Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Will the new administration save US?

Tags:
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
October 11, 2009 5:20:18 PM

Well, giving a complete answer would be impossible now, but the economic stimulus package is one of the major moves of Barack Obama, US President, to stabilize the poor economic condition of US. The policy was much criticized initially for not giving a speedy solution for the recovery of the economy, but now it seems that the policy is going on well, and would turnout successful in the long run. According to the recent reports, the package, if executed successfully, would aid almost millions of Americans who are trying out a way to reach a steadiness in life, after the fatal blow of financial recession. Soon after the inaugural speech Obama had also mentioned about the reverse tax cuts , and had promised that the money would be spend on the poor and needy.

Actually Obama has inherited an awfully messy situation, with almost ‘$1.3 trillion deficit’, two wars, unemployment rising to an alarming rate and the crisis of the bank systems. Right from the moment of taking charge of the President’s office, he along with his team has been working tirelessly to sort out the major problems that the country has been facing, as well as laying a firm foundation to have a strong economic growth in future, which would be beneficial for all Americans.

The three step solution that he suggests for the stablilisation of US is as follows

1. Bringing the economy back on track
2. Finding out a proper solution to fight the housing and financial crisis
3. A complete rebuilding of the US economy on a firm and sustainable foundation.

The Obama administration has been widely supported by people all over the country, including the leading business men like rod aycox , CEO of Select Management Resources, in his efforts to bring back the economic stability of US. Many experts say that Obama’s initiatives will be highly beneficial for US in the long run and would give the country stability and save it from the crisis that it is undergoing these days.

More about : administration save

October 11, 2009 5:31:06 PM

America will burn for it's sins!!!!!

Seriously though what is the point of this topic?

You appear to ask a question but the whole thing seems copy and pasted from somewhere else and would appear to be about getting responses rather than stimulating debate.
October 12, 2009 7:35:58 AM

Well, I agree with strangestranger. It is difficult to start some conversation like that and my response for that is add something more here so as to move ahead somehow.
Related resources
October 12, 2009 1:34:43 PM

Doesn't matter what Obama does because the world is going to end on 12/21/2012. Get your house in order and make peace with your God. The end is nigh and the great revelation will descend from the sky and reveal the ultimate truth.

Assalaam Alaikum!
October 12, 2009 2:41:31 PM

IMO, Obama & the Democrats have been 99% talk and 1% action. Take the "Making Homes Affordable" initiative from last spring. Just about everybody has panned it since the banks only pay lipservice to it and there's no enforcement - merely 'fee-good' voluntary participation. I personally tried the refinance option since my mortgage was underwater (i.e., I owed the bank more than the current value of my house). Kept getting the run-around by the central bank office and their local rep, eith each pointing fingers at each other, until I finally just gave up. Would have been nice to drop my interest rate by a significant amount.

Instead of seeing one project through to the end, Obama seems to jump from one to the next, such as now making the gays feel good. Just like the Nobel peace prize, he's always about his future potential, and never his accomplishments. If this continues he will have a hard time getting re-elected in 3 years...

Hopefully it'll be Pelosi & the other Democrats who disappear with the ending of the Mayan calendar :D .
October 12, 2009 8:16:51 PM

An reason why gay people wouldn't feel good?

I mean they are gay.
October 13, 2009 5:00:49 AM

chunkymonster said:
Doesn't matter what Obama does because the world is going to end on 12/21/2012. Get your house in order and make peace with your God. The end is nigh and the great revelation will descend from the sky and reveal the ultimate truth.

Assalaam Alaikum!


Who has predicted that world is going to end on 12/21/2012? I don't know how many times have been through these predictions and never understand what is the fun in spreading such rumors.
October 13, 2009 9:33:15 AM

It only means the end of the current mayan calendar or something like that. A new one will start then.
October 13, 2009 2:23:43 PM

rohiti said:

Actually Obama has inherited an awfully messy situation, ...

Obama didn't inherit anything. He volunteered for the job. And much of the "messy situation" was caused by liberal policies anyway.

strangestranger said:
An reason why gay people wouldn't feel good?

I mean they are gay.

Sigh. You know you are getting old when ... "gay"used to refer to a state of mind, not sexual orientation.
October 13, 2009 2:26:24 PM

andywilliams38 said:
Who has predicted that world is going to end on 12/21/2012? I don't know how many times have been through these predictions and never understand what is the fun in spreading such rumors.
The Mayan calendar ends on that date, therefore, all time must also end on that same date.

But then again, every year, I think the world will end on 12/31 until I go to the mall and buy a new calendar... :pt1cable:  :o  :o 

[sarcasm and sensationalist rhetoric]Nostradamus, Newton, Cayce, and select writings from the Bible, Talmud, and various far eastern text all predict the worlds end! Repent now and live in peace for all eternity! Make amends with your fellow man and live your remaining 1174 days at one with world! Do it now before you are forever cast into the fiery depths of damnation![/sarcasm and sensationalist rhetoric]
October 13, 2009 9:06:28 PM

chunkymonster said:
The Mayan calendar ends on that date, therefore, all time must also end on that same date.


Didn't the Mayans also invent Mayannaise?? :D  Perhaps that is why their calendar ends in 2012 - they've reached the expiration date :p ...

Hmm, that's an idea for the Capital Punishment thread - death by ptomaine poisoning...
October 13, 2009 9:52:48 PM

Obama has policies and thought exercises that are dangerously close to socialistic/Marxism. Can you say re-distribution of wealth? Well his so called 600.00 stimulus check is coming from people that have money, and than given to people that don't. That is the worst concept I have ever heard of, give my money to people that can't or will not earn their own, bah don't get me started...
October 14, 2009 1:00:34 AM

sportsfanboy said:
Obama has policies and thought exercises that are dangerously close to socialistic/Marxism. Can you say re-distribution of wealth? Well his so called 600.00 stimulus check is coming from people that have money, and than given to people that don't. That is the worst concept I have ever heard of, give my money to people that can't or will not earn their own, bah don't get me started...

Even without Obama's policies and direction, America started down the European version of the socialist road back when Clinton was President. What Obama has done though is take advantage of the current economic crisis and used that as a springboard for a moderately socialist agenda.

The only good thing to come out of the last 20 years of American politics is the final realization that the Baby Boomers are at an end. Only once the Baby Boomers die off can America get back on track to ideals and concepts of the Founding Fathers. The only caveat may the the legacy that is political correctness and the now requirement to make sure that everyone feels good about themselves. I only hope that I can teach my children that they need to be self reliant, that the world owes them nothing, and that all things are earned through hard work and perseverance.
October 14, 2009 2:12:31 AM

Your right we have been heading down that path, just how quickly from here is the question.

Amen to your last statement.
October 14, 2009 5:39:57 AM

chunkymonster said:
The Mayan calendar ends on that date, therefore, all time must also end on that same date.

