Obama

[Rynaldo]

Since I do not live in the USA, I was wondering if Obama has been a good president thus far

[apoemtothedead]

Sure.

[saysmydoctor]

Eh.

[rawesome]

He's had his moments. He's better now than he was last year.

[zachff]

Better than Bush or the '08 alternative, that's for sure

[BoysNightOutie]

All just figureheads anyway.

[saysmydoctor]

All just figureheads anyway.
You're done.

[BoysNightOutie]

You're done.

Cool!

[deFobbed14yrs]

So far so good. He's trying. It takes a lot to clean up a mess.

[tfot11]

nope

[jwicklun]

meh. not horrible, but not really great.

[smeed03]

not at all

[flask]

He's Hitler And Stalin Rolled Into One!

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

He's Hitler And Stalin Rolled Into One!

he's a commie-nazi? That does not make sense!

[caveBEAR]

:popcorn:

I'm hoping this thread will supply tonight's entertainment.

[flask]

he's a commie-nazi? That does not make sense!

Hey, i think as the anti-christ, he can be what he wants to be!

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Hey, i think as the anti-christ, he can be what he wants to be!


:hitself:

[greenteaallday]

As a person who doesn't live in America, you can probably do a better assessment. Alot of crazies recently yelling from soapbox in the US.

[loveisdead]

Glad I'll be home tonight to watch this thread. Over/under on thread bans is 5.

[caveBEAR]

Glad I'll be home tonight to watch this thread. Over/under on thread bans is 5.

I'm gonna put $30.00 down on 3 bans by midnight.

[more heart]

Considering the monumental challenges facing our country at the present, he's done a satisfactory job.

[DrStrong]

Hes black.

EDIT: sorry, just messing around. I really dont have any opinion.

[saysmydoctor]

I figure this thread will finally be the bullet that takes my sanity.

[BornUnderPunches]

he's been given the blame for everything that happened a year before he took office. whenever something bad happens, he seems extremely calm in the sense that he doesn't just go press the red button, but finds a way to workit out peacefully, and as far as I've seen it's gone pretty well so far. It's the stupid Conservatives with the freakin Tea Party that think he's a terrorist. People were enraged that a group of grade school kids sang a song about him because they said he was brainwashing them...biggest sore losers ever.
thats just my opinion on the last year, don't follow politics that much but that's what I have seen

[HomeboyMatt(:]

I think considering the fact that the Republicans are doing all they can to stop progress, he's doing an alright job.
He could be better, but it's going to take time and cooperation to move the U.S. forward.

EDIT: I'd give him a B.

[Machu505]

I'd give him a B-.

[BornUnderPunches]

I'd give him a B-.
on what terms? not trying to sound douchy, just wondering

[fredrico0012]

Better than Bush or the '08 alternative, that's for sure

Actually, he's no different than Bush. They are both spending our money at will and he hasn't really done much except increase troops in Afghanistan (which is logical/what JCS recommend).

[knorr45]

There are a lot of people who are anti-Obama and those people expected him to instantly make things better or else they would consider him a terrible president. Clearly he hasn't fixed America but he inherited a country that was basically shattered. Has he been good? I would say he's been alright. Only time will tell if his decisions will help us or hurt us.

[Nuns On A Bus]

Obama is the devil

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

This pretty much sums most of it up for me.

Obama the Centrist (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/delong101/English)


BERKELEY – Despite the frequent cries of American Republicans that Barack Obama is trying to bring European-style socialism to the United States, it is now very clear that the US president wishes to govern from one place and one place only: the center.

In fighting the recession, Obama decided early on that he would push for a fiscal stimulus program about half the size of what his Democratic economic advisers recommended, and he decided to count that as a total victory rather than press for expanding half a loaf into the full amount.
Obama has been so committed to that cautious policy that even now, with the unemployment rate kissing 10%, he will not grab for the low-hanging fruit and call for an additional $200 billion of federal aid to the states over the next three years in order to prevent further layoffs of teachers. Rather than stemming further erosion of the national commitment to educate the next generation, Obama has shifted his focus to the long-term goal of balancing the budget – even while the macroeconomic storm is still raging.

And, in order to move forward on long-term budget balance, Obama has appointed a fiscal arsonist, Republican ex-Senator Alan Simpson, as one of his fire chiefs – one of the two co-chairs of his deficit reduction commission. Simpson never met an unfunded tax cut proposed by a Republican president that he would vote against, and he never met a balanced deficit-reduction program proposed by a Democratic president that he would support. Partisans whose commitment to deficit reduction vanishes whenever political expedience dictates simply do not belong running bipartisan deficit-reduction commissions.
Likewise, in dealing with the financial sector’s distress, Obama has acquiesced in the Bush-era policy of bailouts for banks without demanding anything of them in return – no nationalizations and no imposition of the second half of Walter Bagehot’s rule that aid be given to banks in a crisis only on the harsh terms of a “penalty rate.” Obama has thus positioned himself to the right not only of Joseph Stiglitz, Simon Johnson, and Paul Krugman, but also of his advisers Paul Volcker and Larry Summers.

On environmental policy, Obama has pressed not for a carbon tax, but for a cap-and-trade system that, for the first generation, pays the polluter. If you were a major emitter in the past, then for the next generation you are given a property right to very valuable emissions permits whose worth will only rise over time.
On anti-discrimination efforts, the repeal of the US military’s “don’t ask, don't tell” policy toward gay soldiers is on an extremely slow track – if, that is, it is hooked up to an engine at all.

On policy towards the rule of law, the closure of the mistake that is Guantánamo Bay is on a similarly slow track. Moreover, Obama has joined George W. Bush in claiming executive powers that rival those claimed by Charles II of Britain in the seventeenth century.

On healthcare reform, Obama’s proudest moment, his achievement is...drum roll...a scheme that almost precisely mimics the reform that Mitt Romney, a Republican who sought the presidency in 2008, brought to the state of Massachusetts. The reform’s centerpiece is a requirement imposed by the government that people choose responsibly and provide themselves with insurance – albeit with the government willing to subsidize the poor and strengthen the bargaining power of the weak.

In all of these cases, Obama is ruling, or trying to rule, by taking positions that are at the technocratic good-government center, and then taking two steps to the right – sacrificing some important policy goals – in the hope of attracting Republican votes and thereby demonstrating his commitment to bipartisanship. On all of these policies – anti-recession, banking, fiscal, environmental, anti-discrimination, rule of law, healthcare – you could close your eyes and convince yourself that, at least as far as the substance is concerned, Obama is in fact a moderate Republican named George H.W. Bush, Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Colin Powell.

Now, don’t get me wrong. My complaints about Obama are not that he is too bipartisan or too centrist. I am at bottom a weak-tea Dewey-Eisenhower-Rockefeller social democrat – that is, with a small “s” and a small “d.” My complaints are that he is not technocratic enough, that he is pursuing the chimera of “bipartisanship” too far, and that, as a result, many of his policies will not work well, or at all.

I understand that politics is the art of the possible, and that good-government technocracy is limited to the attainable. But it would be good if Obama remembered that we dwell not in the Republic of Plato, but in the Roman sewer of Romulus.

J. Bradford DeLong (http://www.project-syndicate.org/contributor/338)

[flask]

:hitself:

haha
:neiner:

[DarkBlue13]

I can't stand him. All he does is irresponsibly spend taxpayers' money in an effort to redistribute the wealth. Still, I couldn't imagine having Palin as VP. Here's to hoping 2012 offers some better alternatives.

[HomeboyMatt(:]

I can't stand him. All he does is irresponsibly spend taxpayers' money in an effort to redistribute the wealth. Still, I couldn't imagine having Palin as VP. Here's to hoping 2012 offers some better alternatives.


How exactly is he doing that, sir?

[GeeBee]

I can't stand him. All he does is irresponsibly spend taxpayers' money in an effort to redistribute the wealth. Still, I couldn't imagine having Palin as VP. Here's to hoping 2012 offers some better alternatives.

Please post any evidence of wealth being redistributed. Facts, please, to back up your bullshit hyperbole.

[Machu505]

on what terms? not trying to sound douchy, just wondering

Health care reform, mostly. He's also improved the image of the US abroad and his policies and legislation are responsible for the revitalization of our economy.

[Jason Tate]

I can't stand him. All he does is irresponsibly spend taxpayers' money in an effort to redistribute the wealth. Still, I couldn't imagine having Palin as VP. Here's to hoping 2012 offers some better alternatives.
What the fuck?

[BornUnderPunches]

Health care reform, mostly. He's also improved the image of the US abroad and his policies and legislation are responsible for the revitalization of our economy.
this. its funny that the news people were going crazy that he bowed to that Japanese(?) leader. Its just a sign of respect, perfectly fine in my opinion

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

haha
:neiner:

You do realize that Obama does in fact worship the Jesus Christ.

[flask]

You do realize that Obama does in fact worship the Jesus Christ.

You do realize i've been sarcastic this whole time?

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

You do realize i've been sarcastic this whole time?

That's the thing about message boards... sarcasm is rarely picked up. For the sake of it, please don't.

[ChaplainTappman]

Since I do not live in the USA, I was wondering if Obama has been a good president thus far
do you not have the news in your country? it's called google.

but, to answer your question,
hes a commie nazi socialist facist secret muslim non-american anarchist totalitarian dedicated to killing my grandparents on death panels of illegal immigrants and dead fetuses and will let my son marry that boy down the street!

[ChaplainTappman]

I can't stand him. All he does is irresponsibly spend taxpayers' money in an effort to redistribute the wealth. Still, I couldn't imagine having Palin as VP. Here's to hoping 2012 offers some better alternatives.
LOLWUT
do you know anything about the way the government and economics work? or are you just spouting off rhetoric that glenn beck shouted at you last night

[ChaplainTappman]

You do realize that Obama does in fact worship the Jesus Christ.
i always think you might actually be jake gyllenhaal. i assume im misguided.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

i always think you might actually be jake gyllenhaal. i assume im misguided.

the real jake gyllenhaal is too busy pumping iron and acting in movies. I spend my time on the politics board.

[catherinexhimel]

Hey, i think as the anti-christ, he can be what he wants to be!


Oh, people and calling Obama the anti-christ. Poor guy.

[flask]

i always think you might actually be jake gyllenhaal. i assume im misguided.

:-d

hi five.

[ChaplainTappman]

the real jake gyllenhaal is too busy pumping iron and acting in movies. I spend my time on the politics board.
well, i'm going to maintain my illiusion and imagine you as jake gyllenhaal commenting here

[Sloth7]

His baseball skills suck-diddily-uck.


EJBlwUfIoDk

[ETGsynth]

Consider the monumental challenges facing our country at the present, he's done a satisfactory job.

This. So many people jump on the Obama hate bandwagon without actually having logical reasons against anything he's done and is trying to do for our country.

[aoftbsten]

I think he's doing okay. Every presidency has its ups and downs, good things and bad things. This presidency will probably be no exception.

I'd like to turn around the question to the OP though, as someone who doesn't live in the States, how do you think he's doing?

[zachff]

Actually, he's no different than Bush. They are both spending our money at will and he hasn't really done much except increase troops in Afghanistan (which is logical/what JCS recommend).

I am not even going to respond to an asinine comment like that.

