|
Obama can pull a Clinton and just cede authority to the Republican congress and let them pass what they want in order to make it look like he's both more moderate (which might make him reelectable, as per Clinton) and like he's accomplishing something.
Has he not been doing this for the past two years?
Has he not been the most moderate, bipartisan president in recent decades?
Has he accomplished absolutely nothing because he insists on cooperating with the Republicans, aka the "Party of No," who have blatantly stated that their top priority in 2010 is to make sure Obama isn't reelected (Mitch McConnell)? Check.
|
On January 06 2011 12:55 Froadac wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 12:52 happyness wrote:On January 06 2011 11:00 funnybananaman wrote:
You can't cut the deficit AND cut taxes AND spend retarded amounts of money funding stupid wars and throwing all our taxpayer money into the military all at the same time.
Too true. I don't hate the tea party or anything. I believe we need to get out of debt and taxes should be as low as possible, but the wars we are in are by far the biggest burden to the budget. I don't see why conservatives can't see this. I do Everyone bundles conservatives in one big ignorant group qq
Sorry I should say "many conservatives" or "Neo-cons" or "Bush-styled conservatives"
I don't even know what conservative really means anymore anyways. The tea partiers are radical in some of there policies, but "radical conservative" doesn't make sense.
|
Reactionary / far right-winger could work ;p
|
On January 06 2011 12:52 happyness wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 11:00 funnybananaman wrote:
You can't cut the deficit AND cut taxes AND spend retarded amounts of money funding stupid wars and throwing all our taxpayer money into the military all at the same time.
Too true. I don't hate the tea party or anything. I believe we need to get out of debt and taxes should be as low as possible, but the wars we are in are by far the biggest burden to the budget. I don't see why conservatives can't see this.
Look at the budgets and spending of this country and try to support your claim. Social policies such as SS, medicare, medicaid, and welfare represent substantially more spending than on defense.
Allow me to point some facts out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
Check out the amount of money spent on the Iraq War. The total cost of the war barely exceeds the cost of just 1 year of social security. Add in medicare, medicaid and other entitlements and compare. If you cut those programs by half you could fund over 5 Iraq wars a year!
The defense budget for 2010 is listed as $664 billion. Compare this to those 3 big entitlement expenditures listed above: $1421 billion!
Do you really think we're in a costly war? We could cut out entitlements for an entire year and that would cover 3 Iraqs. We haven't even been close to full war mode since WWII. If we actually had a serious war that was a direct threat to the American people, we effectively could spend dozens of times more money on it without risking inflation, simply by cutting socialist welfare policies.
People don't realize it, but the US is a massive welfare state. The amount of money we spend on helping out the poor, elderly, disabled, or just outright lazy is astronomical. So, you could reduce the amount of everyone's social security checks by 10% or let a madman research nuclear devices for use on our allies. And lets not forget, any conflict in the middle east drives up oil prices and costs the US possibly even more than we'd have ever spent on this war.
|
On January 06 2011 11:24 t3hwUn wrote:
Wow I love how TL hates on right wingers... I get flamed for being a troll for posting unpopular political opinions elsewhere and then I read this... Fail.
And to get back on topic +1 for no more obama socialist policies. If I wanted to live in Europe I'd move there...
The reason you probably get those responses is because of nonsense like the latter half of your post. None of Obama's policies are socialist, you clearly do not know what that word means.
|
Listen. Everyone who identifies the tea party as a single entity should honestly be banned from further discussions because they don't know what they're talking about.
Well, they are more of a movement than an entity. I treated them as an entity to make it more believable lol.
Obama isn't terribly bipartisan. but neither has any major american president in recent history. Clinton got forced into it.
And yes, tea party is more libertarian than right wing.
|
We could cut out entitlements for an entire year and that would cover 3 Iraqs. We haven't even been close to full war mode since WWII. If we actually had a serious war that was a direct threat to the American people, we effectively could spend dozens of times more money on it without risking inflation, simply by cutting socialist welfare policies.
Because stopping all help cold turkey to some 150million people in the our country is a reasonable course of action. As opposed to stopping a needless war.
Also lets cut back SS by 10% because ya know they get too much money alrdy. SS checks are alrdy too low as it is because of inflation.
A better solution would be to dump all the lazy, stupid, and/or drug/booze addicts using the system to support their way of life that doesn't contribute to society. I bet that would save enough money to fund an Iraq war in a year or two. Or better yet, cut all pop, candy, chips, and junk food from foodstamps along with the ability to withdraw cash from your foodstamp help.
|
[Eternal]Phoenix, do you really think we should cut things that help the American people in favor of a pointless and stupid war? We should force American people at home to suffer just because politicians in Washington feel the need to flex their political muscle? Do you know that our spending on military alone is greater than the spending on military for the entire rest of the world COMBINED? Half of our discretionary budget is spent on defense. Fifty percent!