But then again, every year, I think the world will end on 12/31 until I go to the mall and buy a new calendar... :pt1cable:  :o  :o 

[sarcasm and sensationalist rhetoric]Nostradamus, Newton, Cayce, and select writings from the Bible, Talmud, and various far eastern text all predict the worlds end! Repent now and live in peace for all eternity! Make amends with your fellow man and live your remaining 1174 days at one with world! Do it now before you are forever cast into the fiery depths of damnation![/sarcasm and sensationalist rhetoric]


Now here I have to agree with you chunky monster.
October 14, 2009 4:03:13 PM

sportsfanboy said:
... , bah don't get me started...

How do you think I feel? In 2000, I bought a house. Did everything right, 20% down, financed only the principle - not first year taxes or insurance - on a 15 year mortgage. Accelerated payback - excess monthly payment applied to principle. And I'm stuck with paying the bailout bill.

The family car is a '91 Toyota Camry that still gets better than 30 mpg on the highway. But because the mileage is still so good, it didn't qualify for the Cash4Clunkers program. But I'm stuck with the bill for that too.

All these liberals talking about "spreading the wealth around" don't want to spread theirs. They want to spread mine.

And if Obamacare is so freaking great, why don't our Democratic congresscritters and our president lead by example and sign themselves and their families up?

bah don't get me started...

October 14, 2009 10:36:54 PM

^^ True True It's a messed up world we live in, here in the Peoples Republic Of America, I mean USA.

Affirmative action, slowly losing freedom of speech (if you say something truthful and it hurts someones feelings it isn't socially acceptable), The right to bear arms is also something the Obama's administration is trying to get rid of. Did you know he was trying to put in place a law that would require all ammo manufacturers to engrave a serial number on every round of ammo? That would effectively make buying ammo too expensive for the averaged Joe to afford, making guns useless, as their will not be any ammo to put in them. Plus the strangle hold he is putting on gun stores and gun owners (my friend owns a gun store and he is going out of business because of the grief the government is putting him through).


I could wright a book on this sh-t.

Nobel Peace Prize, what a joke. The day after he got the award he sent 17,000 Americans to Afghanistan, F-ing idiots.

October 14, 2009 11:16:16 PM

Or perhaps even write a book...
October 14, 2009 11:26:55 PM

wow I missed spelled that lol, worked 60 hours this week already, kinda punchy
October 15, 2009 12:09:01 AM

Yea Yea Yea, more Obama less giving me sh-t, lol
October 15, 2009 5:23:45 AM

sportsfanboy said:
wow I missed spelled that lol, worked 60 hours this week already, kinda punchy


You misspelled "missed spelled" too! You are really tired. Time to take some rest.
October 16, 2009 2:37:18 AM

rohiti said:
Well, giving a complete answer would be impossible now


No, it's not. I can answer it in two words: "hell no."

Quote:
Actually Obama has inherited an awfully messy situation, with almost ‘$1.3 trillion deficit’, two wars, unemployment rising to an alarming rate and the crisis of the bank systems.


He probably has already caused more problems that he has"inherited." The economy started to tank right around the time when Obama won the Democrats' nomination. Look at a graph of the DJIA over the past 18 months and you'll see it drop straight down in October 2008 when it looked likely that Obama would win. People know he's a statist and were worried sick about what he would do, and reacted accordingly. Bush screwed up with signing TARP into law, but Obama did far worse with his bailouts since they were far bigger.

Quote:
Right from the moment of taking charge of the President’s office, he along with his team has been working tirelessly to sort out the major problems that the country has been facing, as well as laying a firm foundation to have a strong economic growth in future, which would be beneficial for all Americans.


Right from the moment of taking charge of the President’s office, he along with his team has been working tirelessly to sort out the major problems that the country has been facing- how to pay back his backers (unions, ACORN, etc.), how to get that pesky Fox network to fall in line, how to get his tax-dodging buddies out of trouble, how to discredit any of his opponents just for opposing him (the answer to that one was to call them all racist), and how to further expand the government's power. He is also laying a firm foundation to have a strong bureaucratic growth in future, which would be beneficial for no Americans.

Quote:
The three step solution that he suggests for the stablilisation of US is as follows

1. Bringing the economy back on track
2. Finding out a proper solution to fight the housing and financial crisis
3. A complete rebuilding of the US economy on a firm and sustainable foundation.


Let's look at that:

1. He's doing the exact wrong things. Tariffs, bailouts, tax hikes, and massive government spending are the wrong way to go. FDR tried this and almost every analysis of FDR's actions say that he prolonged the Great Depression by taking such action. For being such a supposedly scholarly and intelligent guy, Obama is sure being stupid here.

2. The proper solution is to let the people who took the huge risks in making and taking shady mortgages take it on the chin- no bailouts, no nothing. Let them fail and go bankrupt. Anything else rewards the kind of behavior that put us in this situation in the first place and we WILL see this same thing happen again.

3. Again, he is going exactly in the wrong direction. He is completely rebuilding the US economy to be a subsidiary of the government, and we all know how well that works out. Look at any other command economy, such as the former Eastern Bloc states, North Korea, and Cuba and tell me how well that worked out.

Quote:
The Obama administration has been widely supported by people all over the country, including the leading business men like rod aycox , CEO of Select Management Resources, in his efforts to bring back the economic stability of US.


Obama narrowly won and was largely supported by people largely clustered in a few areas of the country. Look at the vote totals and look at any election map that breaks the results down by county and this becomes painfully apparent.

Quote:
Many experts say that Obama’s initiatives will be highly beneficial for US in the long run and would give the country stability and save it from the crisis that it is undergoing these days.


Crisis, shmisis. The only crisis we're in is that the government spent waaaaaay too much (apologies to Mike Reagan) and we're so far in debt that it's not even funny any more.
October 16, 2009 4:15:52 AM

Thank G-d that people on this forum have seen the light and know what a Socialist Liberal Obama is.

Oh, wait! The KGB is coming after me! I said something against the Supreme Leader.
October 16, 2009 4:52:07 AM

yelped said:
Thank G-d that people on this forum have seen the light and know what a Socialist Liberal Obama is.

Oh, wait! The KGB is coming after me! I said something against the Supreme Leader.


You, seem to be a great fan of Obama but I still believe their is some time before you declare him a social liberal.
October 16, 2009 7:09:48 AM

MU_Engineer said:
No, it's not. I can answer it in two words: "hell no."

Quote:
Actually Obama has inherited an awfully messy situation, with almost ‘$1.3 trillion deficit’, two wars, unemployment rising to an alarming rate and the crisis of the bank systems.


He probably has already caused more problems that he has"inherited." The economy started to tank right around the time when Obama won the Democrats' nomination. Look at a graph of the DJIA over the past 18 months and you'll see it drop straight down in October 2008 when it looked likely that Obama would win. People know he's a statist and were worried sick about what he would do, and reacted accordingly. Bush screwed up with signing TARP into law, but Obama did far worse with his bailouts since they were far bigger.