[Tyler Vagyler]

too many people watch Glenn Beck (and Fox News in general)

[thearmistice]

do you not have the news in your country? it's called google.

but, to answer your question,
hes a commie nazi socialist facist secret muslim non-american anarchist totalitarian dedicated to killing my grandparents on death panels of illegal immigrants and dead fetuses and will let my son marry that boy down the street!

either you're kidding or clearly need to stop watching getting all you political information from fox,
that being said, obama has done an average job up to this point, the reform on health care could have definitely gone better, and lately i feel that its taken a back seat to more current events like the NPT(which is honestly the first real sign of positive change sign he was sworn into office) and dealing with nuclear capable countries like Iran/Turkey. I think most of the criticism people have of him is that his whole campaign was about "Change we can believe in" and coming into post-bush america, there's a lot that needs to be changed and Obama, up until recently, has been pretty slow in delivering what was promised

and all the stuff about not bringing troops back from Iraq/Afghanistan....june/july 2011, look it up

[perceptrons]

People really to stop with the whole "sarcasm is hard to pick up in text." 99% of the time it is not, you're probably just dumb.

[Kapa73]

This pretty much sums most of it up for me.

Obama the Centrist (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/delong101/English)

That as a good read. Thanxxx

[caveBEAR]

People really to stop with the whole "sarcasm is hard to pick up in text." 99% of the time it is not, you're probably just dumb.

It's only hard to pick up on the sarcasm because people being 100% over the top about issues aren't usually that far off from the trolls/morons/bigots that frequent the forum.

I can tell when Jake, Geebee or xshadys being sarcastic, because I know their views/style...but when one of the below 200 posts people go for sarcasm, it can be hard to separate the crazy from the sarcastic without a :rolleyes: or something.

[saysmydoctor]

Actually, he's no different than Bush. They are both spending our money at will and he hasn't really done much except increase troops in Afghanistan (which is logical/what JCS recommend).
Wrong.

[DCfreak]

Why are all of the Political forum regulars being so quick to jump on the less intellegent answers in the thread, but refusing to actually offer their own input? The Centrist Article has been the only worthy read.

[Manicapathy]

He's cool, I guess. He's got about as much leftward lean as I do.....maybe a little more.

[lmorris956]

The Obama the Centrist Article pretty much summed everything up, but I still want to throw in my two cents (I've been unable to submit news twice that didn't make it otherwise, so I want to get my post number up lol). I will try to be as fair as possible:

By no means has Obama been horrible so far, but he hasn't been that great either. He certainly hasn't brought about all of this "change" that he promised, but to be fair, he has kind of had his hands tied by national circumstances.

The economy has turned back up under him, but it's not like we can entirely attribute it to him. I was in an econ course as it was happening, and my professor explained all that was happening, and I want to set some things straight. Bush didn't cause the downturn. Clinton didn't cause the downturn. BOTH of them had policies that made conditions to allow the problems. Having set the stage, it was the actions of the banks, the people selling phony stocks, the people buying houses they couldn't afford, and a multitude of others who caused these problem. Just as the problems can't be entirely blamed on Bush or Clinton, the upturn can't be said to be Obama's. I strongly believe in capitalism (though I recognize that it has its limits), so I highly disagree with the bailout on principle. However, things are turning better in the economy, so he could have done worse.

In terms of foreign relations, I'd say he comes out about even. I believe that he made the right move by increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan as was recommended by those who are actually there, though I'm also satisfied that he set a time to start removing the presence there. However, I think that he may need to step it up a little with Russia. They've been doing some saber-rattling over the past couple of years, so I think it would be better to take a harder stance with them. Signing the nuclear treaty (which I'm not saying a bad thing in itself) may not have been the best move because showing signs of being passive may only encourage further saber-rattling and possibly minor aggression. The bottom line is that he is a much better face for the US than Bush was. Most of the world hated him, and we lost a lot of soft power with him, so any change was bound to restore some of it. Oh yea, and that whole controversy about him bowing to the Japanese was ridiculous and asinine- it's courtesy, not submitting to Japan.

Though it's a comparatively minor and outdated complaint, I also don't like his appointment to the Supreme Court. I obviously would have expected a liberal appointment, but I'm sure there were many more qualified people, so he didn't need to choose Sotomayor in particular. I recall reading a direct quote from her somewhere (I don't feel like finding the source right now, so if you know that I'm mistaken, please politely correct me), in which she stated, either overtly or implicitly, that in her years of judging, she has advocated using her position to push an agenda to overcome race inequalities. There are so many more people that he could have chosen, so I wish that he could have appointed someone without such an agenda.

Finally, health care. Ah yes, health care. As you could have guessed by now, I also disagree with it. Yes, I know that "death panels" are nonsense and there is a lot of hyperbole about it. I just don't believe that the benefits of universal health care outweigh the drawbacks, and I disagree with it on principle. However, I won't simply bash it because of that. He just screwed up completely in how he handled it. As I've heard several people say, he had a majority in both houses and still couldn't get what he wanted. There were so many different proposals that very few people could know what was going on. I breathed a sigh of relief when it appeared that the bill was dead, but obviously that was too hasty. This whole reconciliation nonsense feels too much like a back door or loophole. In the end, we now have a health care bill that is nowhere near the single-payer system that Obama and many liberals wanted, and it's so much that it's just going to further push away Republicans. Nobody is really happy with the final product, and considering how much his reputation was riding on this, I believe that he just screwed up in this respect.

If there are any other issues you wish me to tackle, just let me know, and I'll either try my best to give it a fair assessment, or concede that I happen to be too ignorant as to how he's handled it to say anything about it.

One last point I want to make: anyone who has trudged through this whole long post should already have surmised that I AM A REPUBLICAN. I am occasionally forced by my parents to watch Fox News and even *shudder* Glenn Beck, and I always try to keep in mind how they're misrepresenting facts. I get my general news from MSNBC and visit factcheck.org every day to learn the truth about these issues. My point is that not all conservatives or Republicans are as ignorant as some make us appear. We are capable of intelligent assessment and recognizing where we disagree on principle and where we disagree for other reasons. Please don't judge us all on the ignorant statements of a few. Anyway, I hope this helps cast a fair picture of his performance.

[<*)))><]

He is working hard, I might not agree with his policy but he is doing but he is a nice guy.

[zion the lion]

I give him a C...maybe a C+

It's only hard to pick up on the sarcasm because people being 100% over the top about issues aren't usually that far off from the trolls/morons/bigots that frequent the forum.

I can tell when Jake, Geebee or xshadys being sarcastic, because I know their views/style...but when one of the below 200 posts people go for sarcasm, it can be hard to separate the crazy from the sarcastic without a :rolleyes: or something.

I'm pretty sure trolls are being 100% over the top with their sarcasm, and the morons and bigots are usually trolls too which means that they're all being sarcastic and you're all just so hungry for some flamefest that you want to believe that its not sarcasm but the way they actually feel (also feeding the trolls and ignoring their sarcasm somehow feeds all of your egos in a weird male ego way)

Also, what the fuck? I hire you as whatever I hired you as and you cant tell when I'm sarcastic but you can tell when those a-holes are sarcastic? My views are totally obvious.

He's cool, I guess. He's got about as much leftward lean as I do.....maybe a little more.

He is working hard, I might not agree with his policy but he is doing but he is a nice guy.

Is there any point in posting if you're going to say this? The thread asked how Obama was doing as a president, not who he was as a person. I'm sure G.W. is very nice guy if you get to know him, he's probably funny and has some killer dance moves, but that doesnt change what anybody is going to really think about his presidency.

[tfot11]

I think considering the fact that the Republicans are doing all they can to stop progress, he's doing an alright job.
He could be better, but it's going to take time and cooperation to move the U.S. forward.

EDIT: I'd give him a B.
Do you realize he passed healthcare with ZERO republican votes. How are they stopping him at all? They may not like what he's doing, but what big thing is it that they stopped him from doing? Wait til November to see what people think of him and the Democrats lately.

Here's a nice survey: 6% of Americans think the stimulus provided jobs, 7% of America thinks Elvis is still alive. Obviously, America as a whole isn't happy with it. And the unemployment numbers have seen no change. What has it done? He promised unemployment would drop to under 8% if it passed...a year later, it's not even close.

The vast majority of Americans didn't want his healthcare...he didn't care.

People hated the Patriot Act and trashed Bush for it, nobody said much when Obama extended it.

I could go on forever, but few people here really know anything about this, so arguing about it is nothing more than frustrating. Nothing I have said so far is an opinion, straight fact. It really cannot be argued, it's just the way it is.

Now for my own opinion: What has he done??? He's been terrible, period.

If you think he's anywhere NEAR the center, you're a fool. The biggest thing he's done (healthcare) was ALL democrats voting yes, and ALL republicans voting no. Cleary, his ideas are nowhere near the center or someone from one of the parties would have swayed the other way, republican or democrat. If you like what he's doing, fine...but if you can't see things for what they are when it's entirely obvious, then you must not be paying attention.

edit:i should stop opening these threads, it's just not worth it, haha.

[GeeBee]

Do you realize he passed healthcare with ZERO republican votes. How are they stopping him at all? They may not like what he's doing, but what big thing is it that they stopped him from doing? Wait til November to see what people think of him and the Democrats lately.

Here's a nice survey: 6% of Americans think the stimulus provided jobs, 7% of America thinks Elvis is still alive. Obviously, America as a whole isn't happy with it. And the unemployment numbers have seen no change. What has it done? He promised unemployment would drop to under 8% if it passed...a year later, it's not even close.

The vast majority of Americans didn't want his healthcare...he didn't care.

People hated the Patriot Act and trashed Bush for it, nobody said much when Obama extended it.

I could go on forever, but few people here really know anything about this, so arguing about it is nothing more than frustrating. Nothing I have said so far is an opinion, straight fact. It really cannot be argued, it's just the way it is.

Now for my own opinion: What has he done??? He's been terrible, period.

If you think he's anywhere NEAR the center, you're a fool. The biggest thing he's done (healthcare) was ALL democrats voting yes, and ALL republicans voting no. Cleary, his ideas are nowhere near the center or someone from one of the parties would have swayed the other way, republican or democrat. If you like what he's doing, fine...but if you can't see things for what they are when it's entirely obvious, then you must not be paying attention.

edit:i should stop opening these threads, it's just not worth it, haha.
You're right...you should stop.

[<*)))><]

I give him a C...maybe a C+



I'm pretty sure trolls are being 100% over the top with their sarcasm, and the morons and bigots are usually trolls too which means that they're all being sarcastic and you're all just so hungry for some flamefest that you want to believe that its not sarcasm but the way they actually feel (also feeding the trolls and ignoring their sarcasm somehow feeds all of your egos in a weird male ego way)

Also, what the fuck? I hire you as whatever I hired you as and you cant tell when I'm sarcastic but you can tell when those a-holes are sarcastic? My views are totally obvious.





Is there any point in posting if you're going to say this? The thread asked how Obama was doing as a president, not who he was as a person. I'm sure G.W. is very nice guy if you get to know him, he's probably funny and has some killer dance moves, but that doesnt change what anybody is going to really think about his presidency.
http://content.ytmnd.com/content/3/a/6/3a65fbad9a981edf5ff7d990597a366a.gi f
Great dancer.

[Chris92]

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/3/a/6/3a65fbad9a981edf5ff7d990597a366a.gi f
Great dancer.
Thank you.
You made my fucking day.

[alice+interiors]

It's largely gonna come down, for me, to whether he makes the promise he made of 'timetabled withdrawal of Iraq' by Summer 2010, as he claimed in his manifesto/the run-up to the election.

