|
On September 27 2010 04:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 04:33 Mindcrime wrote:On September 27 2010 04:15 Melancholia wrote:On September 27 2010 04:07 Mindcrime wrote:On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote: China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia. You should know what terms mean before you use them. Um, you do know that liberal market policies are free-market ones, right? The term "liberal" has been warped somewhat in the US. Or were you commenting about about how he made the rather obvious point that communism is a form of socialism? I wish I had a picture of Marx facepalming to post. How about... for claiming that there was a "communist market" in China? lolololololol It's terrible that everybody has a strong opinion about socialism / communism and then you realize that most of theses don't even have a clue about what communism even mean. Ok. Communism: Stateless and classeless society which has abolished private property, and in which there is no worker specialisation between intellectual / manual work, nor between city and countryside. Socialism was supposed to be a moment between capitalism and communism where the state was taking control in the name of the proletarians of the production. It was meant to last a few years before the establishment of communism, which obviously never happened anywhere for various reason that I can explain if someone is interested. USSR: Union of soviet SOCIALIST republic. That was not a communist country, for christ's sake!
ok that is all beyond the point- neither of those two systems have a free market. Free markets drive the world. and regardless of any form of socialism, or communism- both of these are not free market. We are splitting hairs at this point. I was simply trying to point out that the free market clearly produces better results, and clearly helps with economic and social growth.
Harking back to another one of your comments, the USSR was still disillusioned, by the people- so tell me, how was the quality of life better thirty years ago for the Russian people? The people chose to end the ussr.
can we please get back on topic here? I was simply trying to talk about the free market, i was not trying to discuss socialism, or communism. The only thing of importance, is the fact that both of those systems do not have a free market.
|
On September 27 2010 04:23 Ramiel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 04:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote:On September 27 2010 03:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2010 03:32 Ramiel wrote: biff, if you don't live in the us your perceptions of our politics are very misguided. Sorry, but i feel that your opinion is extremely obtuse, it is clear to me that you don't really have an educated view point. You sound more like a disgruntled European passing judgment.
The economic disaster has nothing to do with capitalism, it had everything to do with fools, and the idea of 'the great society.'
Secondly having a free market and liberal market is what will drive the world economy, socialism and structured markets are like a gaping wound, slowly bleeding markets dry.
Lastly, you description of republicans is completely off, and in the far right field (yes pun intended) Please stop spouting nonsensical definitions about political parties based on satire, or other news media outlets. At least I had a good laugh. Your first paragrapher is gold. I'll put it in every post where I disagree with someone. The economic disaster has to do with the destruction of a number of rules in the financial area in your country and in the world since the beginning of ultraliberal era (Tatcher-Reagan). The crisis is a direct consequence of the ultraliberal policies you guys are fighting for. Your free market thing is very nice, but there are a number of very socialist countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany in a certain extent... which do much better both on economical and social level than for example, UK. So your anti-socialist doxa is maybe old-fashionned. Third I haven't given any definition of the rpublican, except by saying they were hated around the world, which is a goddamn fact, and that the far right republicans à-la Tea Party are nuts. I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that. People who start their answers by "you are obviously uneducated" make me laugh out loud. so defensive, and quick to jump hehe. The financial crisis in America was not the work of liberal economic policies, that may have caused it to get worse, but it certainly was not the root cause of the problem. Secondly, all of the wonderful socialist countries you have named do not hold a candle to American economic might. Our gdp is 14.59 trillion. all of the countries you have named come no where close, even all united- they don't even cast a shadow. So please stop reiterating about the superiority of socialism. Socialism is a great on paper, but in reality it doesn't nothing but retard the growth of society, and economies. China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia. also show me in writing where the world hates the republican party. A fact is something that supposedly can be backed through empirical evidence, and i have yet to see any. as for the rest of your post~ + Show Spoiler +I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that. L O L Obviously if you compare a country like Finland with its 4 million people and America and its 270 millions, well, America is richer. How fucking surprising. I don't