Quote:
Right from the moment of taking charge of the President’s office, he along with his team has been working tirelessly to sort out the major problems that the country has been facing, as well as laying a firm foundation to have a strong economic growth in future, which would be beneficial for all Americans.


Right from the moment of taking charge of the President’s office, he along with his team has been working tirelessly to sort out the major problems that the country has been facing- how to pay back his backers (unions, ACORN, etc.), how to get that pesky Fox network to fall in line, how to get his tax-dodging buddies out of trouble, how to discredit any of his opponents just for opposing him (the answer to that one was to call them all racist), and how to further expand the government's power. He is also laying a firm foundation to have a strong bureaucratic growth in future, which would be beneficial for no Americans.

Quote:
The three step solution that he suggests for the stablilisation of US is as follows

1. Bringing the economy back on track
2. Finding out a proper solution to fight the housing and financial crisis
3. A complete rebuilding of the US economy on a firm and sustainable foundation.


Let's look at that:

1. He's doing the exact wrong things. Tariffs, bailouts, tax hikes, and massive government spending are the wrong way to go. FDR tried this and almost every analysis of FDR's actions say that he prolonged the Great Depression by taking such action. For being such a supposedly scholarly and intelligent guy, Obama is sure being stupid here.

2. The proper solution is to let the people who took the huge risks in making and taking shady mortgages take it on the chin- no bailouts, no nothing. Let them fail and go bankrupt. Anything else rewards the kind of behavior that put us in this situation in the first place and we WILL see this same thing happen again.

3. Again, he is going exactly in the wrong direction. He is completely rebuilding the US economy to be a subsidiary of the government, and we all know how well that works out. Look at any other command economy, such as the former Eastern Bloc states, North Korea, and Cuba and tell me how well that worked out.

Quote:
The Obama administration has been widely supported by people all over the country, including the leading business men like rod aycox , CEO of Select Management Resources, in his efforts to bring back the economic stability of US.


Obama narrowly won and was largely supported by people largely clustered in a few areas of the country. Look at the vote totals and look at any election map that breaks the results down by county and this becomes painfully apparent.

Quote:
Many experts say that Obama’s initiatives will be highly beneficial for US in the long run and would give the country stability and save it from the crisis that it is undergoing these days.


Crisis, shmisis. The only crisis we're in is that the government spent waaaaaay too much (apologies to Mike Reagan) and we're so far in debt that it's not even funny any more.


Oh boy… where to begin. First of all, I would like to see the sources that led you to those assertions (especially those pertaining to FDR’s ineffectiveness). I am also curious as to whether or not you have ever taken an economics class. If you have (or at least if you had paid attention), you would know that the economy goes through cycles of expansion and recession. The economy was already on the downturn when Obama was nominated (in fact, quite a bit before) so the initial recession cannot be attributed to him.

Next, we can talk about national debt. When Bush took office (or thereabouts, the closest date I could find was for 9/7/00) the government had a budget surplus and a national debt of approx. 5.6 trillion dollars. When he left, it was approx. 9.6 trillion dollars. As for the bailouts; in short they were necessary. I agree with you entirely that I don’t like my money going to the companies whose CEOs and board members made financially unsound decisions that compromised their businesses. However, looking at the bigger picture, were we to let them fail, imagine all of the employees who were employed by those companies, now without a job, bogging down the welfare system, increasing our taxes, and probably by a greater amount than the bailouts.

I now have two words I would like to type: Patriot Act. This amendment was the Bush Administration’s answer to terrorism on the home front. Interesting, the powers the law have given the government hasn’t once been used to apprehend a terrorist; however there are many incidents where they have been used to catch illegal drug users/dealers. They also allow the government to monitor my library checkout list, as well as a fair amount of my internet usage. Under the Bush Administration, more regulations (laws) affecting us, the citizens of the United States, were enacted than most other “conservative” or “liberal” presidents (I use quotes around conservative because I do not believe that Bush is a true conservative for the above-mentioned reasons, and because of this, I place “liberal” in quotes as well).

You stated that “He [Obama, or at least I assume] is completely rebuilding the US economy to be a subsidiary of the government, and we all know how well that works out. Look at any other command economy, such as the former Eastern Bloc states, North Korea, and Cuba and tell me how well that worked out.” Let’s first clear up some possible confusion regarding socialism vs. communism.

Communism, very simply put, is a society where one is equal with his peers, no matter how hard he works, he doesn’t receive any more than his neighbore, and I feel you believe that this is socialism. There has never been a nation in recorded history that has been a purely communistic society, but the closest thing we have to it was the Native American Indian tribes, but that’s another topic.

Socialism, on the other hand, also very simply put, is where the government owns all of the businesses (companies, stores, etc.). We need look no further than our North and our East to see these nations. Most European nations have been of the socialist nature since the end of WWII. They needed to do this in order to pull them out of the terrible depression they were in (wow, sounds a bit familiar, huh?). Granted, we are not in as terrible state as they were, but we are also not doing an entire governmental reform.
October 16, 2009 3:38:15 PM

andywilliams38 said:
You, seem to be a great fan of Obama but I still believe their is some time before you declare him a social liberal.


WHAT!? I've been against Obama since the beginning! I didn't think for a second that he would actually become elected. I guess I seriously under-estimated the stupidity of the the American Idol-glued American People.
October 16, 2009 6:08:11 PM

Look at the previous ones that got elected, are you really surprised by anything??
October 16, 2009 6:18:43 PM

Update to my previous post, the national debt is, as of this moment, not 9.6 trillion but in fact closer to 11.9 trillion.
October 16, 2009 7:28:01 PM

Hands up to anyone who can visualise what that number represents.
October 16, 2009 8:29:27 PM

I'm sorry, I should have expressed it in terms of GDP (Gross Domestic Product--basically all the stuff the country gets money for [businesses as well as government]). Our debt in the year 2000 of 5.6 trillion dollars represented about 62% of our nominal (unadjusted) GDP (5.6 trillion/ 9 trillion). Our debt now represents 83% of our nominal GDP (11.9 trillion/ 14.4 trillion). This means that the debt (adjusted for inflation) has increased by 21% in relation to our GDP.
October 16, 2009 9:25:18 PM

I think you misunderstood, I was merely highlighting what an incredibly large number it was. There was no hiddern agenda in my words.
October 16, 2009 10:13:15 PM

I just had this discussion at school Ethics class. There are some real interesting speculations by my fellow friends, they are losing hope for the 'Change'

I personally dislike Obama. We should not pull out of Iraq. Look at how much effort we put in. If we pull out right now, that country is a **** hole. We need to stay a little while longer to make Iraq more stable.

Afghanistan might be a right direction, but insurgents have the flexibility to migrate to Pakistan which is allied with US, which is BS. Pakistan is full of traitors that need to get their ass spanked, hard.

