you want to say Obama hasn't been fiscally responsible then you've got to make a better argument than that.
- Oh no, people like Obama and you don't. Boo hoo.
The poll I looked at was from 2007 so I guess people have changed their minds
As for the deficit, it is more than double what it was in 2008. I understand that during a bad economy the deficit will likely go up, but more than double? Clearly it's a combination of the economy and poor fiscal responsibility on the part of the President. Back in the 2008 campaign, he went around claiming that he would cut the military budget. I specifically remember a video of him promising to do that at a speech at a university. I'm digging through youtube now looking for it, but tons of his recent speeches are clogging up the search results. Anyway, instead the military budget has gotten higher and higher (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png)
Edit: what really baffles me is that the deficit was under $200bn in 2007. Now it's over 5 times that amount. I understand that Bush didn't count the wars, but we're only in one of them now. Why has the deficit quintupled in just a few years? Fiscal irresponsibility is clearly a major part of that
On January 23 2013 07:40 radiatoren wrote: That the same points work for libertarians makes you wonder about the political spectrum...
Shrug, politics in the US has become so warped and distorted that you can pretty much throw all spectrums and ideologies out the window. It's all meaningless now. For example, when someone says they are a "liberal" here I have no idea what that means anymore, because so called "liberals" seem to support all kinds of things like indefinite detention and wars overseas.
For the record, I do not generally support indefinite detentions or the wars overseas.
Glad to hear it
You cant just order the military to cut the budget and have it happen. Cutting the military budget is something people love to talk about but no one loves to vote for because they are smart enough to build the parts to the things that are being cut all over the country so that everyone would lose jobs. Now defense jobs are possibly the least cost efficient form of government spending for the economy but jobs are jobs and voting to remove them from your district can get you voted out of office.
As for the deficit, it is more than double what it was in 2008. I understand that during a bad economy the deficit will likely go up, but more than double? Clearly it's a combination of the economy and poor fiscal responsibility on the part of the President. Back in the 2008 campaign, he went around claiming that he would cut the military budget. I specifically remember a video of him promising to do that at a speech at a university. I'm digging through youtube now looking for it, but tons of his recent speeches are clogging up the search results. Anyway, instead the military budget has gotten higher and higher (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png)
Edit: what really baffles me is that the deficit was under $200bn in 2007. Now it's over 5 times that amount. I understand that Bush didn't count the wars, but we're only in one of them now. Why has the deficit quintupled in just a few years? Fiscal irresponsibility is clearly a major part of that
Calling the economy "bad" back in 2008/2009 is a pretty big understatement.
As for the deficit, it is more than double what it was in 2008. I understand that during a bad economy the deficit will likely go up, but more than double? Clearly it's a combination of the economy and poor fiscal responsibility on the part of the President. Back in the 2008 campaign, he went around claiming that he would cut the military budget. I specifically remember a video of him promising to do that at a speech at a university. I'm digging through youtube now looking for it, but tons of his recent speeches are clogging up the search results. Anyway, instead the military budget has gotten higher and higher (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png)
Edit: what really baffles me is that the deficit was under $200bn in 2007. Now it's over 5 times that amount. I understand that Bush didn't count the wars, but we're only in one of them now. Why has the deficit quintupled in just a few years? Fiscal irresponsibility is clearly a major part of that
Calling the economy "bad" back in 2008/2009 is a pretty big understatement.
Not really. The economy wouldn't have collapsed if the bailed out banks/AIG failed. Loads of fear was pumped into the American public and our political representatives by these corporations because they didn't want to collapse. So they managed to convince the public that we had to bail them out in order to save the entire economy. Turns out it was all a load of bull.
You probably won't watch this as it's really long but here's a really good interview with David Stockman (was Reagan's budget director for a few years until he quit because Reagan wouldn't listen to him) where he criticizes the bank and auto industry bailouts.
- I believe that the American people support closing GB. Also, the people that lived in a town that was a proposed location for the relocation of the inmates WANTED to have the inmates relocated there, largely because it would create a lot of jobs in an area that had a bad unemployment rate. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/michigan-standish-maximum-correctional-facility-prisoners-guantanamo-bay-article-1.393893)
- When did he say that he supported single payer universal healthcare? Obamacare is not even close to that. He never even suggested a single payer universal healthcare system.