I do think he's been pretty slow on Guantanamo Bay, considering. Some questionable stuff surrounding that.

[Machu505]

The vast majority of Americans didn't want his healthcare...he didn't care.

This comment struck me the most. Do you even know what representative democracy is? Your vast majority is cool though, even if it doesn't exist (http://www.gallup.com/poll/127382/Americans-Views-Healthcare-Law-Remain-Stable.aspx).

[Carolina.Alex]

It's hard to tell what kind of a job a president is doing until 4-8 years after he leaves office

[Chris92]

I'm pretty disappointed in him, but he's alright. We've had better, we've had worse. I'm reserving judgment.

[<*)))><]

Do you realize he passed healthcare with ZERO republican votes. How are they stopping him at all? They may not like what he's doing, but what big thing is it that they stopped him from doing? Wait til November to see what people think of him and the Democrats lately.

Here's a nice survey: 6% of Americans think the stimulus provided jobs, 7% of America thinks Elvis is still alive. Obviously, America as a whole isn't happy with it. And the unemployment numbers have seen no change. What has it done? He promised unemployment would drop to under 8% if it passed...a year later, it's not even close.

The vast majority of Americans didn't want his healthcare...he didn't care.

People hated the Patriot Act and trashed Bush for it, nobody said much when Obama extended it.

I could go on forever, but few people here really know anything about this, so arguing about it is nothing more than frustrating. Nothing I have said so far is an opinion, straight fact. It really cannot be argued, it's just the way it is.

Now for my own opinion: What has he done??? He's been terrible, period.

If you think he's anywhere NEAR the center, you're a fool. The biggest thing he's done (healthcare) was ALL democrats voting yes, and ALL republicans voting no. Cleary, his ideas are nowhere near the center or someone from one of the parties would have swayed the other way, republican or democrat. If you like what he's doing, fine...but if you can't see things for what they are when it's entirely obvious, then you must not be paying attention.

edit:i should stop opening these threads, it's just not worth it, haha.

from a economic point of view the stimulus package was the right thing.

[J.C.]

He's still got work to do. By the standards of his predecessors he's been a step up, but I held higher hopes than that. The style in which he's governed is actually what I expected. He benefitted from the shittiness of the political climate when he got elected, and now he's a victim of it in the sense that it's bogged down the advancement of what it is he ran on. I think he would've been more effective in a less polarizing period, but the Catch-22 is that he likely wouldn't have gotten elected under those circumstances.

[tfot11]

This comment struck me the most. Do you even know what representative democracy is? Your vast majority is cool though, even if it doesn't exist (http://www.gallup.com/poll/127382/Americans-Views-Healthcare-Law-Remain-Stable.aspx).
If the fact that it's a "respresentative democracy" explains everything, then no decision any president/congress makes can be questioned. I hope that's not what you were trying to say, but you didn't say much, so I'm not sure. Either way, in our representative democray, we will see how the country feels about the actions of the democrats when November comes. http://politifi.com/news/Rasmussen-Most-Americans-Dont-Want-ObamaCare-351082.html

[tfot11]

You're right...you should stop.
good point...well thought out and well said. ;-)

[J.C.]

Obama ran on healthcare reform, dippy. That's what happens when you get elected. You try to enact what it is you ran on.

[mrmusic]

Obama is not a president. He is a celebrity pretending to be a president.....

[tfot11]

Obama ran on healthcare reform, dippy. That's what happens when you get elected. You try to enact what it is you ran on.
healthcare reform is fine. I wanted healthcare reform, America wanted healthcare reform. America just didn't want what his version of reform ended up being AFTER he was elected...dippy.

[Machu505]

If the fact that it's a "respresentative democracy" explains everything, then no decision any president/congress makes can be questioned. I hope that's not what you were trying to say, but you didn't say much, so I'm not sure. Either way, in our representative democray, we will see how the country feels about the actions of the democrats when November comes. http://politifi.com/news/Rasmussen-Most-Americans-Dont-Want-ObamaCare-351082.html

I hope you never thought the Republicans cared what the American people think either. If they did, we would have gotten reform months earlier and it would have been twice as sweeping and twice as effective. But when a president and congressional candidates run on a platform of health care reform and win by a landslide, you cannot sit there and act as if it's not what voters wanted. You're giving veto power to the pollsters, who rely on an easily-swayed and constantly fluctuating public for their numbers and work an imperfect science. To give an example, 51% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/127598/americans-favor-oppose-arizona-immigration-law.aspx) of responders to a Gallup poll said they approve of Arizona's newest "Juan Crow" law. That doesn't make it any less wrong.

You're absolutely right that we'll see how the country feels about reform come November, but I have a feeling you won't be pleased with the outcome.

[kemppettyjohn]

Obama is not a president. He is a celebrity pretending to be a president.....

i heard he is guest starring in Anchorman 2

[kemppettyjohn]

I hope you never thought the Republicans cared what the American people think either. If they did, we would have gotten reform months earlier and it would have been twice as sweeping and twice as effective. But when a president and congressional candidates run on a platform of health care reform and win by a landslide, you cannot sit there and act as if it's not what voters wanted. You're giving veto power to the pollsters, who rely on an easily-swayed and constantly fluctuating public for their numbers and work an imperfect science. To give an example, 51% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/127598/americans-favor-oppose-arizona-immigration-law.aspx) of responders to a Gallup poll said they approve of Arizona's newest "Juan Crow" law. That doesn't make it any less wrong.

You're absolutely right that we'll see how the country feels about reform come November, but I have a feeling you won't be pleased with the outcome.

you have a way with words that i could never master

[caveBEAR]

If the fact that it's a "respresentative democracy" explains everything, then no decision any president/congress makes can be questioned. I hope that's not what you were trying to say, but you didn't say much, so I'm not sure. Either way, in our representative democray, we will see how the country feels about the actions of the democrats when November comes. http://politifi.com/news/Rasmussen-Most-Americans-Dont-Want-ObamaCare-351082.html

:lol:

The poll refers to it as ObamaCare. Yeah, no bias there whatsoever. :rolleyes:

You're right though, come November we'll see if everyone really thinks Health Care Reform is evil.

[Machu505]

:lol:

The poll refers to it as ObamaCare. Yeah, no bias there whatsoever. :rolleyes:

You're right though, come November we'll see if everyone really thinks Health Care Reform is evil.

It's why you should never pay attention to Rasmussen's polls. Gallup all the way.

[caveBEAR]

healthcare reform is fine. I wanted healthcare reform, America wanted healthcare reform. America just didn't want what his version of reform ended up being AFTER he was elected...dippy.

I'm quite alright with the baby steps made towards Health Care Reform in the face of Republican obstructionism, so I must not be American. :sadangel:

[tfot11]

I hope you never thought the Republicans cared what the American people think either. If they did, we would have gotten reform months earlier and it would have been twice as sweeping and twice as effective. But when a president and congressional candidates run on a platform of health care reform and win by a landslide, you cannot sit there and act as if it's not what voters wanted. You're giving veto power to the pollsters, who rely on an easily-swayed and constantly fluctuating public for their numbers and work an imperfect science. To give an example, 51% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/127598/americans-favor-oppose-arizona-immigration-law.aspx) of responders to a Gallup poll said they approve of Arizona's newest "Juan Crow" law. That doesn't make it any less wrong.

You're absolutely right that we'll see how the country feels about reform come November, but I have a feeling you won't be pleased with the outcome.
For sure, the truth will come out in November. It certainly will be interesting. Until then, its one poll against another, but I don't think it's fair to say that when they country voted Obama in, they had any idea of the complexities, earmarks, and backroom deals that the healthcare reform became. Regardless, you seem fairly smart for being a young'n, keep it up.

[J.C.]

healthcare reform is fine. I wanted healthcare reform, America wanted healthcare reform. America just didn't want what his version of reform ended up being AFTER he was elected...dippy.

Go ahead and tell me the differences between what he proposed pre-election and what he pushed for post-election.

[caveBEAR]

For sure, the truth will come out in November. It certainly will be interesting. Until then, its one poll against another, but I don't think it's fair to say that when they country voted Obama in, they had any idea of the complexities, earmarks, and backroom deals that the healthcare reform became. Regardless, you seem fairly smart for being a young'n, keep it up.

Why would we give a fuck about people who don't understand what happens when you try to make a move politically? I don't ask blind people for art critiques, do you?

[tfot11]

Go ahead and tell me the differences between what he proposed pre-election and what he pushed for post-election.
Go ahead and tell me what it meant then OR now. You have no clue what's in it, neither do I. It was presented as a simple idea at first, it became a mess of earmarks by the end. Congress didn't even come close to reading most of it when they voted.

[J.C.]

Go ahead and tell me what it meant then OR now. You have no clue what's in it, neither do I.

You're the one making the claim, Einstein. It's incumbent upon you to back up your argument. Now answer the question.

It was simple at first, it became a mess of earmarks by the end.

Those are congressional procedures that occur whenever something is going to get passed. The Republicans pushed for the inclusion of plenty of pet projects in the bill, despite having no intention of ever voting for it. Pretending that's a reflection on the President or that's why the American people 'oppose' it is stupid, when those have nothing to do with the actual reforms people will be seeing. You were arguing against the substance of the reform and have yet to explain to me how it differs from what Obama pledged to push for if elected.

[caveBEAR]

Don't you just hate it when your facts and reality don't match up?

[J.C.]

The actual bill isn't too dissimiliar to what the Republicans put forward as a healthcare reform alternative in 1994.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx

[caveBEAR]

The actual bill isn't too dissimiliar to what the Republicans put forward as a healthcare reform alternative in 1994.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx

Well, there is one glaring difference;
what the Republicans put forward

Obviously if a Democrat has the same idea, then the plan needs to be scraped.

[zion the lion]

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/3/a/6/3a65fbad9a981edf5ff7d990597a366a.gi f
Great dancer.

Yes great dancer.

[perceptrons]

Well, there is one glaring difference;


Obviously if a Democrat has the same idea, then the plan needs to be scraped.
That's because their plan didn't include death panels and the injection of socialism, duh.

[tfot11]

You're the one making the claim, Einstein. It's incumbent upon you to back up your argument. Now answer the question.



Those are congressional procedures that occur whenever something is going to get passed. The Republicans pushed for the inclusion of plenty of pet projects in the bill, despite having no intention of ever voting for it. Pretending that's a reflection on the President or that's why the American people 'oppose' it is stupid, when those have nothing to do with the actual reforms people will be seeing. You were arguing against the substance of the reform and have yet to explain to me how it differs from what Obama pledged to push for if elected.

It has become far too big, forcing the goverment to control a huge industry when they can't even run the post office effectively. To keep it simple, it has gone from the idea of offering affordable healthcare to a system involving far too many bureaucrats and red tape. The fact is, it went from a simple idea to a convoluted mess that NOBODY truly understands, not you or I, but...

He is now basically forcing people to buy into it or face a fine, that wasn't the case initially and many people/states find this unconstitutional.
He promised that nobody would lose their doctor for any reason, that's not true with this bill. That is a huge change in the actual reform many people will be seeing.
He promised his reform would not add to the deficit at all, that is clearly untrue.