support what has been done in Russia and China. If you talk to Russian people, though, they would tell you that life in Russia is worse now than 30 years ago, during a hatred dictature. So really, not a great success. And I am not defensive. you just don't realize how absurdly agressive you are. You have nothing but lol to answer? That's the answer of a great mind, and a highly educated person, really. The point is you make assumptions based on nothing other people, you realize that you couldn't have gone more wrong and you expect to get out with it just with your uber-agressive standpoint. Well it doesn't work. lol is simply my answer to something that has no bearing on this topic of conversation, i don't want to derail the thread. All i saw in the last paragraph was pompous intellectual posturing. Clearly you needed to show that you are far superior to me. I don't need to answer any of that. Finland (which has a population of about 5mil not 4), great- Kentucky has about the same number of people (population 4.3 mil or something), still has a higher gdp. Whats the point? also americas population is not 270million. it's just a bit over 300mil. And you also don't support what has been done in Russia or in China? why? millions of people are beginning to make more money, and are starting to have a better quality of life. I don't understand what is so bad about this? As for the Russians, once again can i see the evidence that the majority of the populace thought life was better 30 years ago? if you can bring some data into your 'facts' i would rally appreciate it. I may stand corrected, but for now- I'm just feeling really confused. All of your population estimates are way off the mark, and i am still wondering why so many of these 'facts' you use, don't have any evidence to support your claim. Also how am i being aggressive? none of the other posts that i had pointed out to you don't seem the least bit obtuse and overbearing? When i see things like, it annoys me. So i am sharing my opinion back. How is that aggressive? lol should have been my answer to your statement saying that I was uneducated when you clearly don't know fuck about what you're talking about (socialism / communism etc...) I don't try to show that I know more than other, because I don't have a clue about if it's true or not, except when someone start a post saying I am an ignorant. Unnacceptable, sorry.
Here GDP per capita. You are behind the most socialist country of Europ. And your wealth is immensely less well distributed than any of the countries we talked about. Very good to have money, but if it's billioniares and companies who make your statistics, it's a bit useless.
I don't support Soviet dictatorship, that's what I meant. Life of Russian citizen is much worst now than before. Life hope is still decreasing. People don't get job etc...
Sorry for not knowing exactly how many people there are in the US. I'm not sure you could tell me without checking how many people there are in France at +/- 15 %. So don't try this one.
You are agressive by starting a post with a whole paragraph dismissing someone you have no clue about.
Anything else?
|
On September 27 2010 04:48 Ramiel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 04:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2010 04:33 Mindcrime wrote:On September 27 2010 04:15 Melancholia wrote:On September 27 2010 04:07 Mindcrime wrote:On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote: China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia. You should know what terms mean before you use them. Um, you do know that liberal market policies are free-market ones, right? The term "liberal" has been warped somewhat in the US. Or were you commenting about about how he made the rather obvious point that communism is a form of socialism? I wish I had a picture of Marx facepalming to post. How about... for claiming that there was a "communist market" in China? lolololololol It's terrible that everybody has a strong opinion about socialism / communism and then you realize that most of theses don't even have a clue about what communism even mean. Ok. Communism: Stateless and classeless society which has abolished private property, and in which there is no worker specialisation between intellectual / manual work, nor between city and countryside. Socialism was supposed to be a moment between capitalism and communism where the state was taking control in the name of the proletarians of the production. It was meant to last a few years before the establishment of communism, which obviously never happened anywhere for various reason that I can explain if someone is interested. USSR: Union of soviet SOCIALIST republic. That was not a communist country, for christ's sake! ok that is all beyond the point- neither of those two systems have a free market. Free markets drive the world. and regardless of any form of socialism, or communism- both of these are not free market. We are splitting hairs at this point. I was simply trying to point out that the free market clearly produces better results, and clearly helps with economic and social growth. Harking back to another one of your comments, the USSR was still disillusioned, by the people- so tell me, how was the quality of life better thirty years ago for the Russian people? The people chose to end the ussr. can we please get back on topic here? I was simply trying to talk about the free market, i was not trying to discuss socialism, or communism. The only thing of importance, is the fact that both of those systems do not have a free market.