Nobel Prize to Obama? Is this a joke? He talks wayyy in general. He talks more than he does for his country. "We'll do this and that and this and this." Where is the end result.

Plus, when Obama got the Presidency, his Agree ratio was at strong 68%. Now it is at mere 48%. People actually change sides, what my brain says.

I am looking at this topic, thinking... Are people have doubts about Obama in this forum?
October 17, 2009 4:18:08 AM

So we moved from a dictatorship with Bush and Cheney(the anti-christ), to something bordering on socialism, people have an issue will his skin color more than his policies, I don't like some of his policies, and some i agree with, but he inherited a shitty job(his choice), and in 9 months has shown the the Usa is as racist and ignorant as it's always been. People call his a socialist, and communist but blindly follow Rush Limbaugh(the true leader of the republicans). I voted for him because frankly, i didnt like the other option, and i thought he was better for the job, I will also vote for Mike Cox(Republican) for governor because he is the best man for the job. I don't have blind loyalty to any party or for that matter any country, people need to stop letting emotions, and prejudice interfere with their opinions. So much rage and anger would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetic.
October 17, 2009 4:24:32 AM

As far as Afghanistan and and Iraq,I think think Afghanistan had to be done, I think it was a very big mistake to remove saddam hussein from power. People in the middle east, Africa,parts of asia, and parts of eastern Europe handle things differently than us, so let than handle it their way. We need to go back to being isolationist like before world war 2 and concentrate on educating these fat,lazy,ignorant,spoiled american kids.
October 17, 2009 10:53:34 AM

The real problem with american politics as in the UK is that there is no choice. You have 2 choices which is no choice at all. If you had two choices of where to buy food, or where to buy computer parts, you would not be happy.

Kinda like the gpu/cpu situation as of now, it is not good.
October 17, 2009 3:32:02 PM

strangestranger said:
The real problem with american politics as in the UK is that there is no choice. You have 2 choices which is no choice at all. If you had two choices of where to buy food, or where to buy computer parts, you would not be happy.

Kinda like the gpu/cpu situation as of now, it is not good.


I entirely agree with you.
October 17, 2009 3:45:19 PM

did you know the nobel peace prize is a bunch of Norwegian government liberals that get to decide who gets this prize. This does not come to a shock that Obama won. I think the war should be funded properly unlike obama's being at sea wheather to send more troops as requested from his top general in iraq. also it diserbed me that in 8 weeks obama only talked to him once for like 5m O.o.... Think of liberals like apple and steve jobs that try to control or make you more dependant on them.

its about time we finish the job properly in IRaq
October 17, 2009 3:47:22 PM

It might be worth mentioning that Jimmy carter won the nobel peace prize while bush was in office. hmm maybe the liberals were mad at what he was doing. lol
October 17, 2009 3:50:22 PM

as far as ACORN and those groups go seems a bit odd that so much corruption is in his administration or is it just me.

health care needs to be adjusted but not the obama way.. simple way would be to allow people to buy accross states to create more compition which is the best way to lower prices and raise compition
October 17, 2009 4:09:39 PM

pepperman said:
Oh boy… where to begin. First of all, I would like to see the sources that led you to those assertions (especially those pertaining to FDR’s ineffectiveness).


Sure, here's one for you.

Quote:
I am also curious as to whether or not you have ever taken an economics class. If you have (or at least if you had paid attention), you would know that the economy goes through cycles of expansion and recession. The economy was already on the downturn when Obama was nominated (in fact, quite a bit before) so the initial recession cannot be attributed to him.


Of course I have taken several economics classes, which is why I know why FDR's policies failed and why Obama's will too.

And about the recession- the start of the recession started about a month or so before the election. There is considerably controversy over whether the possibility of Obama being elected caused the economy to tank. Remember that the big drop in housing prices that caused the banks to not do so well (and which many attribute the large market drop to) happened a couple of years before the markets dropped severely. One would have thought that if the housing bubble bursting was going to bring down the market, it would have done so well before very many people had heard of Barack Obama, not immediately before his election looked likely.

Quote:
Next, we can talk about national debt. When Bush took office (or thereabouts, the closest date I could find was for 9/7/00) the government had a budget surplus and a national debt of approx. 5.6 trillion dollars. When he left, it was approx. 9.6 trillion dollars.


The reason why the government ran a surplus in the late 1990s was because of the tech boom and that the Republicans controlled Congress since Jan 1995 while Clinton sat in the White House. Not a whole lot of spending or change in governmental regulations occurred due to the gridlock, so the market did very well and tax receipts went up as a result.

Quote:
As for the bailouts; in short they were necessary. I agree with you entirely that I don’t like my money going to the companies whose CEOs and board members made financially unsound decisions that compromised their businesses. However, looking at the bigger picture, were we to let them fail, imagine all of the employees who were employed by those companies, now without a job, bogging down the welfare system, increasing our taxes, and probably by a greater amount than the bailouts.


So in effect you're saying "let's reward people who did idiotic things simply because there may be a little collateral damage if we don't." The workers employed by these firms that are decent employees will find new jobs if the firm goes under. Look at the BLS statistics if you doubt me. Yes, some suppliers and such may be dinged a little in the process, but that's how business works. Also, if you keep rewarding the people who run these companies for making these bad choices, what are they going to do? They're going to keep making them! The only way the people who run these companies are going to not make bad choices is for us to let them feel the full consequences of their bad choices by not bailing them out.

As far as the "too big to fail"/collateral damage theory- it is bunk. There are no "sure things" in business- you put money at risk investing in a company in hopes that it pays off nicely. But you also have to realize that it may not and you may be out the money you invested. The same is true for working for a company- they may be here and fine one quarter, but they may have made poor choices and you're out of a job the next. Bad things can and sometimes do happen- that is just life.

Also, a lot of people forget that the tech bubble burst in March of 2000 and the economy started to tank when Bill Clinton was in office. But yet the 2000 recession is always pinned on Bush, not on Clinton, while the recession that started a few months before Obama took office is always said to be "inherited" by Obama. So which is it- did Bush inherit Clinton's recession and Obama inherit Bush's, or did Bush and Obama each "cause" one? You have to pick one or the other, otherwise you're changing the rules as you go along to suit yourself.

Quote:
I now have two words I would like to type: Patriot Act. This amendment was the Bush Administration’s answer to terrorism on the home front. Interesting, the powers the law have given the government hasn’t once been used to apprehend a terrorist; however there are many incidents where they have been used to catch illegal drug users/dealers. They also allow the government to monitor my library checkout list, as well as a fair amount of my internet usage. Under the Bush Administration, more regulations (laws) affecting us, the citizens of the United States, were enacted than most other “conservative” or “liberal” presidents (I use quotes around conservative because I do not believe that Bush is a true conservative for the above-mentioned reasons, and because of this, I place “liberal” in quotes as well).