- You're right, a lot of the problems I described existed before Obama came into office. What doesn't make any sense, though, is why deficit levels are still WAY higher than they were pre-2009. It's not like Medicare and Social Security became way more expensive overnight. Obama simply hasn't been able to be fiscally responsible.
- The mainstream media has be lauding him as some kind of demi-God lately. Also, a lot of people I know in real life keep talking about how great he is.
-I don't think single payer was ever on the table from Obama's standpoint, but at least he got the ball rolling. Yeah I was pretty disappointed with the HCR act but it's better than doing nothing.
-I wonder why deficit levels are way higher than they were 2009? Maybe something to do with a recession, more people going on welfare and fewer tax receipts? Even if Obama did nothing, the deficit would get worse. If you want to say Obama hasn't been fiscally responsible then you've got to make a better argument than that.
- Oh no, people like Obama and you don't. Boo hoo.
The poll I looked at was from 2007 so I guess people have changed their minds
As for the deficit, it is more than double what it was in 2008. I understand that during a bad economy the deficit will likely go up, but more than double? Clearly it's a combination of the economy and poor fiscal responsibility on the part of the President. Back in the 2008 campaign, he went around claiming that he would cut the military budget. I specifically remember a video of him promising to do that at a speech at a university. I'm digging through youtube now looking for it, but tons of his recent speeches are clogging up the search results. Anyway, instead the military budget has gotten higher and higher (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png)
Edit: what really baffles me is that the deficit was under $200bn in 2007. Now it's over 5 times that amount. I understand that Bush didn't count the wars, but we're only in one of them now. Why has the deficit quintupled in just a few years? Fiscal irresponsibility is clearly a major part of that
On January 23 2013 08:33 liberal wrote:
On January 23 2013 07:56 Voltaire wrote:
On January 23 2013 07:40 radiatoren wrote: That the same points work for libertarians makes you wonder about the political spectrum...
Shrug, politics in the US has become so warped and distorted that you can pretty much throw all spectrums and ideologies out the window. It's all meaningless now. For example, when someone says they are a "liberal" here I have no idea what that means anymore, because so called "liberals" seem to support all kinds of things like indefinite detention and wars overseas.
For the record, I do not generally support indefinite detentions or the wars overseas.
Glad to hear it
You cant just order the military to cut the budget and have it happen. Cutting the military budget is something people love to talk about but no one loves to vote for because they are smart enough to build the parts to the things that are being cut all over the country so that everyone would lose jobs. Now defense jobs are possibly the least cost efficient form of government spending for the economy but jobs are jobs and voting to remove them from your district can get you voted out of office.
Regardless of what you do as a President, you'll always piss a lot of people off. It's unavoidable. I do think that Obama would still have been reelected if he decided to cut military spending, but that's all hypothetical so there's really no sense in arguing about it.
Not really. The economy wouldn't have collapsed if the bailed out banks/AIG failed. Loads of fear was pumped into the American public and our political representatives by these corporations because they didn't want to collapse. So they managed to convince the public that we had to bail them out in order to save the entire economy. Turns out it was all a load of bull.
You probably won't watch this as it's really long but here's a really good interview with David Stockman (was Reagan's budget director for a few years until he quit because Reagan wouldn't listen to him) where he criticizes the bank and auto industry bailouts.
I can't really believe that. Unemployment skyrocketed above double digits even with the bailout. Banks foreclosed even when we tried bailing them out. Trillions of dollars were lost in the process, over night. Home values plummeted, and household debt ballooned to historic records, not to mention the impact that had across the country. All of this would have been worse without bailouts
The video you posted doesn't really talk about any real economic analysis as to why the crisis wouldn't have had systemic problems. All he says is that maybe it was fear and that it would have only impacted the speculators, the investors, and the banks. However, the problem is that he never really mentions the abused homeowners, the suppliers to the auto industry that would have gotten completely wiped out, banks that held American assets overseas. This was a global problem and had way more implications than the basic principled explanations that he gave.
But I'd like to end this post with what you said:
but that's all hypothetical so there's really no sense in arguing about it.
- I believe that the American people support closing GB. Also, the people that lived in a town that was a proposed location for the relocation of the inmates WANTED to have the inmates relocated there, largely because it would create a lot of jobs in an area that had a bad unemployment rate. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/michigan-standish-maximum-correctional-facility-prisoners-guantanamo-bay-article-1.393893)
- When did he say that he supported single payer universal healthcare? Obamacare is not even close to that. He never even suggested a single payer universal healthcare system.