Why is his family/Congress exepmt from the bill?
Why did he not give Congress as much time to read over it as he said he would?
Why did he not post it online for the people to read it before it was voted on, as he promised?
Why were many important meetings held behind closed doors when he promised they wouldn't be?
Why were both parties not included in all such meetings, as was promised?
Why weren't these meeting broadcasted on CSPAN like he promised?

The initial point of this thread asked opinions on if he has been a good president or not, and to get back to that a little bit, I still say no.

[Gaugzilla]

Obama is not a president. He is a celebrity pretending to be a president.....

Man, you're so edgy.


One last point I want to make: anyone who has trudged through this whole long post should already have surmised that I AM A REPUBLICAN. I am occasionally forced by my parents to watch Fox News and even *shudder* Glenn Beck, and I always try to keep in mind how they're misrepresenting facts. I get my general news from MSNBC and visit factcheck.org every day to learn the truth about these issues. My point is that not all conservatives or Republicans are as ignorant as some make us appear. We are capable of intelligent assessment and recognizing where we disagree on principle and where we disagree for other reasons. Please don't judge us all on the ignorant statements of a few. Anyway, I hope this helps cast a fair picture of his performance.

I don't agree with everything you said, but as a moderate Democrat, I wish there were more Republicans like you.


If you think he's anywhere NEAR the center, you're a fool. The biggest thing he's done (healthcare) was ALL democrats voting yes, and ALL republicans voting no. Cleary, his ideas are nowhere near the center or someone from one of the parties would have swayed the other way, republican or democrat. If you like what he's doing, fine...but if you can't see things for what they are when it's entirely obvious, then you must not be paying attention.

edit:i should stop opening these threads, it's just not worth it, haha.

I'm not saying all Republicans agreed with the health care bill, but if you think all of them voted no because they didn't like it and not because they knew they'd be crucified when November rolls around, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Gaugzilla]

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/3/a/6/3a65fbad9a981edf5ff7d990597a366a.gi f
Great dancer.
For this Obama applauds you.

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1232905584_the%20obama%20family%20d ance.gif

[saysmydoctor]

Why are all of the Political forum regulars being so quick to jump on the less intellegent answers in the thread, but refusing to actually offer their own input? The Centrist Article has been the only worthy read.
Because they're less intelligent answers. This is an intelligent discussion forum. We expect people to come here with either an understanding of the issues or a willingness to learn.
Is there any point in posting if you're going to say this? The thread asked how Obama was doing as a president, not who he was as a person. I'm sure G.W. is very nice guy if you get to know him, he's probably funny and has some killer dance moves, but that doesnt change what anybody is going to really think about his presidency.
Everything you ever say is just naive.
Go ahead and tell me what it meant then OR now. You have no clue what's in it, neither do I. It was presented as a simple idea at first, it became a mess of earmarks by the end. Congress didn't even come close to reading most of it when they voted.
Then what the fuck is the basis of your criticism?
It has become far too big, forcing the goverment to control a huge industry when they can't even run the post office effectively. To keep it simple, it has gone from the idea of offering affordable healthcare to a system involving far too many bureaucrats and red tape. The fact is, it went from a simple idea to a convoluted mess that NOBODY truly understands, not you or I, but...

He is now basically forcing people to buy into it or face a fine, that wasn't the case initially and many people/states find this unconstitutional.
He promised that nobody would lose their doctor for any reason, that's not true with this bill. That is a huge change in the actual reform many people will be seeing.
He promised his reform would not add to the deficit at all, that is clearly untrue.

Why is his family/Congress exepmt from the bill?
Why did he not give Congress as much time to read over it as he said he would?
Why did he not post it online for the people to read it before it was voted on, as he promised?
Why were many important meetings held behind closed doors when he promised they wouldn't be?
Why were both parties not included in all such meetings, as was promised?
Why weren't these meeting broadcasted on CSPAN like he promised?

The initial point of this thread asked opinions on if he has been a good president or not, and to get back to that a little bit, I still say no.
You are citing problems with Congress. Not the President.

Take a civics class. The US Constitution outlines three branches, not one.

[tfot11]

I'm saying I don't know it front to back, as nobody does because it's far too convoluted. I never said I have NO understanding of it...big difference.

And the things I listed were promises made by the president himself, if he couldn't keep those promises or didn't have the power to keep them, he shouldn't have made them. Very simple.

[J.C.]

It has become far too big, forcing the goverment to control a huge industry when they can't even run the post office effectively. To keep it simple, it has gone from the idea of offering affordable healthcare to a system involving far too many bureaucrats and red tape.

Your talking points are absolutely fucking unbearable. Nobody is going through any more bureaucats or red tape than they already did with any insurance company.

He is now basically forcing people to buy into it or face a fine, that wasn't the case initially and many people/states find this unconstitutional.

The Republicans proposed the individual mandate in 1994 and it's a mandate the state of Massachusetts already employs.

You're complaining out of both sides out your mouth. You like the idea of being able to offer everyone affordable healthcare, but you don't want the people who CAN afford it to have to purchase it, when that mechanism is what will make the insurance affordable for everyone. They provided plenty of exemptions for people who can't afford insurance.

He promised that nobody would lose their doctor for any reason, that's not true with this bill. That is a huge change in the actual reform many people will be seeing.

Cite this claim so I have some semblence of an idea on what you're talking about.

He promised his reform would not add to the deficit at all, that is clearly untrue.

Yes, you have a better idea of how this will effect the budget than the CBO does.

Why is his family/Congress exepmt from the bill?

huh

Why did he not give Congress as much time to read over it as he said he would?

Why did he not post it online for the people to read it before it was voted on, as he promised?

I understand they didn't get it posted online before it came up for the vote. I also understand that you're complaining about it being too long for anyone to read while also complaining it wasn't posted for anyone to read. These are all procedural matters that don't have anything to do with the bill's substance.

Why were many important meetings held behind closed doors when he promised they wouldn't be?
Why were both parties not included in all such meetings, as was promised?
Why weren't these meeting broadcasted on CSPAN like he promised?

:yawn:

The initial point of this thread asked opinions on if he has been a good president or not, and to get back to that a little bit, I still say no.

I think the fact you're hung up on issues like whether meetings were held in front of CSPAN cameras and whether they made sure to get a bill posted online 2 days ahead of time is a marked improvement over torture, Cheney's creation of a fourth branch of government, and the litany of other things that went on the 8 years prior that legitimately undermined what this country is supposed to stand for.

[tfot11]

I'm not saying all Republicans agreed with the health care bill, but if you think all of them voted no because they didn't like it and not because they knew they'd be crucified when November rolls around, then I don't know what to tell you.
Do you not think that goes both ways? Are you saying that some democrats didn't fear being ostricized by those in their own party, including the president, if the didnt vote "yes"

[ChaplainTappman]

either you're kidding or clearly need to stop watching getting all you political information from fox,
that being said, obama has done an average job up to this point, the reform on health care could have definitely gone better, and lately i feel that its taken a back seat to more current events like the NPT(which is honestly the first real sign of positive change sign he was sworn into office) and dealing with nuclear capable countries like Iran/Turkey. I think most of the criticism people have of him is that his whole campaign was about "Change we can believe in" and coming into post-bush america, there's a lot that needs to be changed and Obama, up until recently, has been pretty slow in delivering what was promised

and all the stuff about not bringing troops back from Iraq/Afghanistan....june/july 2011, look it up
i can assure you i am not that dumb, i know he's not an anarchist. lololol but yeah im kidding

[zion the lion]

Everything you ever say is just naive.

Yes everything I ever say is naive, everything I say about rape, or psychology, or social stigmas, or racist 19 year olds who attend SUNY anything I ever say will be naive...But I'm sure that grading a president based on his "coolness" instead of his achievements or lack thereof is bullshit, it's not being naive.

You're going lower and lower on my totem poll, you should have shut the fuck up when you said I was ugly because I was black...I would have respected your opinion a tiny bit more if I thought you were just a racist, not a dumbshit too.
p.s. stop quoting me, it will make your life easier.

[BornUnderPunches]

Yes everything I ever say is naive, everything I say about rape, or psychology, or social stigmas, or racist 19 year olds who attend SUNY anything I ever say will be naive...But I'm sure that grading a president based on his "coolness" instead of his achievements or lack thereof is bullshit, it's not being naive.

You're going lower and lower on my totem poll, you should have shut the fuck up when you said I was ugly because I was black...I would have respected your opinion a tiny bit more if I thought you were just a racist, not a dumbshit too.
p.s. stop quoting me, it will make your life easier.
sorry, but threats that he's going lower on somebody's "totem pole" when he has already made it clear that he doesn't like you for whatever reason, isn't really the greatest hate comment ever. Not saying he's better than you in any way, but still.

[zion the lion]

sorry, but threats that he's going lower on somebody's "totem pole" when he has already made it clear that he doesn't like you for whatever reason, isn't really the greatest hate comment ever. Not saying he's better than you in any way, but still.

It's not a hate comment, going lower on my totem poll means I get more annoying...its not so fun.

[BornUnderPunches]

alrighty then...

[thearmistice]

i can assure you i am not that dumb, i know he's not an anarchist. lololol but yeah im kidding

good to know, I go to school at the university of connecticut and a few weeks ago, i went to a lecture that was called "obama: socialism we can believe in," which ended up just being a guy (who had ties to fox news) arguing pretty much the same points you were kidding about

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

good to know, I go to school at the university of connecticut and a few weeks ago, i went to a lecture that was called "obama: socialism we can believe in," which ended up just being a guy (who had ties to fox news) arguing pretty much the same points you were kidding about

For a liberal college, UConn attracts some kooky conservatives. I've seen Ann Coulter there and the Ultimate Warrior came and spoke with homophobic remarks.

[saysmydoctor]

Yes everything I ever say is naive, everything I say about rape, or psychology, or social stigmas, or racist 19 year olds who attend SUNY anything I ever say will be naive...But I'm sure that grading a president based on his "coolness" instead of his achievements or lack thereof is bullshit, it's not being naive.

You're going lower and lower on my totem poll, you should have shut the fuck up when you said I was ugly because I was black...I would have respected your opinion a tiny bit more if I thought you were just a racist, not a dumbshit too.
p.s. stop quoting me, it will make your life easier.
1. No one said anything about his coolness, but his personality plays a great deal into part of what makes Obama an improvement over other options. Personality matters.

2. Cry me a fucking river for all your problems. I don't care. Take that bullshit to the PL forum because neither does anyone else here.

[J.C.]

For a liberal college, UConn attracts some kooky conservatives. I've seen Ann Coulter there and the Ultimate Warrior came and spoke with homophobic remarks.

Coulter got a pie for her troubles.

It was meringue she could believe in.

[The Indigo]

I suppose he's done alright, all things considered.

[ChaplainTappman]

good to know, I go to school at the university of connecticut and a few weeks ago, i went to a lecture that was called "obama: socialism we can believe in," which ended up just being a guy (who had ties to fox news) arguing pretty much the same points you were kidding about
lol thats my standard line when im asked about my political views, sometimes people take me seriously and agree and im just like...."none of that was correct, you have proven yourself to be an idiot, please dont speak to me." but right wing lectures sound bangin'

oh and i got my drivers license in your home apparently (old saybrook)

[thearmistice]

oh and i got my drivers license in your home apparently (old saybrook)

860, rep that shit

[ChaplainTappman]

860, rep that shit
im a 203er (milford) :fly:

[thearmistice]

im a 203er (milford) :fly:

them fightin words, boy

[loveisdead]

I went to college at QU so, 203 ftw.