Medicare / Social Security are necessary things paid for by tax revenues, the war spending is unnecessary and guess what - people WANT to spend taxes for welfare like Medicare / Social Security because it benefits THEM. At this point almost no one wants to fund America's stupid wars, except for our crazy politicans and military-industrial complex.
I don't understand. If you're an old person, would you like to have your social security check cut by 10% because some diehard conservative wants to fund a pointless war? That might be your only source of income.
let a madman research nuclear devices for use on our allies. And lets not forget, any conflict in the middle east drives up oil prices and costs the US possibly even more than we'd have ever spent on this war.
Ok I guess you're trolling o.o
|
We need to get out of and or fix social security.
The war is debatably pointless, but I don't think it's worth arguing.
Domestic issues should take precedent.
Our spending on military alone is over half the declared budget of the world. not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I doubt every nation is declaring their entire defense budgettt...
|
In regards to the Tea Party, I believe my junior year history teacher puts it very well: "Though Jimmy Carter and The Tea Party are similar in some aspects, they're different in most. There's a difference to being an outsider to Washington, and just being inexperienced."
But yeah, I'm just a little apprehensive about this new Congress. I really hope that they don't do anything stupid that will screw us over. However, my biggest concern is how Obama is going to deal with a Republican-majority Congress. He's going to face a lot of opposition, and there will be a lot of debate over what each side thinks is good for the country (read: Nothing will get done.)
<fantasy>If anything, I hope Obama will do what Truman did and ride on the campaign "the good for nothing X Congress." If history repeats itself, Obama will get re-elected on that campaign, and will get a workable Congress again </fantasy>
edit: It was Truman
|
I think that was Truman  But I'd have to look it up again heh
|
^ Eisenhower (or truman, maybe superior is right?)
I hope congress is actually effective: they haven't actually done anything yet. Hopefully they shed rhetoric fairly decently.
Obama isn't god, he means well, but he's done good shit, stupid shit, and made mistakes. So although I'd like a republican president, he's most certainly not
1) nazi
2) socialist
3) communist
4) anarchist
5) retardist
6) Liquidist 
|
On January 06 2011 13:33 Superiorwolf wrote:[Eternal]Phoenix, do you really think we should cut things that help the American people in favor of a pointless and stupid war? We should force American people at home to suffer just because politicians in Washington feel the need to flex their political muscle? Do you know that our spending on military alone is greater than the spending on military for the entire rest of the world COMBINED? Half of our discretionary budget is spent on defense. Fifty percent! Medicare / Social Security are necessary things paid for by tax revenues, the war spending is unnecessary and guess what - people WANT to spend taxes for welfare like Medicare / Social Security because it benefits THEM. At this point almost no one wants to fund America's stupid wars, except for our crazy politicans and military-industrial complex. I don't understand. If you're an old person, would you like to have your social security check cut by 10% because some diehard conservative wants to fund a pointless war? That might be your only source of income. Show nested quote +let a madman research nuclear devices for use on our allies. And lets not forget, any conflict in the middle east drives up oil prices and costs the US possibly even more than we'd have ever spent on this war. Ok I guess you're trolling o.o
This country has existed for 150 years before social security was even conceived of. In addition, social security actually is a byproduct of a mass of failed (and some decently successful) experiments in the Great Depression. Nobody needs it, and in fact every person nowadays is urged to save for their own retirement and invest privately because only an idiot would rely on social security for their wellbeing. If we didn't have it at all, people on the whole would actually be better off since everyone would be forced to take care of themselves.
The good part of social security is of course helping disabled people, or elderly who've lost pensions or such. It does play a good role, but it's so bloated and misused it's become a broken system. Cutting it does more good than harm to the country at this point IMO, but that's just my opinion.
As for medicare/medicaid, these ideas were invented less than half a century ago. America was just fine in the 1950s before these ideas were even implemented. Sure, there were other problems with 1950s America (social equality, racism, sexism, etc.) but those have nothing to do with gov't entitlement.
And lastly, I just supported the so called "pointless war" with 2 powerful arguments that you just ignored. First, there was clear indication of a WMD developmental project in Iraq. If they got ahold of those weapons they could end up in the hands of terrorists who could harm America or its allies. In addition, if Israel ever finds out any non-friendly nation in the region has nuclear weapons they will destroy them, and nuclear capabilities will almost certainly be used. They have too much to lose by 1 nuke going off in their country to risk it.
