Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Obama disappointment (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Obama disappointment
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I bought a pony. it was beautiful, miraculous. A real live pony! In the White House!

Dang thing just pisses and ****s everywhere.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ITYS

No schadenfreude here. I "bought" the same "pony" back in '00 &'04.

[FootInMouth]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama has exceeded my expectations so far, and I supported him more than any candidate in my adult life. Look at the alternatives:

Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush I
Clinton
Bush II

Who can make an argument that any of these would have handled the economic crisis better?

Facing two wars, Obama re-oriented our position against the real threat of an Islamic government with nuclear weapons that was working with the Taliban: Pakistan. Who would have made that important pivot faster?

Delivering on a major campaign promise to deliver health care reform (you may oppose this on policy grounds, but it was a Democratic priority for 60 years and Obama got it passed).

Obama has had to deal with more vitriol, crap and obstructionism from the elected leadership of the opposition party in his first two years than any President in that list, and he has responded with a level courtesy and decency that I am not sure that the Republicans deserve, but which certainly sets an example for the rest of us.


He also has real-life flaws, but exactly how high were your expectations>

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama has had to deal with more vitriol, crap and obstructionism from the elected leadership of the opposition party in his first two years

ROTFLMAO

You cannot be serious? Bush II, Nixon, Clinton and Carter have all dealt with far more vitriol than Obama has...it's not even close.

Who can make an argument that any of these would have handled the economic crisis better?

In which Greg, you miss the point in it's entirety. This is like saying a **** sandwich is not so bad, at least it's not the vomit sandwiches we've been eating.

Obama ran on "CHANGE."

The only change has been the superficial - the image on your TV screen - a BLACK man "in power."

But the reality is he's the same old, same old corporate puppet like all the other previous presidents you listed.

Fiat wars on foreign shores.

Banker bailouts.
Renditions.
Guanatanamo's still open.
PATRIOT ACT and Homeland Security violating citizen's Constitutional rights.
War in Afghanistan re-escalating.
Possible invasion of Pakistan.
Maybe Iran.
NOT "Universal Healthcare," but a Government-enforced insurance industry granted cartel.

Bailouts for banks "too big to fail."

Your revisionist history and dogged defense is rather astounding.

He's not the guy you think he is...no matter how much you want it to be so.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't expect my love affairs to last for long
Never fool myself that my dreams will come true
Being used to trouble I anticipate it
But all the same I hate it -- wouldn't you?
So what happens now?


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Bush II, Nixon, Clinton and Carter have all dealt with far more vitriol than Obama has...it's not even close.
Provide a quantitative measurement to this bogus claim. How many filibuster threats did they face in the first two years? How many had heckling from the opposition party during the State of the Union? Show me the comparative data that indicates "it's not even close" or acknowledge you make stuff up.

And if you acknowledge that Obama handled the economic crisis better than any President of the past 40 years, but is still seems like a " **** sandwich", maybe you ought to focus responsibility on those responsible for the problem and not the President responsible for cleaning it up.

I am most disappointed in Obama's policies on rendition and Guantanamo (and not prosecuting potential former war crimes), but I can also see how the rabid animosity of the right wing (and more than the average share of major problems to address) has created political impediments to moving on those important issues as well.

As for the bailouts for banks that was passed under the Bush Administration, all the Obama Administration has done is taken a sketchy and ill-defined program and it appears like they have managed it so that most or all of the $700B will be paid back to the taxpayers (I'd wager that's a feat beyond all of our expectations - any possibility of Obama getting credit for avoiding the cheap political points by demogoguing the banks when he took over and instead getting private institutions to take much of the risk buying questionable assets, which has resulting in the $600B+ recovery of funds?)

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rabid animosity of the right wing? [Roll Eyes]

Your partisanship blinds you to the rabid animosity of BOTH right and left. If you would look closely with an open mind, you'd see all the MSM "rabid animosity" is just theater, and the real animosity is directed at us regular folks.