First of all, nobody brought up the Patriot Act. You're just trying to change the topic from something that you are having trouble defending. Secondly, you wrongly assume that since I oppose Obama's policies that I am some sort of bible-thumping neo-conservative and would support the Patriot Act. I do not support the Patriot Act and never have. You are right about Bush not being a conservative; he was a Republican. Republicans today are not very conservative.

Quote:
You stated that “He [Obama, or at least I assume] is completely rebuilding the US economy to be a subsidiary of the government, and we all know how well that works out. Look at any other command economy, such as the former Eastern Bloc states, North Korea, and Cuba and tell me how well that worked out.” Let’s first clear up some possible confusion regarding socialism vs. communism.

Communism, very simply put, is a society where one is equal with his peers, no matter how hard he works, he doesn’t receive any more than his neighbore, and I feel you believe that this is socialism. There has never been a nation in recorded history that has been a purely communistic society, but the closest thing we have to it was the Native American Indian tribes, but that’s another topic.


Communism is probably not able to actually be implemented as the implementation always ends up being fascism with a command economy. That is why I said "command economy" and never mentioned communism once. A command economy is where the government owns virtually all of the means of production and directs said production. This is true in several countries.

Quote:
Socialism, on the other hand, also very simply put, is where the government owns all of the businesses (companies, stores, etc.). We need look no further than our North and our East to see these nations. Most European nations have been of the socialist nature since the end of WWII. They needed to do this in order to pull them out of the terrible depression they were in (wow, sounds a bit familiar, huh?). Granted, we are not in as terrible state as they were, but we are also not doing an entire governmental reform.


You have your definitions wrong. Socialism as currently implemented is where the government owns some but not all of the means of production and doesn't direct production to a large degree, but puts lots of regulations on any private individual or group that produces anything. The government owning all of the means of production is typical of a command economy. It looks like you were the one who was sleeping through economics class.

reconviperone1 said:
So we moved from a dictatorship with Bush and Cheney(the anti-christ), to something bordering on socialism, people have an issue will his skin color more than his policies


That's a huge load of bull and you know it. Bush and Cheney were not a dictatorship as they were elected officials and were succeeded by other people not from the same party after an election. They also had to mostly operate within the confines of the Constitution, or at least as much as anybody else has in the last 80 years or so. VERY few people who oppose Obama care about what he looks like, they care about the crap that he as well as the rest of the Democrats are trying to ram through into law- things like socialized health care and the carbon dioxide cap-and-tax. The race card is cleverly being played by Obama's crew in order to immediately be able to dismiss any legitimate criticism of his policies.

Quote:
I don't like some of his policies, and some i agree with, but he inherited a shitty job(his choice), and in 9 months has shown the the Usa is as racist and ignorant as it's always been.


And ladies and gentlemen, we give you Example #1 of that with the previous sentence. You do realize that it is exactly as racist and ignorant to make derogatory statements against whites or anybody else as it is to do so against blacks, right?

Quote:
People call his a socialist, and communist but blindly follow Rush Limbaugh(the true leader of the republicans). I voted for him because frankly, i didnt like the other option, and i thought he was better for the job, I will also vote for Mike Cox(Republican) for governor because he is the best man for the job. I don't have blind loyalty to any party or for that matter any country, people need to stop letting emotions, and prejudice interfere with their opinions. So much rage and anger would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetic.


Calling all of the U.S. racist and ignorant, calling Bush a dictator and Cheney the "anti-Christ" isn't emotional? Wow, that could have fooled me. Yes, a lot of us are angry as we have horrible politicians getting elected and pushing horrible legislation that WE DO NOT WANT down our throats. Why do you think so many people showed up at protests around the country to voice their displeasure at Congress's and Obama's policies? Maybe they'll listen for a second at what the people in this country actually want rather than trying to pander to their backers.

By the way, there were more than two people running for President in the election. If you don't like the Republican or Democrat candidates, vote for one of the other ones who you think will be better. The current crappy politicians aren't going to do anything differently if we just eep telling re-electing them.
October 17, 2009 5:32:10 PM

MU_Engineer said:
Sure, here's one for you.


Thank you for the interesting article.

Quote:

Of course I have taken several economics classes, which is why I know why FDR's policies failed and why Obama's will too.

And about the recession- the start of the recession started about a month or so before the election. There is considerably controversy over whether the possibility of Obama being elected caused the economy to tank. Remember that the big drop in housing prices that caused the banks to not do so well (and which many attribute the large market drop to) happened a couple of years before the markets dropped severely. One would have thought that if the housing bubble bursting was going to bring down the market, it would have done so well before very many people had heard of Barack Obama, not immediately before his election looked likely.


If you have taken economics classes, then how will increased government spending not fuel the economy? Don't you remember how the spending multiplier works? In short, the more the government spends, the more GDP increases. How else do expect to raise the GDP when our unemployment is so high and the real GDP is tanking?

The economy started to slump in Q2 of 2008, about 5 months before the election, so we can safely say that Obama is not the cause of that.

Quote:

The reason why the government ran a surplus in the late 1990s was because of the tech boom and that the Republicans controlled Congress since Jan 1995 while Clinton sat in the White House. Not a whole lot of spending or change in governmental regulations occurred due to the gridlock, so the market did very well and tax receipts went up as a result.


I agree with you that the tech boom was the primary reason of the surplus; however, the Bush administration has raised the national debt (in adjusted dollars) more than any other administration in US history.

Quote:

So in effect you're saying "let's reward people who did idiotic things simply because there may be a little collateral damage if we don't." The workers employed by these firms that are decent employees will find new jobs if the firm goes under. Look at the BLS statistics if you doubt me. Yes, some suppliers and such may be dinged a little in the process, but that's how business works. Also, if you keep rewarding the people who run these companies for making these bad choices, what are they going to do? They're going to keep making them! The only way the people who run these companies are going to not make bad choices is for us to let them feel the full consequences of their bad choices by not bailing them out.

As far as the "too big to fail"/collateral damage theory- it is bunk. There are no "sure things" in business- you put money at risk investing in a company in hopes that it pays off nicely. But you also have to realize that it may not and you may be out the money you invested. The same is true for working for a company- they may be here and fine one quarter, but they may have made poor choices and you're out of a job the next. Bad things can and sometimes do happen- that is just life.

Also, a lot of people forget that the tech bubble burst in March of 2000 and the economy started to tank when Bill Clinton was in office. But yet the 2000 recession is always pinned on Bush, not on Clinton, while the recession that started a few months before Obama took office is always said to be "inherited" by Obama. So which is it- did Bush inherit Clinton's recession and Obama inherit Bush's, or did Bush and Obama each "cause" one? You have to pick one or the other, otherwise you're changing the rules as you go along to suit yourself.