- You're right, a lot of the problems I described existed before Obama came into office. What doesn't make any sense, though, is why deficit levels are still WAY higher than they were pre-2009. It's not like Medicare and Social Security became way more expensive overnight. Obama simply hasn't been able to be fiscally responsible.
- The mainstream media has be lauding him as some kind of demi-God lately. Also, a lot of people I know in real life keep talking about how great he is.
-I don't think single payer was ever on the table from Obama's standpoint, but at least he got the ball rolling. Yeah I was pretty disappointed with the HCR act but it's better than doing nothing.
-I wonder why deficit levels are way higher than they were 2009? Maybe something to do with a recession, more people going on welfare and fewer tax receipts? Even if Obama did nothing, the deficit would get worse. If you want to say Obama hasn't been fiscally responsible then you've got to make a better argument than that.
- Oh no, people like Obama and you don't. Boo hoo.
The poll I looked at was from 2007 so I guess people have changed their minds
As for the deficit, it is more than double what it was in 2008. I understand that during a bad economy the deficit will likely go up, but more than double? Clearly it's a combination of the economy and poor fiscal responsibility on the part of the President. Back in the 2008 campaign, he went around claiming that he would cut the military budget. I specifically remember a video of him promising to do that at a speech at a university. I'm digging through youtube now looking for it, but tons of his recent speeches are clogging up the search results. Anyway, instead the military budget has gotten higher and higher (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png)
Edit: what really baffles me is that the deficit was under $200bn in 2007. Now it's over 5 times that amount. I understand that Bush didn't count the wars, but we're only in one of them now. Why has the deficit quintupled in just a few years? Fiscal irresponsibility is clearly a major part of that
On January 23 2013 08:33 liberal wrote:
On January 23 2013 07:56 Voltaire wrote:
On January 23 2013 07:40 radiatoren wrote: That the same points work for libertarians makes you wonder about the political spectrum...
Shrug, politics in the US has become so warped and distorted that you can pretty much throw all spectrums and ideologies out the window. It's all meaningless now. For example, when someone says they are a "liberal" here I have no idea what that means anymore, because so called "liberals" seem to support all kinds of things like indefinite detention and wars overseas.
For the record, I do not generally support indefinite detentions or the wars overseas.
Glad to hear it
You cant just order the military to cut the budget and have it happen. Cutting the military budget is something people love to talk about but no one loves to vote for because they are smart enough to build the parts to the things that are being cut all over the country so that everyone would lose jobs. Now defense jobs are possibly the least cost efficient form of government spending for the economy but jobs are jobs and voting to remove them from your district can get you voted out of office.
Least cost efficient spending, but the easiest to sell.
As for the deficit, it is more than double what it was in 2008. I understand that during a bad economy the deficit will likely go up, but more than double? Clearly it's a combination of the economy and poor fiscal responsibility on the part of the President. Back in the 2008 campaign, he went around claiming that he would cut the military budget. I specifically remember a video of him promising to do that at a speech at a university. I'm digging through youtube now looking for it, but tons of his recent speeches are clogging up the search results. Anyway, instead the military budget has gotten higher and higher (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png)
Edit: what really baffles me is that the deficit was under $200bn in 2007. Now it's over 5 times that amount. I understand that Bush didn't count the wars, but we're only in one of them now. Why has the deficit quintupled in just a few years? Fiscal irresponsibility is clearly a major part of that
Calling the economy "bad" back in 2008/2009 is a pretty big understatement.
Not really. The economy wouldn't have collapsed if the bailed out banks/AIG failed. Loads of fear was pumped into the American public and our political representatives by these corporations because they didn't want to collapse. So they managed to convince the public that we had to bail them out in order to save the entire economy. Turns out it was all a load of bull.
You probably won't watch this as it's really long but here's a really good interview with David Stockman (was Reagan's budget director for a few years until he quit because Reagan wouldn't listen to him) where he criticizes the bank and auto industry bailouts.
- I believe that the American people support closing GB. Also, the people that lived in a town that was a proposed location for the relocation of the inmates WANTED to have the inmates relocated there, largely because it would create a lot of jobs in an area that had a bad unemployment rate. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/michigan-standish-maximum-correctional-facility-prisoners-guantanamo-bay-article-1.393893)
- When did he say that he supported single payer universal healthcare? Obamacare is not even close to that. He never even suggested a single payer universal healthcare system.