Other than that, ditto to all D said.

[ July 08, 2010, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Colin JM0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Your partisanship blinds you to the rabid animosity of BOTH right and left
Daruma made an unsubstantiated claim that I believe is factually false. Does that make my disagreement with your beliefs "partisanship"? If he is right and I am wrong, show me. But I do not accept the fact that you feel he is right as adequate substantiation.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I remember seeing an interview in which Bill Kristol said that he expected Obama to be a conventional center-left president. I think Obama has basically held to that standard, though not necessarily to his more idealistic campaign language. I think he has shown some pragmatism in trying to accomplish things in the system as it is rather than trying to change the system on the fly. I would by no means give him an A+, but I can only understand extreme disappointment by those who hold him to his idealistic standard with no regard for the limitations of our political system.
Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Obama has exceeded my expectations so far, and I supported him more than any candidate in my adult life.

Have you decided if you want to be Greg Davidson-Obama or will you go traditional and just be Greg Obama? [Razz]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aupton15:
I remember seeing an interview in which Bill Kristol said that he expected Obama to be a conventional center-left president. I think Obama has basically held to that standard, though not necessarily to his more idealistic campaign language.

Quite true. In some respects, that comes as a relief; in others, a dissapointment.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg, you are a textbook case of a partisan leftist, and you demonstrate that regularly. Not that I find anything particularly wrong with that personally, but it does, as I said, make you quite blind to the vitriol and jackassity of your own "side".

Like other hard-core partisans (of any flavor), it's not your opinions that are aggravating, it's the idea that your opinions are superior and those who disagree are idiots, simpletons, morons, etc. Granted you do temper your assumed superiority much better than others here, but it is still there lurking behind much of what you post.

If you are happy with Obama, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

-------------------------------------

This sums it all up nicely: http://www.infowars.com/celente-says-populists-will-break-the-false-left-right-political-paradigm/
quote:
Understandably, the red-blooded Americans in the Liberty Movement are as equally angry as true Progressives, but many are still playing partisan politics with “Obama this” and “Bush that.” Granted, it is easy to blame the party in power for the country’s current woes; and God knows Bush dragged the Republican brand to a new low during his eight infamous years. However, it is now becoming more imperative by the day that this anger be channeled and targeted at the proper perpetrators, while offering proper solutions in order to restore America. Admittedly, it can be difficult to find common ground among the thunderous noise of Limbaugh, Maddow, and the rest of the pundits.

Certainly there is enough blame to go around between the do-nothing, bought-and-paid-for Congress, to the puppet president who has clearly been doing more for Wall Street and Big Oil than for the people who elected him. Amid the perpetual blame-game, both Republicans and Democrats are equally controlled by the same multinational corporate interests whose agenda always moves forward. As George Carlin famously quipped: “It’s one big club, and you ain’t in it.”

...Americans can no longer allow the machine to define us by the shallow, false Left-Right debate. In fact, we don’t stand a chance against the current system if we don’t form a coalition with what is most important for us politically. Even if we do agree and get organized, some powerhouse Independents like Jesse Ventura fear that a “legit” third party may have to stoop to the same corrupt level to compete with the “two-headed monster,” because the system seems damaged beyond political redemption. Assuming our Republic can be wrestled back from the multinational corporations and banksters through the political process, it is best to stick to defining principles.



[ July 08, 2010, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Colin JM0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg did not attack any Ornerian on this thread; he was laying out his own point of view. In that light, I ask his antagonists to lay off the unsolicited psychoanalysis and personal inferences. Save the nastiness for folks that are dishing it out.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stayne
Member
Member # 1944

 - posted      Profile for stayne   Email stayne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
IMO, Clinton definitely would have handled the financial crisis much better, and probably Reagan as well. Both had the "I got **** under control, it's all good" relationship with the common folks. That seems to me what is needed. In the end, 'The Economy' is in large part what people think it is.