I'm not saying lets reward them; honestly, I think the companies should have been required to restructure in order to qualify for bailout money. However good the employees may be, they can't get jobs at other firms if the other firms aren’t hiring. Look at the unemployment rate; for the year 2009 so far, it has averaged nearly 9.0 %. That’s the most it has been sine 1983. Our current job market outlook is terrible. Even if you have a college degree and/or experience, you certainly aren’t guaranteed a job. Just imagine if you were part of a company that went bankrupt and had to close down; that won’t look very good on your resume…

I never said anything about companies being too big to fail. I agree with you that business is not certain, and that life isn’t either. However, intelligent people can use the information around them to make decisions with higher chances for good outcomes (which is what the companies should have done).

True, the economy did start to slow a little—we had one Quarter of negative growth, but it quickly rebounded and we saw growth in Q4. By the time Bush took office, the economy was steadily growing (albeit, not as fast as it did during the 90’s, but we still saw positive growth). As I said before, the economy the economy started to tank in Q2 of 2008, about 5 months before Obama was elected.

Quote:

First of all, nobody brought up the Patriot Act. You're just trying to change the topic from something that you are having trouble defending. Secondly, you wrongly assume that since I oppose Obama's policies that I am some sort of bible-thumping neo-conservative and would support the Patriot Act. I do not support the Patriot Act and never have. You are right about Bush not being a conservative; he was a Republican. Republicans today are not very conservative.


No, no one mentioned the Patriot Act, but you insisted that Obama was creating a power pool for the government, and I had show one of Bush’s numerous acts. I was not trying to change the topic (if I were, I would probably be bringing up Michael Moore and his films, but the truth behind those tends to be exaggerated, and he never did one on economics).

Quote:

You have your definitions wrong. Socialism as currently implemented is where the government owns some but not all of the means of production and doesn't direct production to a large degree, but puts lots of regulations on any private individual or group that produces anything. The government owning all of the means of production is typical of a command economy. It looks like you were the one who was sleeping through economics class.


I was referring to pure socialism, which (just like pure communism) does not exist in our society (however my simple definitions still hold). Ever read Marx?

I agree that socialism as currently implemented is how you describe it, however our government isn’t even going for that right now, and a command (or planned, as I learned it) economy is pretty far off from that. If Obama has his way, we will end up looking more like Britain or Canada than Cuba or North Korea.
October 17, 2009 7:33:53 PM

"I agree that socialism as currently implemented is how you describe it, however our government isn’t even going for that right now, and a command (or planned, as I learned it) economy is pretty far off from that. If Obama has his way, we will end up looking more like Britain or Canada than Cuba or North Korea."

sadly this is very true.. : / ; obama probably will not win re-ellection just pure off the many promises he has made and flat out broke them... for example no pork which the stimulus is distugingly filled with. curruption organizations receiving money such as acorn that supports obama. demonizing fox,Rush and anyone who tries to go against him. He is on a perminate campaign mode if ya been watching the news lately
October 18, 2009 4:36:50 PM

pepperman said:
Update to my previous post, the national debt is, as of this moment, not 9.6 trillion but in fact closer to 11.9 trillion.


Considering this year's deficit is a humongous 1.4 trillion, over 3x the previous record, I'm not at all surprised. The dollar's heyday of being the world standard currency will be soon over.
October 18, 2009 4:39:06 PM

strangestranger said:
I think you misunderstood, I was merely highlighting what an incredibly large number it was. There was no hiddern agenda in my words.


Probably something like, if laid end-to-end, it would stretch past the moon or something like that. Or, if I filled my pockets with 1.4 trillion dollars, I'd need pants the size of New York city?? :D 
October 18, 2009 4:51:15 PM

HansVonOhain said:
I just had this discussion at school Ethics class. There are some real interesting speculations by my fellow friends, they are losing hope for the 'Change'


Wait until you see what the Dems & Obama do for tax increases. They'll take your salary, you get to keep the 'change' :D 

Personally I'm still of mixed feelings about Obama. I don't trust his "we'll only tax the rich - those making $250K or more", since I saw what happened with Bill Clinton's promises during his first election to not raise taxes. As soon as he got into office and 'realized' how bad the situation was, his promise was out the nearest window. And Obama is in much more serious deficit trouble than Clinton was. I suspect the 'rich' will get redefined as anybody making more than $250 :D .

However I did like his reaching out to Muslims, trying to separate the religion from the fanatics. Not worthy of a Nobel peace prize or anything, but a nice gesture and attempt to reconcile hard feelings. But, I also think he's going to get taken in by Iran on their nuke development 'talks', as well as caving in to the Russians and stopping deployment of the ABM systems in Eastern Europe. I won't be surprised to see another major terrorist attack on the US, on his watch. But then he's pushing up development of that 15-ton bunker-buster bomb, so who knows??
October 18, 2009 8:58:47 PM

pepperman said:
Thank you for the interesting article.

If you have taken economics classes, then how will increased government spending not fuel the economy? Don't you remember how the spending multiplier works? In short, the more the government spends, the more GDP increases. How else do expect to raise the GDP when our unemployment is so high and the real GDP is tanking?


Because the only way the government gets money is by taking out of the hands of people via taxes, by borrowing it, or by simply printing more money. None of those are good:

1. Taxes dampen economic growth because almost all of the people that actually create jobs are people who own and run businesses. If you look at the "stimulus" packages, they essentially take money from people in taxes, take out some of it in overhead and administration, and then give it back to the businesses in the form of bailouts or government contracts. Assuming that the government contracts are directed to activities that actually result in increased economic output (such as building roads- not by giving to artists to make statues of fornicating dogs to put on an overpass), the administrative overhead that the government takes to manage the money represents lost economic output. A government paper pusher doesn't really add much to the economic output of the country since they aren't producing any sort of salable good or service.

2. Borrowing money to stimulate the economy isn't always a good idea as borrowed money accumulates interest that has to be paid back. The only way you end up ahead is if you get a rate of return on the borrowed money that exceeds the interest rate. I would say that is not the case since the government said they spent $533,000 per job created. Basically put, those employees would have to be making somewhere into the six figure range more per year for their entire career than they otherwise would have to pay back in taxes the $533,000 plus interest that the government invested in their job.

3. Printing money isn't a great idea, either. That leads to inflation that makes your citizens' savings and the debt that debtors hold less valuable than it was before. The already-ailing banks aren't going to do very well when the return on their good loans suddenly drops through the floor too.

Quote:
The economy started to slump in Q2 of 2008, about 5 months before the election, so we can safely say that Obama is not the cause of that.


Not quite. Look here:
- 2-year NASDAQ graph
- 2-year DJIA graph

Both of them look awfully similar- the big drop was in October of 2008, which is right after Obama got the DNC nomination.

Quote:
I agree with you that the tech boom was the primary reason of the surplus; however, the Bush administration has raised the national debt (in adjusted dollars) more than any other administration in US history.