so much misuse of terms
|
On September 27 2010 04:48 Ramiel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 04:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2010 04:33 Mindcrime wrote:On September 27 2010 04:15 Melancholia wrote:On September 27 2010 04:07 Mindcrime wrote:On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote: China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia. You should know what terms mean before you use them. Um, you do know that liberal market policies are free-market ones, right? The term "liberal" has been warped somewhat in the US. Or were you commenting about about how he made the rather obvious point that communism is a form of socialism? I wish I had a picture of Marx facepalming to post. How about... for claiming that there was a "communist market" in China? lolololololol It's terrible that everybody has a strong opinion about socialism / communism and then you realize that most of theses don't even have a clue about what communism even mean. Ok. Communism: Stateless and classeless society which has abolished private property, and in which there is no worker specialisation between intellectual / manual work, nor between city and countryside. Socialism was supposed to be a moment between capitalism and communism where the state was taking control in the name of the proletarians of the production. It was meant to last a few years before the establishment of communism, which obviously never happened anywhere for various reason that I can explain if someone is interested. USSR: Union of soviet SOCIALIST republic. That was not a communist country, for christ's sake! ok that is all beyond the point- neither of those two systems have a free market. Free markets drive the world. and regardless of any form of socialism, or communism- both of these are not free market. We are splitting hairs at this point. I was simply trying to point out that the free market clearly produces better results, and clearly helps with economic and social growth. Harking back to another one of your comments, the USSR was still disillusioned, by the people- so tell me, how was the quality of life better thirty years ago for the Russian people? The people chose to end the ussr. can we please get back on topic here? I was simply trying to talk about the free market, i was not trying to discuss socialism, or communism. The only thing of importance, is the fact that both of those systems do not have a free market. None of this system is liberal capitalism.
No really?
So we are splitting hair
I didn't have an idea that communism was not "a extrem form of socialism" but it doesn't matter, it's the same: it's not liberal capitalism.
Free market is amazing. I love free market. Free market runs the world. Please more free market.
Cool argumentation.
Saying that communism is an extrem form of socialism is exactly as off as saying that democracy is an advanced for of capitalism. It just doesn't mean anything at all.
|
|
An Unregulated free market system, barring some form of way of eliminating externalities and removal of informational issues, don't really work in the long run. Some form of regulation and government intervention (to some extent) is required. That's really all I want to say.
|
On September 27 2010 05:06 Comeh wrote: An Unregulated free market system, barring some form of way of eliminating externalities and removal of informational issues, don't really work in the long run. Some form of regulation and government intervention (to some extent) is required. That's really all I want to say.
i agree, you need some governance, but less is more.
as for biff- Im done. Our arguments are not even on point. you win. socialism is the best form of governance. communism is even better- on paper.
|
On September 27 2010 05:44 Ramiel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 05:06 Comeh wrote: An Unregulated free market system, barring some form of way of eliminating externalities and removal of informational issues, don't really work in the long run. Some form of regulation and government intervention (to some extent) is required. That's really all I want to say. i agree, you need some governance, but less is more. as for biff- Im done. Our arguments are not even on point. you win. Wow didn't expect that. Thanks I guess. Next time let's talk about BW or something, maybe we can agree :-)
EDIT:
On September 27 2010 05:44 Ramiel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 05:06 Comeh wrote: An Unregulated free market system, barring some form of way of eliminating externalities and removal of informational issues, don't really work in the long run. Some form of regulation and government intervention (to some extent) is required. That's really all I want to say. i agree, you need some governance, but less is more. as for biff- Im done. Our arguments are not even on point. you win. socialism is the best form of governance. communism is even better- on paper.
and then ego came back and you edited your post lol. Pity, isn't it, I had some hope for like a couple of seconds, hahahahahaha.