Clinton and Reagan were much better leaders than the others, regardless of what one might think of their policies.

Posts: 594 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For that to be true, one would have to assume that Reagan = Ronald Reagan + Peggy Noonam + the rest of Reagan's scripters and handlers. [Razz]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stayne
Member
Member # 1944

 - posted      Profile for stayne   Email stayne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even so. Darth Vader is a combination of Dave Prowse and James Earl Jones, plus script writers. We still view him as a single entity. [Big Grin]

Vader would fix things with a quickness, I hasten to add.

Posts: 594 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Michelle
Member
Member # 3237

 - posted      Profile for Michelle   Email Michelle       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ken? Why are you unhappy with your pony?
Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stayne:
Even so. Darth Vader is a combination of Dave Prowse and James Earl Jones, plus script writers. We still view him as a single entity. [Big Grin]

Yes, and a fictional single entity, so your analogy is apt. [Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
MO, Clinton definitely would have handled the financial crisis much better, and probably Reagan as well. Both had the "I got **** under control, it's all good" relationship with the common folks. That seems to me what is needed. In the end, 'The Economy' is in large part what people think it is.
Thanks, I was hoping someone would take the challenge. My understanding is that the economic crisis of 2008 was the worst since the Great Depression, and at least somewhat worse than the economic problems at the beginning of the Reagan Administration. Clinton (and his team) deserve some credit for their quick and effective response to an international debt crisis around 1998-1999, but that was a smaller problem and they really were not tested by anything much larger. If you assert that Reagan's policies were able to turn around the economy in his era,then it is also important to note that his policies worked slowly, with the severity of economic problems reaching their peak 2.5 years after his inauguration. If Reagan were better able to handle problems than Obama, why did it take so long for the turn-around?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I personally an not criticizing President Obama for his policies taking too long to help the economy, I am criticizing him for doing things that hurt the economy.

How long it took President Reagan to "fix" the economy shouldn't be used to compare the two Presidents on their ability to handle problems. For one President Obama hasn't "fixed" it yet. For two, I don't believe he is doing anything to fix or even help it.

President Reagan did things to help the economy, and that took time to get it done. I am criticizing President Obama for hurting the economy, not for taking too long to fix it.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Greg, you are a textbook case of a partisan leftist, and you demonstrate that regularly. Not that I find anything particularly wrong with that personally, but it does, as I said, make you quite blind to the vitriol and jackassity of your own "side".

1) to quote Jim Carrey, "Is there really a textbook for that?" [Wink]
2) Interesting assertion, that I am "blind to the vitriol and jackassity of your own 'side'". Can you provide an example of me demonstrating this blindness (other than me disagreeing with assertions that are not substantiated by evidence?). I have often acknowledged that there are extremists on all sides who demonstrate "jackassity". A few percent of extremists live in every party, and you will not find me making points on that basis. I do think it becomes relevant when the extremists get to be 20% or more of a movement, and I think it is highly relevant when the extremists are members of Congress, the President, or the Vice President. I believe that the level of "jackassity" among the Republicans currently in Congress is significantly higher than that of the Democrats who are in Congress now or during the previous Administration (admittedly, we haven't defined "jackassity" and so I am not comparing the mundane political hypocrites/fence-straddlers, I am using that term to describe stronger sentiments)

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If John built a bike in 3 hours, and Mike was in the process of building one, and people watching Mike build the bike claimed that John was better at building bikes, and that Mike was actually taking the bike apart, how could you even answer the question "If John is a better bike builder than Mike, why did it take him so long to build one?"

Take him so long compared to whom? How long it took Mike to attempt to break one? How can those two things even be compared?

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Like other hard-core partisans (of any flavor), it's not your opinions that are aggravating, it's the idea that your opinions are superior and those who disagree are idiots, simpletons, morons, etc.
I find it interesting that you have a mental picture of me imagining that those I am talking with are morons. Through 1600+ posts I have never used any of those terms, I have never called someone stupid, I have never implied that issues of intelligence have anything to do with any disagreement that we may have. When I assert an opinion, I usually characterize it as an opinion and invite conflicting opinions or refuting facts.