Adjusted dollars are a poor figure to use since our adjusted GDP is also far larger than it used to be. You should look at the deficit as a percentage of the total GDP to get a more accurate picture of what administration spent the most of the nation's economic output. Not surprisingly, the administration that had the highest spending-to-GDP ratio was FDR's. The time that Obama has been in office is a noticeable spike at the edge of that graph, while Bush's spending-to-GDP ratio isn't much different than anybody else's since about 1980. Yes, Bush spent way too much, but I never said he didn't.

Quote:

I'm not saying lets reward them; honestly, I think the companies should have been required to restructure in order to qualify for bailout money. However good the employees may be, they can't get jobs at other firms if the other firms aren’t hiring. Look at the unemployment rate; for the year 2009 so far, it has averaged nearly 9.0 %. That’s the most it has been sine 1983. Our current job market outlook is terrible.


...which is why we need to keep spending down to keep the money in the hands of the people that do make the jobs rather than losing a chunk of it to government overhead. Nobody's going to want to invest a bunch of money in anything except very low-risk, high-revenue/margin stuff if they fear that they will get the snot taxed out of them and have to deal with a ton of new bureaucratic red tape that may very well bankrupt them.

Quote:
Even if you have a college degree and/or experience, you certainly aren’t guaranteed a job.


Despite what college recruiters and the media would have you think, you never were guaranteed a job just because you have a degree. Part of this is that some people pursue largely unmarketable degrees, such as gender studies and 16th century Italian literature. Part of it is that many jobs don't actually need a college degree to perform. The only reason that some employers make it a "requirement" is that they want people who are slightly older and hopefully more mature than your average 18-year-old kid fresh out of high school and going out into the wide world for the first time. Also, there are a lot of jobs that you go through non-college training to do, such as any of the trades. Those jobs are typically looked down upon, which is why some people wouldn't seek them out.

Quote:
Just imagine if you were part of a company that went bankrupt and had to close down; that won’t look very good on your resume…


Unless you are a high-level corporate officer in that defunct company, why would it look bad? It says nothing about you if the company you work for goes under and you lost your job. You did nothing wrong, so why should it reflect badly on you?

Quote:
I never said anything about companies being too big to fail. I agree with you that business is not certain, and that life isn’t either. However, intelligent people can use the information around them to make decisions with higher chances for good outcomes (which is what the companies should have done).


Yes, and unfortunately the decision with the highest chance of a good outcome was to go and stick the debt on the government. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were backed by the government, so it was in the best interest of those groups to take on very high-risk but high-interest loans. If the loan is good, you make a ton in interest payments. If they default, you spin the loss off on the government. Either way you end up smelling like a rose. That's what happened and is why I said we rewarded foolish behavior.

Quote:
True, the economy did start to slow a little—we had one Quarter of negative growth, but it quickly rebounded and we saw growth in Q4. By the time Bush took office, the economy was steadily growing (albeit, not as fast as it did during the 90’s, but we still saw positive growth). As I said before, the economy the economy started to tank in Q2 of 2008, about 5 months before Obama was elected.


Quote:

No, no one mentioned the Patriot Act, but you insisted that Obama was creating a power pool for the government, and I had show one of Bush’s numerous acts. I was not trying to change the topic (if I were, I would probably be bringing up Michael Moore and his films, but the truth behind those tends to be exaggerated, and he never did one on economics).


And notice that Obama didn't repeal it?

And actually Moore did make a film on economics.
October 18, 2009 9:31:29 PM

MU_Engineer said:
Sure, here's one for you.

Quote:
I am also curious as to whether or not you have ever taken an economics class. If you have (or at least if you had paid attention), you would know that the economy goes through cycles of expansion and recession. The economy was already on the downturn when Obama was nominated (in fact, quite a bit before) so the initial recession cannot be attributed to him.


Of course I have taken several economics classes, which is why I know why FDR's policies failed and why Obama's will too.

And about the recession- the start of the recession started about a month or so before the election. There is considerably controversy over whether the possibility of Obama being elected caused the economy to tank. Remember that the big drop in housing prices that caused the banks to not do so well (and which many attribute the large market drop to) happened a couple of years before the markets dropped severely. One would have thought that if the housing bubble bursting was going to bring down the market, it would have done so well before very many people had heard of Barack Obama, not immediately before his election looked likely.

Quote:
Next, we can talk about national debt. When Bush took office (or thereabouts, the closest date I could find was for 9/7/00) the government had a budget surplus and a national debt of approx. 5.6 trillion dollars. When he left, it was approx. 9.6 trillion dollars.


The reason why the government ran a surplus in the late 1990s was because of the tech boom and that the Republicans controlled Congress since Jan 1995 while Clinton sat in the White House. Not a whole lot of spending or change in governmental regulations occurred due to the gridlock, so the market did very well and tax receipts went up as a result.

Quote:
As for the bailouts; in short they were necessary. I agree with you entirely that I don’t like my money going to the companies whose CEOs and board members made financially unsound decisions that compromised their businesses. However, looking at the bigger picture, were we to let them fail, imagine all of the employees who were employed by those companies, now without a job, bogging down the welfare system, increasing our taxes, and probably by a greater amount than the bailouts.


So in effect you're saying "let's reward people who did idiotic things simply because there may be a little collateral damage if we don't." The workers employed by these firms that are decent employees will find new jobs if the firm goes under. Look at the BLS statistics if you doubt me. Yes, some suppliers and such may be dinged a little in the process, but that's how business works. Also, if you keep rewarding the people who run these companies for making these bad choices, what are they going to do? They're going to keep making them! The only way the people who run these companies are going to not make bad choices is for us to let them feel the full consequences of their bad choices by not bailing them out.

As far as the "too big to fail"/collateral damage theory- it is bunk. There are no "sure things" in business- you put money at risk investing in a company in hopes that it pays off nicely. But you also have to realize that it may not and you may be out the money you invested. The same is true for working for a company- they may be here and fine one quarter, but they may have made poor choices and you're out of a job the next. Bad things can and sometimes do happen- that is just life.

Also, a lot of people forget that the tech bubble burst in March of 2000 and the economy started to tank when Bill Clinton was in office. But yet the 2000 recession is always pinned on Bush, not on Clinton, while the recession that started a few months before Obama took office is always said to be "inherited" by Obama. So which is it- did Bush inherit Clinton's recession and Obama inherit Bush's, or did Bush and Obama each "cause" one? You have to pick one or the other, otherwise you're changing the rules as you go along to suit yourself.

Quote:
I now have two words I would like to type: Patriot Act. This amendment was the Bush Administration’s answer to terrorism on the home front. Interesting, the powers the law have given the government hasn’t once been used to apprehend a terrorist; however there are many incidents where they have been used to catch illegal drug users/dealers. They also allow the government to monitor my library checkout list, as well as a fair amount of my internet usage. Under the Bush Administration, more regulations (laws) affecting us, the citizens of the United States, were enacted than most other “conservative” or “liberal” presidents (I use quotes around conservative because I do not believe that Bush is a true conservative for the above-mentioned reasons, and because of this, I place “liberal” in quotes as well).