[ChaplainTappman]

them fightin words, boy
which, coincedentally, are not protected under the 1st amendment.

and i love your sub-username thing, 'fuck lemons', so great

[ChaplainTappman]

I went to college at QU so, 203 ftw.
:wave:

[zion the lion]

1. No one said anything about his coolness, but his personality plays a great deal into part of what makes Obama an improvement over other options. Personality matters.

2. Cry me a fucking river for all your problems. I don't care. Take that bullshit to the PL forum because neither does anyone else here.

You seriously fucking blow my mind. The two guys I quoted said "I dont agree with what he's doing but he's a nice guy I guess" or "he's cool, he's a liberal"...

That doesnt say shit about what he's doing or how he's doing as a president. Personality matters in a popularity contest, but the economy doesnt give a fuck about someone's "coolness level". A man who fucks hookers instead of his wife is a piece of shit in my mind, but if he knows what he's talking about with the economy, I'm going to listen to him and I'm not going to care about his personal life.

Education reform doesnt really care how nice someone is, health care doesnt either, "dont ask dont tell" doesnt care how "cool" someone is either. You can be a nice guy all you want, but if you're a doormat and you cant get shit done, I'm going to consider you a nice little failure.

[saysmydoctor]

You seriously fucking blow my mind. The two guys I quoted said "I dont agree with what he's doing but he's a nice guy I guess" or "he's cool, he's a liberal"...

That doesnt say shit about what he's doing or how he's doing as a president. Personality matters in a popularity contest, but the economy doesnt give a fuck about someone's "coolness level". A man who fucks hookers instead of his wife is a piece of shit in my mind, but if he knows what he's talking about with the economy, I'm going to listen to him and I'm not going to care about his personal life.

Education reform doesnt really care how nice someone is, health care doesnt either, "dont ask dont tell" doesnt care how "cool" someone is either. You can be a nice guy all you want, but if you're a doormat and you cant get shit done, I'm going to consider you a nice little failure.
Do you think you can be a complete asshole and push your agenda through Congress? No. Personality matters. End of story.

Edwards had smart ideas, but he was also a complete clusterfuck of an individual and he was an arrogant asshole. Those aren't good to have in an office as powerful as the US presidency.

Personality matters. Bush was stubborn. Clinton (both of them) are incredibly stubborn and arrogant and believed they were entitled to something. Those are not good qualities to have in the office.

Personality matters. I repeat this just to emphasize how wrong you are. I'm not saying a guy's "coolness" should be a metric, but personality still does matter.

And Obama's being a nice guy actually is part of the reason why I voted for him. He has a genuine passion for the task and though I disagree with a lot of his positions, I still voted for him. And unless a better candidate arises in 2012, I'll vote for him again. His personality is important.

One of these days you'll stop relying on oversimplifications.

[zion the lion]

Do you think you can be a complete asshole and push your agenda through Congress? No. Personality matters. End of story.

Edwards had smart ideas, but he was also a complete clusterfuck of an individual and he was an arrogant asshole. Those aren't good to have in an office as powerful as the US presidency.

Personality matters. Bush was stubborn. Clinton (both of them) are incredibly stubborn and arrogant and believed they were entitled to something. Those are not good qualities to have in the office.

Personality matters. I repeat this just to emphasize how wrong you are. I'm not saying a guy's "coolness" should be a metric, but personality still does matter.

And Obama's being a nice guy actually is part of the reason why I voted for him. He has a genuine passion for the task and though I disagree with a lot of his positions, I still voted for him. And unless a better candidate arises in 2012, I'll vote for him again. His personality is important.

One of these days you'll stop relying on oversimplifications.

Did you have a complete lobotomy? Look at the guys I quoted, then look at the op's question, did they answer him? Nope. All they said was that he was cool or nice "I guess"...which isnt an answer. Look at what I say for what it is, dont look any fucking deeper and you'll see what I'm saying you idiot.

[paper halo]

:popcorn:

[loveisdead]

Getting old. Cut it out.

[<*)))><]

Since when are we not allowed to argue in the politics thread? If people don't like what you say stop responding that simple.

[saysmydoctor]

Did you have a complete lobotomy? Look at the guys I quoted, then look at the op's question, did they answer him? Nope. All they said was that he was cool or nice "I guess"...which isnt an answer. Look at what I say for what it is, dont look any fucking deeper and you'll see what I'm saying you idiot.
Did you? I'm only going by what you posted.

If you don't mean the words you say, don't fucking say them. Now I'm the bad guy for holding you accountable for your own stupid comments.

I'm not saying their comments were okay. I'm saying that your dismissal of personality in politics is stupid. Completely. To say otherwise underlines my belief: that you know nothing about American Politics whatsoever.

Jesus Christ, I called it on page one.

[saysmydoctor]

Since when are we not allowed to argue in the politics thread? If people don't like what you say stop responding that simple.
Pretty sure no one said this.

[<*)))><]

Pretty sure no one said this.
Then how come no one does that?

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Getting old. Cut it out.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BplZ6nMr5cI/Scp8RcJsL6I/AAAAAAAAAes/D9LU52LNjKw/s400/dave-coulier2.jpg

[caveBEAR]

:yawn:

[zion the lion]

Did you? I'm only going by what you posted.

If you don't mean the words you say, don't fucking say them. Now I'm the bad guy for holding you accountable for your own stupid comments.

I'm not saying their comments were okay. I'm saying that your dismissal of personality in politics is stupid. Completely. To say otherwise underlines my belief: that you know nothing about American Politics whatsoever.

Jesus Christ, I called it on page one.

So you decide to attack what I said in response to two other people without ever looking at who I was responding to? Even though I told you to look at them at least twice? You're ridiculous.

I know that the whole cult of personality shit gets you pretty goddamn far, that goes with politics as a whole, I'm not a goddamn idiot. But if all you have on a president's report card is "he's cool" then you might as well not say anything at all.

[caveBEAR]

Alright...can you two wrap this up? You're scaring away all the trolls who want to ramp about socialism and fascism.

[saysmydoctor]

So you decide to attack what I said in response to two other people without ever looking at who I was responding to? Even though I told you to look at them at least twice? You're ridiculous.

I know that the whole cult of personality shit gets you pretty goddamn far, that goes with politics as a whole, I'm not a goddamn idiot. But if all you have on a president's report card is "he's cool" then you might as well not say anything at all.
"I'm not saying their comments are okay"

Reading comprehension.

[perceptrons]

Alright...can you two wrap this up? You're scaring away all the trolls who want to ramp about socialism and fascism.
http://a1.phobos.apple.com/us/r1000/017/Purple/38/45/c0/mzl.uhcrstyk.320x480-75.jpg

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

"I'm not saying their comments are okay"

Reading comprehension.

The girl loves attention. Just ignore her.

[zion the lion]

"I'm not saying their comments are okay"

Reading comprehension.

Dear god in fucking heaven...I didnt say that you said their comments. Can you read what I say before pulling the whole reading comprehension bullshit? Really.

http://a1.phobos.apple.com/us/r1000/017/Purple/38/45/c0/mzl.uhcrstyk.320x480-75.jpg

that's only for sex.

[takenflight]

Please post any evidence of wealth being redistributed. Facts, please, to back up your bullshit hyperbole.


Are u living under a rock, did you read the fine print in the healthcare bill?

The wealth is being re-distributed in the form of more unneccessary social programs.

[takenflight]

WORST.PRESIDENT.EVER.

Definetly a socialist. His Marxist tendencies are sickening. Every hard-working American should be enraged at this a-hole.

[starshine1763]

CHECK OUT OUR SONG "BURN IT"

www.myspace.com/takenflightmusic (http://www.myspace.com/takenflightmusic)

a complete exposure of the socialist pig

Oh dear sweet baby Jesus, your myspace page is fucking hilarious. I'm going to guess it isn't intentionally so, which makes it all the funnier.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

CHECK OUT OUR SONG "BURN IT"

www.myspace.com/takenflightmusic (http://www.myspace.com/takenflightmusic)

a complete exposure of the socialist pig

I'm not going to debate you anymore. I should just inform you that you (as a conservative) are posting on a generally liberal forum. Your opinions and attitudes will not change and neither will ours. This is for your information.

[jwicklun]

WORST.PRESIDENT.EVER.

Definetly a socialist. His Marxist tendencies are sickening. Every hard-working American should be enraged at this a-hole.
they should enraged of the tax cuts they just received. God damn Obama, that Nazi/Communist/socialist/babykiller fiend!

[paper halo]

Alright...can you two wrap this up? You're scaring away all the trolls who want to ramp about socialism and fascism.

WORST.PRESIDENT.EVER.

Definetly a socialist. His Marxist tendencies are sickening. Every hard-working American should be enraged at this a-hole.

That was uncanny.

What a tool. Seriously, is it that hard to just look up definitions of Socialism and Marxism? Especially as economic socialism, which this idiot appears to be bitching about, is seperate from Marxist Socialism.

[Jason Tate]

Are u living under a rock, did you read the fine print in the healthcare bill?

The wealth is being re-distributed in the form of more unneccessary social programs.
All the print on the healthcare bill is the same size.

Health care is unnecessary?

[Jason Tate]

WORST.PRESIDENT.EVER.

Definetly a socialist. His Marxist tendencies are sickening. Every hard-working American should be enraged at this a-hole.
Did you mean: Definitely (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=VIJ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&ei=WPLeS-yLMYWStgPyzsWoBg&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAcQBSgA&q=Definitely&spell=1)

[caveBEAR]

That was uncanny.

:bow: Just like the X-Men.

[Machu505]

I'd like some details about these Marxist tendencies. Last time I checked, private property has yet to be abolished.

[saysmydoctor]

It's public sector-provided healthcare. It's exactly the model Marx outlined in his most famous text, "Reverse Psychology."

[GeeBee]

Are u living under a rock, did you read the fine print in the healthcare bill?

The wealth is being re-distributed in the form of more unneccessary social programs.

Way to prove my point with: an insult, a vague reference, and hyperbolic soundbyte nonsense.

I asked for specifics, douchewaffle. Turn off your AM radio for five seconds and give some to me.

[Juan Jose]

i don't agree with his policies so no matter what he does he'll be a fail to me. but I don't like the fact that he has promised a lot to different groups and doesn't deliver.

[caveBEAR]

i don't agree with his policies so no matter what he does he'll be a fail to me. but I don't like the fact that he has promised a lot to different groups and doesn't deliver.

What policies don't you like?

What groups did he make promises to?

What were those promises?

[zion the lion]

What policies don't you like?

What groups did he make promises to?

What were those promises?

Oh hello Mr. Dont Ask Dont Tell...how have you been lately?

[paper halo]

What policies don't you like?

What groups did he make promises to?

What were those promises?

Dude, he's a fail. You can't argue with that.

[caveBEAR]

Oh hello Mr. Dont Ask Dont Tell...how have you been lately?

I'm doing alright. Employed again, so my world has righted itself. How about you?

[caveBEAR]

Dude, he's a fail. You can't argue with that.

Total fail. I mean, all those things he's done. And that stuff he didn't do. Remember back in '08? All that junk he was talking about?

Obama? More like Ofail, amirite?!

[zion the lion]

I'm doing alright. Employed again, so my world has righted itself. How about you?

Well, I'm pissed at you, other than that, I'm good. Not in the Air Force, but good.