So given all this, I would genuinely like to understand why you might make those judgments about me. I would value your insight, Colin.

Is it because of my writing style? I will acknowledge that my writing style (which is all you really ever see of me) is careful and a bit pedantic, so is it that you are generalizing about me and my attitudes because of my writing style?

Is it because of my opinions? Have you had experience with other people expressing the same opinions as me and in those cases the people actually did believe that anyone opposing them was a moron?

If not these causes, can you say what it was that made you feel as if I was not respecting those whose opinions I was disagreeing with?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Save it for a different thread. Jeez Louise, every single thread turns into this your a *****! How am i a ****? Look at this, see your a ****, thats not my being a ****** your just a *****. How am I a *****?

Can we please stay on topic?

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
President Reagan did things to help the economy, and that took time to get it done. I am criticizing President Obama for hurting the economy, not for taking too long to fix it.
On what basis do you make the claim that the policies that Obama is enacting are harming the economy? We've only seen the evidence of 1.5 years since he was elected, and over that period of time the economy has recovered better than it recovered under the first 1.5 years under Reagan.

The only basis for arguing that Obama is hurting the economy at this point is theoretical. And if you want to talk about the validity of alternative economic theories, we can go there. But at this point in time, I don't believe there is evidence that Obama is hurting the economy at all, let alone there's no evidence that he's not at least as effective as Reagan in helping turn around the economy.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stayne
Member
Member # 1944

 - posted      Profile for stayne   Email stayne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg, it's not really possible to compare the situations, IMO. I am speaking purely on a basis of good leadership, and their ability to get large portions of the citizenry to feel good about the nation. It seems to me that this is what is needed now.

Personally, I think deep analysis is perhaps part of the problem. One can have a great knowledge of economic theory and fail at making it work from a leadership position. In fact, focusing on it can make matters worse. Many people either do not understand or don't want to deal with the minutiae. There is a large segment of people who feel, simply, this is what we paid you to do, so why are you bothering us with it? It must be really bad, or you must suck, and either way, we're going to be cautious.

Conversely, a good leader can lack such knowledge (or not bother trying to communicate it to the masses) and simply use charisma to convince people that all is well and actually go a long way in making it so. Those people who don't want to deal with or can't understand the minutiae WANT simpler answers. They are not economists. They want to believe that their leaders have things in hand, and all will be well, so they can focus on their own tasks.

It's the same for pretty much any organization. My boss does not want to hear every technical detail of my coding. He wants to know if the feature is ready or not, and when it will be. He is not a programmer, he is a businessman, and neither understands nor overmuch cares about the details except for the end result, which he will then try to sell to someone.

For all the mathematics and theory of economy that exist, there is also one simple factor that makes a huge difference, and that is the mentality of the consumers themselves. Clinton and Reagan were capable of allaying people's fears of hard times. The others you list, including Obama, either lacked that capacity or chose not to use it. Personally, I think they never have it to start with, or they would have used it.

I boils down to this: Obama has made some attempts to do these things, and failed. He hasn't been very convincing. Compare with Reagan, who convinced people who knew nothing of Iran Contra, or Clinton, who sold people that he did not have sexual relations with that woman.

They were men people WANTED to believe in, even when they knew better. Obama may have many fine qualities, but that one, he lacks, and it is telling in a crisis, just as it was with Carter and Bush Senior.

Posts: 594 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're probably at least half right, which bothers me greatly. Basically, it's better to deceive people and make them feel good than tell them the truth if it makes them feel less good.

I read about a study recently that found that happy people don't have as good an understanding of factual reality as unhappy people. That doesn't mean that things are worse than you imagine if you're feeling good, just that in order to be happy people will ignore unwelcome facts that are staring them in the face.