|
On September 27 2010 04:45 Wala.Revolution wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 04:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2010 04:33 Mindcrime wrote:On September 27 2010 04:15 Melancholia wrote:On September 27 2010 04:07 Mindcrime wrote:On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote: China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia. You should know what terms mean before you use them. Um, you do know that liberal market policies are free-market ones, right? The term "liberal" has been warped somewhat in the US. Or were you commenting about about how he made the rather obvious point that communism is a form of socialism? I wish I had a picture of Marx facepalming to post. How about... for claiming that there was a "communist market" in China? lolololololol It's terrible that everybody has a strong opinion about socialism / communism and then you realize that most of theses don't even have a clue about what communism even mean. Ok. Communism: Stateless and classeless society which has abolished private property, and in which there is no worker specialisation between intellectual / manual work, nor between city and countryside. Socialism was supposed to be a moment between capitalism and communism where the state was taking control in the name of the proletarians of the production. It was meant to last a few years before the establishment of communism, which obviously never happened anywhere for various reason that I can explain if someone is interested. USSR: Union of soviet SOCIALIST republic. That was not a communist country, for christ's sake! If you could list a few reasons I would appreciate it. In my limited knowledge (if you can even call it that) it's because of human traits. Well it is not. I mean, at least that's not the first reason.
There are four main reason, and this for every marxist revolution of the XXth century.
1- A proletarian revolution, marxist or not, always finds itself to have to fight interior and exterior ennemies almost immediately. To survive, it needs a stage of terror. French revolution is the most obvious example: from the end of 1792, the Revolution becomes a dictatorship to fight the ennemy exterior (the coalition of monarchies) and interior (Vendée war, royalists). For the Russian Revolution, it is even more obvious. The revolutionary avant-garde needs to organize itself with an exetrem rigor to fight the whites, the european contigents, etc etc...
Fact is that a proletarian Revolution is extremely precarious. When revolutions have failed to organize the state of terror, like in 1848 or even better, during Paris Commune in 1870, it has always been repressed and destroyed almost immediately.
Now, our first problem is that it is almost impossible to get out of the state of terror, because the emergency somehow never finishes, and because you have organized with a military efficiency a government which has had to use very doubtful methods.
That's the first point.
2- The second thing, and that's the most important part, is that Marx has theorized the passage from capitalism to communism via socialism for very advanced countries in term of industrialization. Marx believed that where there were the most workers, the biggest industry, revolutions were more likely to happen. His model was Germany. Marx historic materialism is based on a vision of history based on class struggle: capitalism was a necessary stage, after feudalism and before socialism.
Marxist revolutions during the XXth century have happened in extremely retarded countries: Russia, which were basically still feudals. Lenin and Mao find themselves with a huge problem very quickly: their respective country were not at all ready for a quick transition. That's why they try desperately to industrialize their country by force (NEP for Stalin, great leap forward etc... for Mao), with very limited success.
The reason Lenin kept the power was because he was confronted to a huge theoretical contradiction, by having his proletarian revolution happening in a country where it was not supposed at all to happen, and which was absolutely not ready. And to get it ready, you needed it to be really strong industrially, and that is something that Marx had planned as being the job of the capitalist stage.
There is a reason why Rosa Luxembourg criticizes Soviet Union as soon as 1919 for being a "State Capitalism". In order to get to the required industrial level to do the transition, Soviet Russia needs to somehow beat capitalism at what it does the best.
3- Third point is that revolution was supposed to be international, worldwide. Workers of all countries, unite, says Marx. Our new born socialist state is de facto dependant and in competition with capitalist countries around. The reason why revolutionary want the revolution to happen everywhere is not that they are crazy messianist, but that Marx had thought the revolution as an international movement, and that the whole thing can not work with the pressure and competition of capitalist countries.
When Stalin starts to talk about "Socialism in One country" in 1924, the possibility of a transition to communism die. You can't abolish private property and supress the state in a single country: it would get eaten alive.