[paper halo]

Total fail. I mean, all those things he's done. And that stuff he didn't do. Remember back in '08? All that junk he was talking about?

Obama? More like Ofail, amirite?!

Vote for change? More like vote for fail! :highfive:

...I should really sleep.

[Juan Jose]

What policies don't you like?

What groups did he make promises to?

What were those promises?

I don't agree with government provided healthcare (or any welfare program for that matter), increased taxes on certain tax brackets, continued affirmative action, or giving foreign aid to other countries and free trade agreements

And the promises he made about repealing "don't ask don't tell" or about immigration reform, so far he's stalled on both and that affects gays and hispanics (i personally don't feel to strongly about this as a hispanic person but it's an issue that's pretty important to other hispanics)

[caveBEAR]

I don't agree with government provided healthcare (or any welfare program for that matter), increased taxes on certain tax brackets, continued affirmative action, or giving foreign aid to other countries and free trade agreements

Which tax brackets? The people on the bottom?

And the promises he made about repealing "don't ask don't tell" or about immigration reform, so far he's stalled on both and that affects gays and hispanics (i personally don't feel to strongly about this as a hispanic person but it's an issue that's pretty important to other hispanics)

Aaah, I see. You don't understand how it works in Washington. Got it. You do realize that Obama can't just reform things out of thin air right? You need to have two parties working together, and that's not happening.

[J.C.]

I don't agree with government provided healthcare

Yeah, I don't want to look up and find Chuck Schumer or Saxby Chambliss operating on me.

[Juan Jose]

Which tax brackets? The people on the bottom?



Aaah, I see. You don't understand how it works in Washington. Got it. You do realize that Obama can't just reform things out of thin air right? You need to have two parties working together, and that's not happening.

Higher tax brackets, i don't agree with raising taxes on any groups rich or poor.

Obviously things won't happen out of thin air but you can't put things off for "a better time", we live in a two party system, polarization of views is practically guaranteed that's why you compromise on things. like healthcare, it took a year for that to finally be passed and it's been modified from what he originally planned but there's no way it would've passed in its original form so you take what you can get

[caveBEAR]

this

He was fucking with you.

[rawesome]

I don't agree with government provided healthcare
I'm sure I already know your answer, but why not?
(or any welfare program for that matter),
This reform is in no way welfare, and again, why not?
increased taxes on certain tax brackets,
This is silly, because I assume you mean the upper-class tax hikes. You do realize, for one thing, nearly any economist will tell you that if the super wealthy pay just a slightly higher tax rate as it is, the country will make back a ton of money and it will greatly benefit everyone. Also, as it is for the most part, most rich people actually pay less taxes than the poor based on percentages.
continued affirmative action,
In a country that is now encouraging racial profiling, I think AA is pretty necessary. As is, do you think that this is a useless policy in general, or just in the modern day?
or giving foreign aid to other countries and free trade agreements
The first part of this clause is the reason why people hate us, just so you know. What issues do you take with trying to strengthen our political ties and increase economic flow? Do you also hate that countries like Britain came to our aid and jumped into the Iraq War to support us? Should I call Gordon Brown and ask him to withdraw his troops (which I'm sure his constituents would appreciate) because we're not a country that supports giving aid to other countries?

And the promises he made about repealing "don't ask don't tell" or about immigration reform, so far he's stalled on both and that affects gays and hispanics (i personally don't feel to strongly about this as a hispanic person but it's an issue that's pretty important to other hispanics)
You're right.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

this

Yea, seriously Jay Jay... he was fucking with you.

[<*)))><]

I'm sure I already know your answer, but why not?



This is silly, because I assume you mean the upper-class tax hikes. You do realize, for one thing, nearly any economist will tell you that if the super wealthy pay just a slightly higher tax rate as it is, the country will make back a ton of money and it will greatly benefit everyone. Also, as it is for the most part, most rich people actually pay less taxes than the poor based on percentages.



You're right.
Wrong, most people who supply jobs are wealthy so if they have more money they can make more jobs, so they can gain even more money. The only economist who I can think who would support that would be Paul Krugman but is mostly a textbook writer.

[rawesome]

Wrong, most people who supply jobs are wealthy so if they have more money they can make more jobs, so they can gain even more money. The only economist who I can think who would support that would be Paul Krugman but is mostly a textbook writer.
Wait...what?

[Juan Jose]

Yea, seriously Jay Jay... he was fucking with you.

im on my droid so i misread the tiny font and yea... massive fail

[<*)))><]

Wait...what?
No economist or real economist supports raising taxes.

[rawesome]

No economist or real economist supports raising taxes.
Were you saying that by raising taxes 2-3% the rich suddenly would cease to be rich?

[Jason Tate]

No economist or real economist supports raising taxes.
False. So false. Just ridiculously untrue.

[<*)))><]

Were you saying that by raising taxes 2-3% the rich suddenly would cease to be rich?
They would just care 7.3% less to work harder.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

im on my droid so i misread the tiny font and yea... massive fail

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/129170613646194400.jpg

[rawesome]

No economist or real economist supports raising taxes.
Also, from Adam Smith (you know, the guy we base our economic system on):

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

[rawesome]

They would just care 7.3% less to work harder.
What?

[Juan Jose]

I'm sure I already know your answer, but why not?

This reform is in no way welfare, and again, why not?

This is silly, because I assume you mean the upper-class tax hikes. You do realize, for one thing, nearly any economist will tell you that if the super wealthy pay just a slightly higher tax rate as it is, the country will make back a ton of money and it will greatly benefit everyone. Also, as it is for the most part, most rich people actually pay less taxes than the poor based on percentages.

In a country that is now encouraging racial profiling, I think AA is pretty necessary. As is, do you think that this is a useless policy in general, or just in the modern day?

The first part of this clause is the reason why people hate us, just so you know. What issues do you take with trying to strengthen our political ties and increase economic flow? Do you also hate that countries like Britain came to our aid and jumped into the Iraq War to support us? Should I call Gordon Brown and ask him to withdraw his troops (which I'm sure his constituents would appreciate) because we're not a country that supports giving aid to other countries?


You're right.

lol well what do you think my answer is? and about the tax hikes it's because I believe in frugal government and I feel that taxing people higher rates isn't fair, i know they make more money but still its not equal treatment. And yea I think AA is useless and i dont want to get to into it but it's harmful to minorities in some ways. I have no issues with building ties but I feel that right now the U.S. is in no position to be helping other countries when it's in some deep shit right now. I feel like I'm coming off very naive/stupid in these posts lol but my political ideas are way more complex than I think i'm showing right now in this thread but I think it'd take too long to explain everything.

[<*)))><]

Also, from Adam Smith (you know, the guy we base our economic system on):
Because things 350 years are exactly like today. Back then not many people owned homes today is just under 50% that own homes. I'm not saying that the rich shouldn't pay their fair share of taxes if not a little bit more. But the group that is being taxed unfairly is the 100,000 to about 300,000 yearly income. Seeing as they are the people who tend to eat out most, get a cleaning service, vacations and all that other stuff the American economy is based today on. If we were still in a manufacturing economy like what Adam Smith is talking about then yes, I agree with you raise taxes would be best. Oh also raise taxes on every driving a Ferrari, because if you can afford one you have to much money.

[rawesome]

lol well what do you think my answer is? and about the tax hikes it's because I believe in frugal government and I feel that taxing people higher rates isn't fair, i know they make more money but still its not equal treatment. And yea I think AA is useless and i dont want to get to into it but it's harmful to minorities in some ways. I have no issues with building ties but I feel that right now the U.S. is in no position to be helping other countries when it's in some deep shit right now. I feel like I'm coming off very naive/stupid in these posts lol but my political ideas are way more complex than I think i'm showing right now in this thread but I don't think it'd take too long to explain everything.
I assume your answer will be something about government not being able to do anything right and waiting lines and spending a lot of money. None of which is really true because A. plenty of government programs work just fine and people just trot out the failed experiments to prove a point, often neglecting all of the good. B. The only reason there are waiting lines in Canada is because either an emergency operation takes precedent over something that can wait or they are lacking in specialists in a certain area. We have plenty of specialists in the U.S., which is why Canadians come here in the first place, and the other part is really as it should be. Finally, C, if a government run health care program is subsidized by having people buy in, it doesn't change anything and works like any insurance company and if it is single-payer the cost is covered in taxes and most middle-class families end up with more money in their pockets because they don't have to spend immense amounts on insurance.

Frugal government doesn't have anything to do with tax rates. And, as I stated, the rich typically pay less taxes than the middle-class and poor, under the faulty assumptions that other guy made that it will somehow keep them rich (because they are in such danger of losing their money). Is that fair?

I agree that AA doesn't have a place in a modern society, but it was necessary when it initially began. Also, how is it damaging to minorities?

I would hope, considering we're in "deep shit," other countries would be willing to come to our aid if we need it. If we still have money to be fighting two wars, I think we can spare some resources to help abysmally poor nations who have just had their entire world destroyed.

[rawesome]

Because things 350 years are exactly like today. Back then not many people owned homes today is just under 50% that own homes. I'm not saying that the rich shouldn't pay their fair share of taxes if not a little bit more. But the group that is being taxed unfairly is the 100,000 to about 300,000 yearly income. Seeing as they are the people who tend to eat out most, get a cleaning service, vacations and all that other stuff the American economy is based today on. If we were still in a manufacturing economy like what Adam Smith is talking about then yes, I agree with you raise taxes would be best. Oh also raise taxes on every driving a Ferrari, because if you can afford one you have to much money.
That's a fair point. However, I would really consider that bracket to be upper-middle class, as opposed to rich. Maybe not the higher end, but the $100,000 range, at least.

I think the bigger issue is a hunger for tax cuts than tax increases, though. If people left it at a sustainable level, things would normally be alright, maybe with necessary smaller increases to the upper 1-2% occasionally. It's the fact that every Republican candidate runs a platform on cutting taxes (which they then MUST do) that causes issues, because they are also cutting Federal revenue which I've never understood the desire for, you know, the Federal government to do.

[<*)))><]

I assume your answer will be something about government not being able to do anything right and waiting lines and spending a lot of money. None of which is really true because A. plenty of government programs work just fine and people just trot out the failed experiments to prove a point, often neglecting all of the good. B. The only reason there are waiting lines in Canada is because either an emergency operation takes precedent over something that can wait or they are lacking in specialists in a certain area. We have plenty of specialists in the U.S., which is why Canadians come here in the first place, and the other part is really as it should be. Finally, C, if a government run health care program is subsidized by having people buy in, it doesn't change anything and works like any insurance company and if it is single-payer the cost is covered in taxes and most middle-class families end up with more money in their pockets because they don't have to spend immense amounts on insurance.

Frugal government doesn't have anything to do with tax rates. And, as I stated, the rich typically pay less taxes than the middle-class and poor, under the faulty assumptions that other guy made that it will somehow keep them rich (because they are in such danger of losing their money). Is that fair?

I agree that AA doesn't have a place in a modern society, but it was necessary when it initially began. Also, how is it damaging to minorities?

I would hope, considering we're in "deep shit," other countries would be willing to come to our aid if we need it. If we still have money to be fighting two wars, I think we can spare some resources to help abysmally poor nations who have just had their entire world destroyed.