Any violence in the region would lead to economic disaster in the area, skyrocketing the price of oil, hurting American economy by impacting industry, which means less taxes and higher prices for all of America. In the end, every American is losing more money by having to buy more expensive goods and having to pay more taxes to make up for the lost revenue from commerce. Either way we pay, but in this case a war is actually cheaper (and it stimulates the defense sector, creating jobs!)
|
On January 06 2011 13:19 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 12:52 happyness wrote:On January 06 2011 11:00 funnybananaman wrote:
You can't cut the deficit AND cut taxes AND spend retarded amounts of money funding stupid wars and throwing all our taxpayer money into the military all at the same time.
Too true. I don't hate the tea party or anything. I believe we need to get out of debt and taxes should be as low as possible, but the wars we are in are by far the biggest burden to the budget. I don't see why conservatives can't see this. We haven't even been close to full war mode since WWII. If we actually had a serious war that was a direct threat to the American people, we effectively could spend dozens of times more money on it without risking inflation, simply by cutting socialist welfare policies..
Again, please learn the definition of the word socialist and then get back to us.
|
@Superiorwolf
Leaving your other arguments aside, but saying USA spending on military is greater than the rest of the world combined is totally pointless.
It might sound outrageous but if you look at the % of GDP, USA is no different than any other countries. Simply put, USA is much richer than rest of the world, so they also need to spend much higher amount to protect their assets.
Not to mention some country like China hides their various military spending in different category such as research, education ect.
|
On January 06 2011 12:35 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 11:24 t3hwUn wrote:
Wow I love how TL hates on right wingers... I get flamed for being a troll for posting unpopular political opinions elsewhere and then I read this... Fail.
And to get back on topic +1 for no more obama socialist policies. If I wanted to live in Europe I'd move there... the word "socialist" gets thrown around waaaaaay too much. problem with people like you is that all you do is throw around talking points and cover your ears whenever people say anything rational. what has obama done that can be classified as "socialist"?
I would consider his Healthcare bill to be socialist. But to clarify my post I believe we need a return to state's rights and a weakened federal system. The federal government has proved time and time again to be a black hole for tax dollars. Maybe Obama isn't a socialist but his educational background says otherwise IMHO.
Its not talking points. Its about a return to domestic and fiscal responsibility, lowered taxes and less spending PERIOD.
And as posted previously the "war" in Afghanistan is now a glorified humanitarian struggle that we have received backlash for not doing in the past. Much of our tax dollars go to other countries for various reasons. As complicated as the issue is the most frustrating thing is Obama has really done nothing to help grow the private sector...
|
On January 06 2011 13:53 furymonkey wrote:
Simply put, USA is much richer than rest of the world, so they also need to spend much higher amount to protect their assets.
That is a 100% baseless notion.
|
On January 06 2011 13:56 Lefnui wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 13:53 furymonkey wrote:
Simply put, USA is much richer than rest of the world, so they also need to spend much higher amount to protect their assets. That is a 100% baseless notion.
It makes sense to a certain extent. We have more stuff, so we can spend more to protect it. I think a better argument is because we disclose all our defense spending and about no other countries do we actually spend less than it would seem. (Still too much IMO)
|
Okay I can understand the last part of your earlier post now, but I still don't think it is a viable argument. Certainly, the Wikileaks cables did reveal that there was evidence of WMDs in Iraq afaik, but it still is questionable as to why we continued to stay there after we found no WMDs. If anything, US Army presence instigates further violence in the area from the Taliban/Al-Qaeda, and I'm glad we're finally withdrawing slowly but it's something we should have done a long time ago. I don't think it's in the business of America to continue acting imperialistic with all these wars, meddling in the business of other nations only gets more people hostile towards America. We should instead focus on the domestic sector and improving life at home, whether that means creating new jobs with green technology (aka a way to reduce our dependence on oil) or reducing our ever-increasing federal debt.
|
On January 06 2011 13:58 Froadac wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 13:56 Lefnui wrote:On January 06 2011 13:53 furymonkey wrote:
Simply put, USA is much richer than rest of the world, so they also need to spend much higher amount to protect their assets. That is a 100% baseless notion. It makes sense to a certain extent. We have more stuff, so we can spend more to protect it. I think a better argument is because we disclose all our defense spending and about no other countries do we actually spend less than it would seem. (Still too much IMO)
It is absolutely ridiculous with not a hint of logic behind it. How are our assets being threatened? How is our military spending protecting our assets?
Sorry but "we got more stuff so we need more stuff to protect our stuff" isn't an acceptable argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