4- Then there is, and maybe that's the worst thing, the development of a bureaucratic class. The bureaucracy class takes the power extremely quickly and becomes the equivalent of a new bourgeoisie. That's what Stalinism represents and that's what Mao tried to fight with his Cultural Revolution.
Bureaucracy develops naturally in the socialist state which needs to manage the whole economy of the country (since the bourgeoisie has disappeared). If you don't move quickly towards the communist stage, as planned by Marx, your bureaucracy develops, and doesn't want to give back the power.
You get into a dictatorship. Stalin is a perfect example, but what China has become, despite all Mmao's effort to fight the phenomenon, is even worse, since the bureaucracy has moved towards a pure and simple capitalist dictatorship.
Now you can summarize that by saying that human nature etc..., but really, the problem is a theoretical and very complex problem.
If you are interested, it's always good to read "State and Revolution", by Lenin., from 1917. You understand a lot.
Hope it helps. :-)
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
To me, the polls are indicative of the public being tired of the current Obama administration - one of nonaction.
So far, this administration has been mostly talk and very little substance. Their actions taken against unemployment have been unsuccessful, and the gulf oil spill definitely did not help their PR. The economy is slugging, young people in record numbers remain unemployed. No one knows wtf is up with the new health insurance system.
If someone asks me, "what has this administration accomplished in the last 2 years?", I can only really respond with ... 'nothing?'
|
Ended a war, for starters.
|
On September 27 2010 08:35 L wrote: Ended a war, for starters. You could say end, most would say simply relocated
|
On September 27 2010 08:43 Irrelevant wrote:You could say end, most would say simply relocated
Obama invaded Afghanistan?
|
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote: Just once, just once I would like to see voters actually vote against the most dishonest politicians. The Republican party would wither and die that election. But it will never come to pass, people are too content imagining that the world actually runs the way they wish it did. That their moral standpoint allows them to ignore actual law, that science only exists when it is convenient.
Which party is more likely to not believe in evolution? Which one has the strongest history of invasive, anti-sex policies? Has in the modern era most often opposed sexual, physical, racial, and other minorities? ls most prone to supporting tax policies that would explode the deficit while simultaneously claiming to be fiscally responsible? Believes that locking people up is a better way to deal with the medical condition of addiction than sending them to doctors? Opposes health care reform in the face of desperate health care and financial statistics? Supports unconstitutional religious intrusion into public government?
A vote for the Democratic party is a vote for sanity. Unfortunately, it seems we've all gone completely nuts.
I love when nobody responds to good posts

Im not a democrat perse, moreso anti republican, but this is exactly how I feel.
|
On September 27 2010 08:05 thedeadhaji wrote: If someone asks me, "what has this administration accomplished in the last 2 years?", I can only really respond with ... 'nothing?'
It would be miraculous if everything was fixed in 2 years given the situation when he took office. But even so he has changed quite a bit. The most stark change is the change which we do not see. It might seem bad now, but where would we be under right wing governance now? Better a slow recovery than becoming worse. I consider the beginning of a recovery and saving us from the ruin of the only alternative... substantial.
Secondly, he has the most full blown partisan opposition imaginable. Republicans are currently filibustering his every proposal, despite his centrist positions. Yet Obama is the one to take the political blame for things not being accomplished.
As for the title of this thread, demographic studies indicate that the Republican party has no future. Currently, it looks like a party with voters largely made up of old white males will not be able to ever have a national majority sometime around 2015-2020. How I hope we can keep them out of power until then.
|
On September 27 2010 09:21 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote: Just once, just once I would like to see voters actually vote against the most dishonest politicians. The Republican party would wither and die that election. But it will never come to pass, people are too content imagining that the world actually runs the way they wish it did. That their moral standpoint allows them to ignore actual law, that science only exists when it is convenient.