Government does seem to do everything pretty half ass, one of my favorite example is the farming bureau where they have about 20,000 bureaucrats yet their are only 4,000 farmers, most of which residents are in major cities. Next a reason they don't have many specialist in canada is because of the difficulty to get the specialty and none of the reward. We have a lot of specialized doctors because they want to make a lot of $$$, so we can assume less people will go to medical school. Then the next point is pretty fair but what do you consider the middle class? According to the first Google search I found it is considered people with 100,000 in income which are also the people who will be getting the tax raise. But we will see how this thing turns out because isn't health care not coming for like another 4 years or something crazy like that?

[<*)))><]

That's a fair point. However, I would really consider that bracket to be upper-middle class, as opposed to rich. Maybe not the higher end, but the $100,000 range, at least.

I think the bigger issue is a hunger for tax cuts than tax increases, though. If people left it at a sustainable level, things would normally be alright, maybe with necessary smaller increases to the upper 1-2% occasionally. It's the fact that every Republican candidate runs a platform on cutting taxes (which they then MUST do) that causes issues, because they are also cutting Federal revenue which I've never understood the desire for, you know, the Federal government to do.
The idea behind tax cutting is that people now have more money, so therefore they spend more. Then sneaky government makes more money actually by collect on what people buy. Now you are probably also thinking what if people are scared to spend because of an unsure time, lets say during a repression, people also won't be buying stock because that is to risky. So what is left for people do with their extra money, buy government bonds and now the government made us feel good about giving them money. So they take our money no matter what.

Edit: I like how you facts and not opinion to make a point, and does Juan Jose hate Hispanics or am I reading it wrong?

[Juan Jose]

I assume your answer will be something about government not being able to do anything right and waiting lines and spending a lot of money. None of which is really true because A. plenty of government programs work just fine and people just trot out the failed experiments to prove a point, often neglecting all of the good. B. The only reason there are waiting lines in Canada is because either an emergency operation takes precedent over something that can wait or they are lacking in specialists in a certain area. We have plenty of specialists in the U.S., which is why Canadians come here in the first place, and the other part is really as it should be. Finally, C, if a government run health care program is subsidized by having people buy in, it doesn't change anything and works like any insurance company and if it is single-payer the cost is covered in taxes and most middle-class families end up with more money in their pockets because they don't have to spend immense amounts on insurance.

Frugal government doesn't have anything to do with tax rates. And, as I stated, the rich typically pay less taxes than the middle-class and poor, under the faulty assumptions that other guy made that it will somehow keep them rich (because they are in such danger of losing their money). Is that fair?

I agree that AA doesn't have a place in a modern society, but it was necessary when it initially began. Also, how is it damaging to minorities?

I would hope, considering we're in "deep shit," other countries would be willing to come to our aid if we need it. If we still have money to be fighting two wars, I think we can spare some resources to help abysmally poor nations who have just had their entire world destroyed.

No thats not my reasoning, I feel like that excuse is overused by a lot of people
The Frugal thing has to do with what you said about the country getting more money by taxing the rich higher rates, my reasoning is that there should be lower taxes for everyone and that the government shouldn't be spending so much that it needs to be raising taxes on anyone but I think that right now taxes do need to be raised to pay off the deficit, but my ideal is low taxes.
AA is damaging because it's patronizing to minorities, it basically sets the bar lower for them and it makes some think that things will always be easier just because they're black/hispanic, and it reinforces this idea among people who don't benefit from AA that minorities need that handicap to succeed. this is from personal experience
The thing is we don't have the money, we're wasting it on the wars and we're accumulating a huge debt, I'm all for helping other less fortunate countries but I feel that until the Govt. stabilizes things here at home we shouldn't be worrying about other countries, we have enough problems as it is

[Jason Tate]

Because things 350 years are exactly like today. Back then not many people owned homes today is just under 50% that own homes. I'm not saying that the rich shouldn't pay their fair share of taxes if not a little bit more. But the group that is being taxed unfairly is the 100,000 to about 300,000 yearly income. Seeing as they are the people who tend to eat out most, get a cleaning service, vacations and all that other stuff the American economy is based today on. If we were still in a manufacturing economy like what Adam Smith is talking about then yes, I agree with you raise taxes would be best. Oh also raise taxes on every driving a Ferrari, because if you can afford one you have to much money.
Holy shit - go take an econ course.

[Jason Tate]

No thats not my reasoning, I feel like that excuse is overused by a lot of people
The Frugal thing has to do with what you said about the country getting more money by taxing the rich higher rates, my reasoning is that there should be lower taxes for everyone and that the government shouldn't be spending so much that it needs to be raising taxes on anyone but I think that right now taxes do need to be raised to pay off the deficit, but my ideal is low taxes.
AA is damaging because it's patronizing to minorities, it basically sets the bar lower for them and it makes some think that things will always be easier just because they're black/hispanic, and it reinforces this idea among people who don't benefit from AA that minorities need that handicap to succeed. this is from personal experience
The thing is we don't have the money, we're wasting it on the wars and we're accumulating a huge debt, I'm all for helping other less fortunate countries but I feel that until the Govt. stabilizes things here at home we shouldn't be worrying about other countries, we have enough problems as it is
Where should the government cut spending? Can you give an example of 4 or 5 places.

[<*)))><]

Where should the government cut spending? Can you give an example of 4 or 5 places.
http://www.s-a-f-e.org/government_spending.htm They got a bunch.

[Jason Tate]

http://www.s-a-f-e.org/government_spending.htm They got a bunch.
No they don't.

Don't google something and copy and paste it without reading it.

[<*)))><]

No they don't.

Don't google something and copy and paste it without reading it.
WHERE TO CUT – DISCRETIONAL SPENDING
Unnecessary government programs should be eliminated, such as agricultural subsidies, “corporate welfare,” and tax credits for favored industries. These programs do not serve the interests of the general public, and the beneficiaries do not need government support. Agricultural subsidies primarily benefit big agribusinesses and wealthy landowners, for example, while driving up food prices for all Americans.
Another problem is duplication. Federal programs often have overlapping objectives, resulting in “turf wars” and/or unnecessary costs to ensure coordination, e.g., several different agencies have been involved in water resources development. The solution is to pick the best programs and terminate the rest.
Federal grant programs should be eliminated, with the functions involved being left to state & local governments or the private sector. Some $426 billion in federal grants were paid in 2005, ranging from $186 billion for the federal share of Medicaid and the $71 billon cost of the Department of Education (mostly grants) to 50 different grant programs for the homeless in eight federal agencies.
What is wrong with grant programs? They encourage overspending for the stated grant purposes, foster the growth of federal, state and local bureaucracies to document compliance with federal mandates, and reduce the flexibility and innovation of recipients.
Is there truly some reason to believe, for instance, that the states, school districts, teachers, and parents of this country cannot be trusted to determine how our young people should be educated?
For more about cuts in discretional programs, see Downsizing the Federal Government (http://www.s-a-f-e.org/downsizing_government.htm). (http://www.s-a-f-e.org/downsizing_government.htm)
WHERE TO CUT – ENTITLEMENTS
As already noted, over half of the federal budget currently goes for “entitlements” (Social Security, Medicare, the federal share of Medicaid,etc,) and these programs will continue to grow rapidly unless corrective action is taken. What should be done?
#Permit younger workers to use the payroll taxes that they pay for Social Security to set up individual retirement accounts in lieu of traditional retirement benefits, which would help keep the system solvent and make it far more equitable. See Social Security (http://www.s-a-f-e.org/social_security.htm). (http://www.s-a-f-e.org/social_security.htm)
#Restructure Medicare and Medicaid. No one wants to oppose healthcare for people who need it, but there is no escaping the fact that the escalation of medical costs has been fueled by government policies that cut the perceived linkage between the consumption of medical services and the payment for them. To make things better, this linkage must be restored – which means reducing government control over the healthcare marketplace, not further increasing it. (There are already 100,000 pages of Medicare regulations, and what good have they done?).
Good night

[Jason Tate]

Good night
:hitself:

[LastDeclaration]

Quotes from other people in the lounge as I am reading this thread (didn't even bring Obama up - purely coincidental):

"Well, Obama's going to be shot before his four years are up, so he won't be able to do too much more damage."

"Fuck yeah, just gimme a gun man, just gimme a gun."

"Supporting this health care bill has nothing to do with what your beliefs are; it just boils down to 'are you a socialist?'"

"Obama obviously doesn't give a shit about what's good for America. Have you seen him bowing to all those fucking chinks?'"

"My parents are probably gonna move to Canada now that this bill passed, and if I wasn't already in college here I'd be going with them."

[takenflight]

All the print on the healthcare bill is the same size.

Health care is unnecessary?


Health insurance is not a right, it is a privelage. You can't be refused at the emergency room, so its not like people will die if they don't have insurance. In each state, if you cannot get health insurance, the state provides insurance plans for those in the "high risk" pool. The problem is people don't want to pay the money for those plans & they are not widely accepted because they are government run & don't pay providers much...which is what will happen once they try to cut profit margines for insurance companies & doctors....AGAIN

If you think "healthcare" is a right, than maybe food should be a "right"?

Perhaps grocery stores & farmers should be non-profit?
Heck, you have to eat to live, so why don't we just socialize the food industry,lol....

My examples of more social programs is the health bill. Basically people who are smart, save their money, eat right, use preventive measures to ensure they don't get sick, will pay penalities for not buying insurance plans they cannot afford, so that those sick, irressponsible people who would rather have 3 flat screen tv's, eat loads of twinkies, etc. can get health insurance because they can no longer be denied for pre-exisiting conditions. Thier premiusm will be lowered, the people on employer plans who are WORKING & EARNING their insurance will see their premiums increase to FUND the others.

That is socialism. Socialism has always lead to communism.

Does the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ring a bell?


How do you think doctors will react when they are being paid even LESS than Medicare rates in a few years to accept these plans because the insurance companies can no longer underwrite? They will go on strike like they did in Eastern Europe during Communism. Get used to long waiting lines for a doctor.

Be careful what you wish for.

And for the last time, I am a Moderate. I am socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

[paper halo]

:hitself: I don't think I can bring myself to respond to that.

[kofiadrian]

:hitself: I don't think I can bring myself to respond to that.



Politics sure do bring out the idiocies in others.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Quotes from other people in the lounge as I am reading this thread (didn't even bring Obama up - purely coincidental):

"Well, Obama's going to be shot before his four years are up, so he won't be able to do too much more damage."

"Fuck yeah, just gimme a gun man, just gimme a gun."

"Supporting this health care bill has nothing to do with what your beliefs are; it just boils down to 'are you a socialist?'"

"Obama obviously doesn't give a shit about what's good for America. Have you seen him bowing to all those fucking chinks?'"

"My parents are probably gonna move to Canada now that this bill passed, and if I wasn't already in college here I'd be going with them."

The ironic thing is that Obama has actually increased gun owner's rights since taking office.

[caveBEAR]

If you think "healthcare" is a right, than maybe food should be a "right"?

Uh...yes.

And for the last time, I am a Moderate. I am socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

I'm a Unicorn!

See? People can say they are anything they want, doesn't make it true. What you seem to be is uneducated, but who knows. Maybe you were high or hitting the bottle when you wrote that draft up.

[Jason Tate]

:hitself: I don't think I can bring myself to respond to that.
It's not worth my time. It's the same stuff said every time ... it's so old by now. I can't take anyone screaming anything about socialism seriously.