- You're right, a lot of the problems I described existed before Obama came into office. What doesn't make any sense, though, is why deficit levels are still WAY higher than they were pre-2009. It's not like Medicare and Social Security became way more expensive overnight. Obama simply hasn't been able to be fiscally responsible.
- The mainstream media has be lauding him as some kind of demi-God lately. Also, a lot of people I know in real life keep talking about how great he is.
-I don't think single payer was ever on the table from Obama's standpoint, but at least he got the ball rolling. Yeah I was pretty disappointed with the HCR act but it's better than doing nothing.
-I wonder why deficit levels are way higher than they were 2009? Maybe something to do with a recession, more people going on welfare and fewer tax receipts? Even if Obama did nothing, the deficit would get worse. If you want to say Obama hasn't been fiscally responsible then you've got to make a better argument than that.
- Oh no, people like Obama and you don't. Boo hoo.
The poll I looked at was from 2007 so I guess people have changed their minds
As for the deficit, it is more than double what it was in 2008. I understand that during a bad economy the deficit will likely go up, but more than double? Clearly it's a combination of the economy and poor fiscal responsibility on the part of the President. Back in the 2008 campaign, he went around claiming that he would cut the military budget. I specifically remember a video of him promising to do that at a speech at a university. I'm digging through youtube now looking for it, but tons of his recent speeches are clogging up the search results. Anyway, instead the military budget has gotten higher and higher (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png)
Edit: what really baffles me is that the deficit was under $200bn in 2007. Now it's over 5 times that amount. I understand that Bush didn't count the wars, but we're only in one of them now. Why has the deficit quintupled in just a few years? Fiscal irresponsibility is clearly a major part of that
On January 23 2013 08:33 liberal wrote:
On January 23 2013 07:56 Voltaire wrote:
On January 23 2013 07:40 radiatoren wrote: That the same points work for libertarians makes you wonder about the political spectrum...
Shrug, politics in the US has become so warped and distorted that you can pretty much throw all spectrums and ideologies out the window. It's all meaningless now. For example, when someone says they are a "liberal" here I have no idea what that means anymore, because so called "liberals" seem to support all kinds of things like indefinite detention and wars overseas.
For the record, I do not generally support indefinite detentions or the wars overseas.
Glad to hear it
You cant just order the military to cut the budget and have it happen. Cutting the military budget is something people love to talk about but no one loves to vote for because they are smart enough to build the parts to the things that are being cut all over the country so that everyone would lose jobs. Now defense jobs are possibly the least cost efficient form of government spending for the economy but jobs are jobs and voting to remove them from your district can get you voted out of office.
Regardless of what you do as a President, you'll always piss a lot of people off. It's unavoidable. I do think that Obama would still have been reelected if he decided to cut military spending, but that's all hypothetical so there's really no sense in arguing about it.
You didnt understand the point of what I said. The President can talk about it and even recomend cuts to military spending all he wants but at the end of the day congress has to approve it and THEY arent going to do it for the reasons I said.
I believe it was in 2009 (maybe have been 2010) when he had a massive majority and even then only went for small defense cuts he thought he could get and he STILL didnt get most of them even though they were fairly useless things that he was asking to be cut. The defense industry was smart enough to spread out where everything is built so that cancelling it costs jobs out of a lot of the representatives districts and they cant afford to do that.
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is lifting the military’s ban on women in combat, which will open up hundreds of thousands of additional front-line jobs to them, senior defense officials said on Wednesday.
The groundbreaking decision overturns a 1994 Pentagon rule that restricts women from artillery, armor, infantry and other such combat roles, even though in reality women have found themselves in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, where more than 20,000 have served. As of last year, more than 800 women had been wounded in the two wars and more than 130 had died.
Defense officials offered few details about Mr. Panetta’s decision but described it as the beginning of a process to allow the branches of the military to put it into effect. Defense officials said Mr. Panetta had made the decision on the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I have a question for the more regular posters here. I have been hearing a lot recently about various states, especially 'swing states' with republican controlled state governments, talking about reforming their election laws in order to hand out electoral votes based on district. There was a report that if this was applied to the last election, even though Obama won the popular vote by almost four percent, over 2.5 million voters, he would have earned fewer electoral college votes and thus the election.