Which party is more likely to not believe in evolution? Which one has the strongest history of invasive, anti-sex policies? Has in the modern era most often opposed sexual, physical, racial, and other minorities? ls most prone to supporting tax policies that would explode the deficit while simultaneously claiming to be fiscally responsible? Believes that locking people up is a better way to deal with the medical condition of addiction than sending them to doctors? Opposes health care reform in the face of desperate health care and financial statistics? Supports unconstitutional religious intrusion into public government?
A vote for the Democratic party is a vote for sanity. Unfortunately, it seems we've all gone completely nuts. I love when nobody responds to good posts  Im not a democrat perse, moreso anti republican, but this is exactly how I feel.
He also forgot which party doesn't want to support education, research, and which party has been initiating wars. Bolded the decifit part because the hilarious thing is this is what republicans are running on... god.
|
On September 27 2010 08:05 thedeadhaji wrote: To me, the polls are indicative of the public being tired of the current Obama administration - one of nonaction.
So far, this administration has been mostly talk and very little substance. Their actions taken against unemployment have been unsuccessful, and the gulf oil spill definitely did not help their PR. The economy is slugging, young people in record numbers remain unemployed. No one knows wtf is up with the new health insurance system.
If someone asks me, "what has this administration accomplished in the last 2 years?", I can only really respond with ... 'nothing?'
On the environment:
Included funding for "green" jobs in the stimulus bill
Initiated first steps to develop a legally-binding treaty to reduce mercury emissions worldwide
Dedicated more than $60 billion for clean energy
Instituted "cash for clunkers," getting more fuel efficient cars on the street
Acknowledges reality of climate change and his desire to work on an international policy like Kyoto
Emphasized the value of science (not political opinion) within the EPA
Allocated $2 billion in stimulus cash for advanced batteries systems (for automobiles)
Declared (via EPA) carbon dioxide a threat to health, the first step towards regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act
Funded Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant, which gives $2.8 billion to cities
Put over 2 million acres of wilderness, thousands of miles of river and a host of national trails and parks under federal protection, the largest conservation effort in 15 years Funding a $475 million initiative to restore and clean the Great Lakes
On healthcare:
Overturned the federal funding ban for stem cell research
Instituted better standards for comparative research in medicine and an agency to handle this
Added staff to the FDA and brought back emphasis on science
Allocated over $1 billion to the National Institutes of Health, whose budget Bush let stagnate
Eliminated funding for abstinence-only education
Signed an executive order repealing the "Mexico City policy" or "global gag rule" that withheld U.S. funds from organizations that discuss or provide family planning services abroad
Announced US would resume contributions to the UN population fund for family planning and more than double the previous contribution made in 2001
Appropriated $19 billion in the stimulus package to help implement an electronic medical record system
Set aside billions in budget to overhaul the health care system
Enacted Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization, providing healthcare to 11 million children
Established 65% COBRA subsidy for 7 million unemployed Americans
Allocated $1 billion for prevention and wellness programs
Provided $87 billion to states to bolster their Medicaid programs during the downturn
Increased funding for urban HIV/AIDS Prevention and Awareness
On Education, Equality, Public Safety, Families, etc.:
Expressed a desire to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell
Described the Defense of Marriage Act as "unfair" and "discriminatory" and said they supported it being overturned
Includes atheists in his definition of Americans
Extended tax credits for mothers to return to college, for tuition, and for college textbook purchases
Has agreed to make the visitors' lists to the White House public
Signed executive order requiring Guantanamo to be closed within 1 year and allocated funds/personnel for that purpose
Included provision in stimulus legislation that, for the first time, supported the ideas of Net Neutrality-like non-discrimination and openness for the Internet
The administration demonstrated a new commitment to fighting for change on the UN Human Rights Council by announcing it will run for a seat next year, reversing the Bush administration boycott
Announced that the U.S. will support a United Nations declaration urging nations to decriminalize homosexuality
Created office of Urban Policy
Gave Department of Justice $2 billion for Byrne Grants, which funds anti-gang and anti-gun task forces (cut during Bush years)
Allocated $5 billion for early learning programs, including Head Start, Early Head Start, child care, and programs for children with special needs
Signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act to protect Americans from unfair and deceptive credit card practices
Enacted the Making Homes Affordable Program
Boosted credit flow to small businesses
Increased focus on funding for high speed rail
Funded the Community Oriented Police program (COPS) Appointed first Hispanic justice to the Supreme Court and most qualified Supreme Court candidate in decades
On foreign affairs (see link for more complete list):
Secured $5 billion in aid commitments "to bolster [Pakistan's] economy and help it fight terror and Islamic radicalism"
Foreign affairs experts insist that Obama's engagement with the Muslim world has been at once remarkable and under-appreciated..."He has been able to dramatically change America's image in that region"
Led global response to the economic crisis through the G20, obtaining commitments of $1.1 trillion to safeguard the world’s most vulnerable economies
Established major agenda to protect Americans from spread/use of deadly weapons, negotiating new nuclear weapon cuts with Russia and committing to the elimination of nuclear weapons
Signed an executive order banning torture and requiring interrogations to conform to Army Field Manual Standards and Geneva Conventions
Signed an executive order to close CIA secret prisons
Cut ineffective, unnecessary and outdated weapons programs such as the F-22, the DDG -1000 destroyer, and Future Combat Systems
Vowed to bring the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq into the regular budget by 2010
Largest increase for veterans funding in 30 years
Restored the UN Ambassador to a cabinet level position
Signed Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending in defense procurement and contracting Helped free 2 American journalists from a North Korea prison Led the UN Security Council in voting for strong sanctions against North Korea Negotiated with Russia to allow overflights over their territory to establish a supply route into Northern Afghanistan
On workers:
OSHA announced it was moving to protect workers from...popcorn long; last-minute Bush rules would have added 2 years before it could be considered
Revoked Bush administration executive order on regulatory review that enabled political appointees at the White House's OMB to override agencies' rulemaking, undermining everything from worker safety to environmental protection
Signed 3 executive orders, including one reversing a Bush order to limit union representation on federal contracts
Moved to prevent federal contractors from being reimbursed for unionbusting propganda compaigns during collective bargaining
Signed executive order overturning Bush administration's ban on project labor agreements (PLAs) on federally funded construction (PLAs set wages and establish work rules and methods of settling grievances on large multi-contractor construction projects)
Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, guaranteeing the right to sue for wage discrimination based on gender, race, disability, etc.
Extended unemployment benefits for struggling Americans
Obama's Department of Transportation has approved 2,500 highway projects
Cut taxes for 95% of all working families
Provided over $500 million in funding for vocational rehabilitation services to help with job training, education and placement
Source: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/5/777696/-Has-Obama-Accomplished-Anything
|
|
On September 27 2010 08:35 L wrote: Ended a war, for starters.
Sometimes you say the dumbest things.
Seriously
|
On September 27 2010 11:26 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 04:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote: Just once, just once I would like to see voters actually vote against the most dishonest politicians. The Republican party would wither and die that election. But it will never come to pass, people are too content imagining that the world actually runs the way they wish it did. That their moral standpoint allows them to ignore actual law, that science only exists when it is convenient.
Which party is more likely to not believe in evolution? Which one has the strongest history of invasive, anti-sex policies? Has in the modern era most often opposed sexual, physical, racial, and other minorities? ls most prone to supporting tax policies that would explode the deficit while simultaneously claiming to be fiscally responsible? Believes that locking people up is a better way to deal with the medical condition of addiction than sending them to doctors? Opposes health care reform in the face of desperate health care and financial statistics? Supports unconstitutional religious intrusion into public government?
A vote for the Democratic party is a vote for sanity. Unfortunately, it seems we've all gone completely nuts. ![[image loading]](http://timpanogos.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/cartoon-fiscal-conservative-greenberg21.jpg) EDIT: I know it's old, but gotta love it  You're right. it is old. We have a bit more data now: ![[image loading]](http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/obama-deficit21.gif)
Ah, yes, now we have the numbers from Bush's final budget.
|
|
|
|