[Juan Jose]

:hitself:

lol well just to add that that list. I would say the evacuation of U.S. troops from bases abroad, the government spends a lot of money to maintain those bases and they cause tension in some places populations in those countries.
Idk why I'm even answering b/c you're most likely gonna shit on my response but yea w/e

[Jason Tate]

lol well just to add that that list. I would say the evacuation of U.S. troops from bases abroad, the government spends a lot of money to maintain those bases and they cause tension in some places populations in those countries.
Idk why I'm even answering b/c you're most likely gonna shit on my response but yea w/e
Most basing overseas is paid for by the host country. And the American troops would be paid and maintained wherever they were.

It's a small number % wise.

That said: I'm completely fine closing 95% of the bases. HOWEVER, I also know cutting military/defense spending is political suicide.

[paper halo]

It's not worth my time. It's the same stuff said every time ... it's so old by now. I can't take anyone screaming anything about socialism seriously.

Maybe it'd be worth someone creating a standard 'idiot's guide to socialism', to be copy pasted into threads like this. It's too much effort trying to explain why these fools are so immensely wrong every time.

[rawesome]

Health insurance is not a right, it is a privelage. You can't be refused at the emergency room, so its not like people will die if they don't have insurance. In each state, if you cannot get health insurance, the state provides insurance plans for those in the "high risk" pool. The problem is people don't want to pay the money for those plans & they are not widely accepted because they are government run & don't pay providers much...which is what will happen once they try to cut profit margines for insurance companies & doctors....AGAIN

If you think "healthcare" is a right, than maybe food should be a "right"?

Perhaps grocery stores & farmers should be non-profit?
Heck, you have to eat to live, so why don't we just socialize the food industry,lol....

My examples of more social programs is the health bill. Basically people who are smart, save their money, eat right, use preventive measures to ensure they don't get sick, will pay penalities for not buying insurance plans they cannot afford, so that those sick, irressponsible people who would rather have 3 flat screen tv's, eat loads of twinkies, etc. can get health insurance because they can no longer be denied for pre-exisiting conditions. Thier premiusm will be lowered, the people on employer plans who are WORKING & EARNING their insurance will see their premiums increase to FUND the others.

That is socialism. Socialism has always lead to communism.

Does the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ring a bell?


How do you think doctors will react when they are being paid even LESS than Medicare rates in a few years to accept these plans because the insurance companies can no longer underwrite? They will go on strike like they did in Eastern Europe during Communism. Get used to long waiting lines for a doctor.

Be careful what you wish for.

And for the last time, I am a Moderate. I am socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_04/preggersDM2510_468x618.jpg

[Jason Tate]

Maybe it'd be worth someone creating a standard 'idiot's guide to socialism', to be copy pasted into threads like this. It's too much effort trying to explain why these fools are so immensely wrong every time.
I guess I just need something besides "it's socialism" to be a determining factor to me ... most the time it's "well, no it's not" coupled with "even if it was - so what" - and then a fresh sprinkling of "so are X, Y, and Z that you use on a daily basis and we haven't succumbed to the red plague yet."

[paper halo]

I guess I just need something besides "it's socialism" to be a determining factor to me ... most the time it's "well, no it's not" coupled with "even if it was - so what" - and then a fresh sprinkling of "so are X, Y, and Z that you use on a daily basis and we haven't succumbed to the red plague yet."

I just find people ranting about a subject they clearly know woefully little about to be infuriating. Examples include: not understanding basic differences between market socialism and Marxist socialism; using communism and socialism as interchangable terms; referencing Soviet Russia/Maoist China as examples of socialism/communism, when they are, in fact, examples of Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism.

The guy above ticked all of these boxes.

[caveBEAR]

I just find people ranting about a subject they clearly know woefully little about to be infuriating. Examples include: not understanding basic differences between market socialism and Marxist socialism; using communism and socialism as interchangable terms; referencing Soviet Russia/Maoist China as examples of socialism/communism, when they are, in fact, examples of Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism.

The guy above ticked all of these boxes.

Don't forget the popular 'Obama's a communist and a fascist!' Always a classic.

[loveisdead]

Don't forget the popular 'Obama's a communist and a fascist!' Always a classic.

That's my favorite.

[caveBEAR]

That's my favorite.

The man's just full of opposites. For instance, he's black and white. So, logically, he could also be fascist and a communist!

IT'S SCIENCE!

[thursday727]

I don't know why you people think anything will change. He's just another president out of the false left-right paradigm serving the corporate interest before our interests.

[thursday727]

The fact that he headed the un security council is breaking the constitution and illegal.
A President cannot serve any type of govermental organization other than america.

Article I, Section 9.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State

[Animalhill]

The fact that he headed the un security council is breaking the constitution and illegal.
A President cannot serve any type of govermental organization other an america.

Article I, Section 9.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State
*grabs pitchfork and runs towards D.C*

[Jason Tate]

The fact that he headed the un security council is breaking the constitution and illegal.
A President cannot serve any type of govermental organization other than america.

Article I, Section 9.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State
Yeah, being the head of the council is not "accept[ing] of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

[caveBEAR]

Yeah, being the head of the council is not "accept[ing] of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

The UN isn't it's own nation? But it's got 'nation' right there in the title! Hmm, learn something new everyday.

[figments]

We elected a brand for president. We might as well have put a coca-cola tin in the White House.

[J.C.]

wut

[Animalhill]

We elected a brand for president. We might as well have put a coca-cola tin in the White House.
...:-|

[Machu505]

Cynical statement expressing an uninformed and uncreative opinion.

[figments]

Obama just used the tactics of truly revolutionary politics, the same way commercials steal the tactics of the truly revolutionary. He was advertised, a product, and we bought him. He might as well be on a coke tin.

[figments]

Cynical statement expressing an uninformed and uncreative opinion.

YUP.

[open mind]

i haven't been all that impressed.
On major issues (excluding healthcare) obama has mostly done harm reduction and rebranding of bush policies....but i didn't really expect much more then that.

[Manicapathy]

Obama just used the tactics of truly revolutionary politics, the same way commercials steal the tactics of the truly revolutionary. He was advertised, a product, and we bought him. He might as well be on a coke tin.

I am immediately reminded of this.

6n1vtZR16RY

and this

7mSE-Iy_tFY

[Animalhill]

Obama just used the tactics of truly revolutionary politics, the same way commercials steal the tactics of the truly revolutionary. He was advertised, a product, and we bought him. He might as well be on a coke tin.
I wouldn't single him out. As a general rule, Americans tend to prefer the image or idea of something more than the thing itself... like freedom.

[figments]

I am immediately reminded of this.

6n1vtZR16RY

and this

7mSE-Iy_tFY

That last one is so appropriate.

(That miracle whip commercial imitates the entire Obama campaign)

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Obama just used the tactics of truly revolutionary politics, the same way commercials steal the tactics of the truly revolutionary. He was advertised, a product, and we bought him. He might as well be on a coke tin.

Not sure what your political stances are, but the same could be said for alot of elected officials. Palin quit her job and branded herself. For a 6-figure fee, she will show up to your event and shout out Energy!!!! Tax!!!! Lift American Spirits!!!!!!!!

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Obama just used the tactics of truly revolutionary politics, the same way commercials steal the tactics of the truly revolutionary. He was advertised, a product, and we bought him. He might as well be on a coke tin.

Who cares?

Every politician is a brand and marketed that way. There is a Republican BRAND, a Democratic BRAND. It’s called modern marketing. It’s how they get their ideas position and values out to public. Why should anyone be penalized for how they present their ideas and plans? It’s the substance (the idea and plans) that matter. That’s how you fucking win an election, by persuading more people to vote for you than the other guy.

Get the fuck over it.

If you are not going to like the guy at least pick at the substance, his positions and ideas. You know the shit that matters, not this Red Herring bullshit

Every politician is a brand, every politician is a celebrity. Get over it and come up with better ideas and positions.

[perceptrons]

Cynicism bums me out. I always think of Conan when people are all cynical.

[figments]

Who cares?

Every politician is a brand and marketed that way. There is a Republican BRAND, a Democratic BRAND. It’s called modern marketing. It’s how they get their ideas position and values out to public. Why should anyone be penalized for how they present their ideas and plans? It’s the substance (the idea and plans) that matter. That’s how you fucking win an election, by persuading more people to vote for you than the other guy.

Get the fuck over it.

If you are not going to like the guy at least pick at the substance, his positions and ideas. You know the shit that matters, not this Red Herring bullshit

Every politician is a brand, every politician is a celebrity. Get over it and come up with better ideas and positions.

What a punk!

[GeeBee]

Cynicism bums me out. I always think of Conan when people are all cynical.

I can agree to a certain point, however, I think too often, realism gets confused for cynicism. I'd rather be occasionally pleasantly surprised than disappointed often.

[GeeBee]

Not sure what your political stances are, but the same could be said for alot of elected officials. Palin quit her job and branded herself. For a 6-figure fee, she will show up to your event and shout out Energy!!!! Tax!!!! Lift American Spirits!!!!!!!!

She also keeps winking and offering me to bet...me.

[jetblack1231]

he's not that good...not horrible, but not good.

but the important question here is: is he keynesian?

gBrHkxqNT7s

[IceAge/HeatWave]

he isn't bad, but he's been no where near as productive as he could/ should be. the healthcare bill, while a small step in the right direction, was too watered down to get the system where it should be. the financial reform legislation was small in comparison to where it should be. and while most of his staff and advisor appointments have brought forward some individuals that i rather like (i've always been a rahm fan), he has left way too many people from the bush administration in around (geithner, summers, bernanke come to mind).

hopefully he gets a bit bolder in the last half of this first term. its hard to encourage that, though, when the ADD public opinion is against him. we shall see.

[J.C.]

Geithner and Summers were not in the Bush administration.

[BreatheRight]

:popcorn:

I'm hoping this thread will supply tonight's entertainment.


you're pretty annoying lol.

Never any real info to input huh.

[BreatheRight]

he's been given the blame for everything that happened a year before he took office. whenever something bad happens, he seems extremely calm in the sense that he doesn't just go press the red button, but finds a way to workit out peacefully, and as far as I've seen it's gone pretty well so far. It's the stupid Conservatives with the freakin Tea Party that think he's a terrorist. People were enraged that a group of grade school kids sang a song about him because they said he was brainwashing them...biggest sore losers ever.
thats just my opinion on the last year, don't follow politics that much but that's what I have seen


Yes, someone who actually knows what they're talking about, somewhat.
Tea-Baggers are insane.

[BreatheRight]

Actually, he's no different than Bush. They are both spending our money at will and he hasn't really done much except increase troops in Afghanistan (which is logical/what JCS recommend).


No different than bush.. except the fact he inherited a fucked up war? didn't start it on false preteneses?
If you think our troops still being in afghanistan is logical, than your mind-set is illogical, and scary stupid.
Do you know how much money is spent in the war every month, that we could be using to better OUR country?

[caveBEAR]

you're pretty annoying lol.

Feeling's mutual.

Never any real info to input huh.

Ha ha ha, sure.
:rolleyes:

[BreatheRight]

Feeling's mutual.



Ha ha ha, sure.
:rolleyes:


Keep rollin those eyes they might stick.

[hello299]

you're pretty annoying lol.

Never any real info to input huh.

Agree. All he ever adds is a sarcastic comment or some random smiley face.

[caveBEAR]

Agree. All he ever adds is a sarcastic comment or some random smiley face.

:bighop:

[peder458]

this was the perfect response, haha!