First of all, nobody brought up the Patriot Act. You're just trying to change the topic from something that you are having trouble defending. Secondly, you wrongly assume that since I oppose Obama's policies that I am some sort of bible-thumping neo-conservative and would support the Patriot Act. I do not support the Patriot Act and never have. You are right about Bush not being a conservative; he was a Republican. Republicans today are not very conservative.

Quote:
You stated that “He [Obama, or at least I assume] is completely rebuilding the US economy to be a subsidiary of the government, and we all know how well that works out. Look at any other command economy, such as the former Eastern Bloc states, North Korea, and Cuba and tell me how well that worked out.” Let’s first clear up some possible confusion regarding socialism vs. communism.

Communism, very simply put, is a society where one is equal with his peers, no matter how hard he works, he doesn’t receive any more than his neighbore, and I feel you believe that this is socialism. There has never been a nation in recorded history that has been a purely communistic society, but the closest thing we have to it was the Native American Indian tribes, but that’s another topic.


Communism is probably not able to actually be implemented as the implementation always ends up being fascism with a command economy. That is why I said "command economy" and never mentioned communism once. A command economy is where the government owns virtually all of the means of production and directs said production. This is true in several countries.

Quote:
Socialism, on the other hand, also very simply put, is where the government owns all of the businesses (companies, stores, etc.). We need look no further than our North and our East to see these nations. Most European nations have been of the socialist nature since the end of WWII. They needed to do this in order to pull them out of the terrible depression they were in (wow, sounds a bit familiar, huh?). Granted, we are not in as terrible state as they were, but we are also not doing an entire governmental reform.


You have your definitions wrong. Socialism as currently implemented is where the government owns some but not all of the means of production and doesn't direct production to a large degree, but puts lots of regulations on any private individual or group that produces anything. The government owning all of the means of production is typical of a command economy. It looks like you were the one who was sleeping through economics class.



That's a huge load of bull and you know it. Bush and Cheney were not a dictatorship as they were elected officials and were succeeded by other people not from the same party after an election. They also had to mostly operate within the confines of the Constitution, or at least as much as anybody else has in the last 80 years or so. VERY few people who oppose Obama care about what he looks like, they care about the crap that he as well as the rest of the Democrats are trying to ram through into law- things like socialized health care and the carbon dioxide cap-and-tax. The race card is cleverly being played by Obama's crew in order to immediately be able to dismiss any legitimate criticism of his policies.

Quote:
I don't like some of his policies, and some i agree with, but he inherited a shitty job(his choice), and in 9 months has shown the the Usa is as racist and ignorant as it's always been.


And ladies and gentlemen, we give you Example #1 of that with the previous sentence. You do realize that it is exactly as racist and ignorant to make derogatory statements against whites or anybody else as it is to do so against blacks, right?

Quote:
People call his a socialist, and communist but blindly follow Rush Limbaugh(the true leader of the republicans). I voted for him because frankly, i didnt like the other option, and i thought he was better for the job, I will also vote for Mike Cox(Republican) for governor because he is the best man for the job. I don't have blind loyalty to any party or for that matter any country, people need to stop letting emotions, and prejudice interfere with their opinions. So much rage and anger would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetic.


Calling all of the U.S. racist and ignorant, calling Bush a dictator and Cheney the "anti-Christ" isn't emotional? Wow, that could have fooled me. Yes, a lot of us are angry as we have horrible politicians getting elected and pushing horrible legislation that WE DO NOT WANT down our throats. Why do you think so many people showed up at protests around the country to voice their displeasure at Congress's and Obama's policies? Maybe they'll listen for a second at what the people in this country actually want rather than trying to pander to their backers.

By the way, there were more than two people running for President in the election. If you don't like the Republican or Democrat candidates, vote for one of the other ones who you think will be better. The current crappy politicians aren't going to do anything differently if we just eep telling re-electing them.
Damn, you ripped me apart pretty good, you have some good points, Bush and cheney were not a dictatorship(impossible in a republic), but they did play fast and loose with the constitution, and i blame that more on Cheney, i think Bush is at heart a decent individual who got into a bad situation, and didnt make it better, much like Obama has walked into a bad situation. The racism thing, i haven't seen Caucasians fired up and so overtly racist since OJ killed his wife. As far as not voting democrat or republican, we do need a new party, because the democrats and the republicans only difference in agenda is who is paying them, I support Obama and hope he does a great job, if he does not i wont vote for him, its that simple. I just come here to read about computers though, so you guys have at it with this crap
October 18, 2009 10:10:57 PM

I find it amusing how all these right wingers try to portray Obama as extreme socialist and way to the left. He is WAY more centrist in his policies than Bush ever was. He also tries to bring the parties together, unlike Bush who just ramrodded policy down congresses throat through executive orders and signing statements. Of course, it has been impossible to have any true bipartisanship with the "party of NO" in opposition.
I agree Obama hasn't accomplished a whole lot so far, but the reason is not because he hasn't tried, its been because the Dems as a whole are weak and still acting like they are the minority party. Bush got everything he wanted because the GOP knows how to play "dirty". This is something the Dems refuse to do, so they let the current minority bully them around.
As a true liberal progressive, I wish Obama was a lot farther to the left, but I'm smart enough to realize he could never get elected if he was. Just like a hard right wacko like Glenn Beck could never get elected. If Obama is guilty of anything, its trying to hard to appease the Right, and being too centrist.
As far as all these claims of "socialism" goes...we as a society decided a long time ago that in order to take care of our citizens we were willing to have social programs. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Food Stamps, ect are all socialist programs. Outside all the lies that have been spread, I have not heard one good reason why we should not have universal health care. Right now we have a system where corrupt insurance companies concerned only with profit decide what health care we get. I would much rather have a government run "non profit" deciding things...they have much less incentive to deny coverage. Its a shame that in the wealthiest country on earth we have people dieing every day because they either could not afford insurance or had their insurance denied.
As disappointed as I am that Obama has not gotten more done, and is trying so hard to be a centrist, I am still glad he is not Bush. It will take a long, long, time to undo all the damage that administration did to this country.
October 18, 2009 10:11:56 PM

pepperman said:


Socialism, on the other hand, also very simply put, is where the government owns all of the businesses (companies, stores, etc.). We need look no further than our North and our East to see these nations. Most European nations have been of the socialist nature since the end of WWII. They needed to do this in order to pull them out of the terrible depression they were in (wow, sounds a bit familiar, huh?). Granted, we are not in as terrible state as they were, but we are also not doing an entire governmental reform.


No you have that wrong, you just described fascism, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control. What Obama is practicing is a combination of communism, socialism and fascism. I think you had better start reading other authors of history and lessoning to other professors of economic history so that you really know what the truth is.
!