Here where I live, Virginia, the state level republicans have a bill in a senate committee to do just that. If we look at the last election, Virginia went to Obama by 150k votes, or around three percent. However, based on district and the proposed law, Obama would have only received four out of the thirteen votes he received in 2012.
What does everyone think about such proposals?
And if they were to get through and you have a future election where one side wins the popular vote by 2-3 million votes but loses the electoral college vote, what would you suspect would be the reaction by Americans?
edit: I know even now there can and have been elections where the winner of the popular vote did not become president. But if it happened after such changes were made, and the loser won the popular vote by many millions of votes, do you think it would lead to a larger outcry?
I don't know. Its an obvious ploy by the republicans to gain an advantage in the elections on one hand but on the other its really no different system then what we already have on a state by state scale just on a district to district scale.
On January 24 2013 11:55 Saryph wrote: I have a question for the more regular posters here. I have been hearing a lot recently about various states, especially 'swing states' with republican controlled state governments, talking about reforming their election laws in order to hand out electoral votes based on district. There was a report that if this was applied to the last election, even though Obama won the popular vote by almost four percent, over 2.5 million voters, he would have earned fewer electoral college votes and thus the election.
Here where I live, Virginia, the state level republicans have a bill in a senate committee to do just that. If we look at the last election, Virginia went to Obama by 150k votes, or around three percent. However, based on district and the proposed law, Obama would have only received four out of the thirteen votes he received in 2012.
What does everyone think about such proposals?
And if they were to get through and you have a future election where one side wins the popular vote by 2-3 million votes but loses the electoral college vote, what would you suspect would be the reaction by Americans?
edit: I know even now there can and have been elections where the winner of the popular vote did not become president. But if it happened after such changes were made, and the loser won the popular vote by many millions of votes, do you think it would lead to a larger outcry?
These pushes come from a party that sees itself as losing tremendous influence and power over the coming decade. They lost the House this year but didn't lose the majority in it. They see that as a brilliant example of how they can keep power against wildly changing demographics that do not prefer their policies instead of changing those policies, out of fear a change in those policies will fracture the party. They're trying to push the balance of power between populated areas and rural areas in the wrong direction for the 21st century.
On January 24 2013 12:01 Sermokala wrote: I don't know. Its an obvious ploy by the republicans to gain an advantage in the elections on one hand but on the other its really no different system then what we already have on a state by state scale just on a district to district scale.
On January 24 2013 11:55 Saryph wrote: I have a question for the more regular posters here. I have been hearing a lot recently about various states, especially 'swing states' with republican controlled state governments, talking about reforming their election laws in order to hand out electoral votes based on district. There was a report that if this was applied to the last election, even though Obama won the popular vote by almost four percent, over 2.5 million voters, he would have earned fewer electoral college votes and thus the election.
Here where I live, Virginia, the state level republicans have a bill in a senate committee to do just that. If we look at the last election, Virginia went to Obama by 150k votes, or around three percent. However, based on district and the proposed law, Obama would have only received four out of the thirteen votes he received in 2012.
What does everyone think about such proposals?
And if they were to get through and you have a future election where one side wins the popular vote by 2-3 million votes but loses the electoral college vote, what would you suspect would be the reaction by Americans?
edit: I know even now there can and have been elections where the winner of the popular vote did not become president. But if it happened after such changes were made, and the loser won the popular vote by many millions of votes, do you think it would lead to a larger outcry?
These pushes come from a party that sees itself as losing tremendous influence and power over the coming decade. They lost the House this year but didn't lose the majority in it. They see that as a brilliant example of how they can keep power against wildly changing demographics that do not prefer their policies instead of changing those policies, out of fear a change in those policies will fracture the party. They're trying to push the balance of power between populated areas and rural areas in the wrong direction for the 21st century.
On January 24 2013 12:01 Sermokala wrote: I don't know. Its an obvious ploy by the republicans to gain an advantage in the elections on one hand but on the other its really no different system then what we already have on a state by state scale just on a district to district scale.
Except they can't redraw states every 10 years.
I think you're right about the balance of power between populated and rural areas.
"Sen. Charles W. "Bill" Carrico, R-Grayson, said the change is necessary because Virginia's populous, urbanized areas such as the Washington, D.C., suburbs and Hampton Roads can outvote rural regions such as his, rendering their will irrelevant."
EPT