Yes, Reagan was a great Communicator, but he was also a great Fabricator, more like an Actor in Chief. Personally, I'd rather hear the facts and make up my own mind than take two pills of ignorance and let it roll on by. Obama may fail as a President, not because he failed to appreciate the reality he was faced with, but because he failed to make people feel good about the problems that were confronting them. Unfortunate for him and too bad for us all.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I understand the different point that you are making, stayne, and that is measuring the quality of Presidential leadership by how the American population feels.

In part, this measure can be influenced not only by the behavior of a President, but also by the behavior of the opposition party. For example, if opposition partisans make a large effort to communicate that the President is anti-American (as my be measured by the percentage of their own followers who believe he wasn't born in the country, is a socialist, and may be the anti-christ), then his ratings might decline somewhat.

But putting that aside, Reagan's popularity ratings went down to something like 39% in his first two years. How might you square this data with your assertion that Reagan had a quality that Obama lacks? I actually agree that my perception is that Reagan and Clinton were better than Obama in interacting emotionally with the public in some ways, but I am not sure that there is compelling evidence that Obama's combinations of characteristics (calm, polite, steady) will not be as successful as those of Reagan in the long run.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> stayne

> Clinton and Reagan were capable of allaying people's fears of hard times. The others you list, including Obama, either lacked that capacity or chose not to use it. Personally, I think they never have it to start with, or they would have used it.

It seems like his campaign and now his presidency are run on making the people afraid. If people felt good about things they wouldn't be so ready to change them. Instead, make them afraid, very afraid. Then offer hope. Then make the changes you couldn't get through without a crisis and fear to make them seem necessary.

The sad thing is that the more these changes make things worse, the more we're going to be told that we need to change things even more. And the extra sad thing is that every successive failure can be met with the refrain that even though things are getting worse, they would have been even more terrible had we not done what we did. It's basically a never ending cycle and permanent template for doing whatever he wants to do, no matter the consequences.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Can you provide an example of me demonstrating this blindness (other than me disagreeing with assertions that are not substantiated by evidence?).

If you want a flaming jackass test, please join us on the Black Panthers thread.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It seems like his campaign and now his presidency are run on making the people afraid. If people felt good about things they wouldn't be so ready to change them. Instead, make them afraid, very afraid
Where did you get that impression about Obama in particular? There has been a lot of rhetoric in the past few years about existential threats to our country, but the majority of it has tended to be coming from the conservative pundits, Republicans and Tea Party followers.

In what way was Obama's campaign more about creating fear than the Republican political ads of the past 8 years that have used references to 9/11?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Campaign was not about fear at all.

This new Eric Holder stuff emphasizing unequal protection in hate crime laws, coddling armed black panthers outside polling places ... that's problematic, and could definitely lead to a climate of fear.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> Greg Davidson


> Where did you get that impression about Obama in particular?

I'll grant you this, but sometimes it takes seeing the other guy do it to really appreciate how annoying it is. President Obama didn't even event the "well, it could have been a lot worse" excuse, as I remember saying the exact same thing regarding our invasion of Iraq and letting that festering sore go "untreated". The irritating thing about that approach to failure is that there is never any learning from it, or changing direction to stop making things deteriorate further. I remember President Obama saying that if we didn't do what he wanted unemployment could go to 8%. Now it's above 9%, so does that mean that if we'd done nothing we would be better off? It would seem so by his own words used in his own prognostication. I also remember noting that the most dangerous thing would be to not be able to recognize or admit when a policy is not working, and that seems to be where we find ourselves today.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry simple question. Do you think the economy be better or worse today with or without the stimulus or parts of the stimulus?

Tax cuts. About 1/3 of the stimulus was tax cuts.

Aid to state governments. This prevented the lay off of lots of police, firemen and teachers. Would paying those people unemployment instead of a salary helped the economy?

Various infrastructure and other projects. While being spent fairly slowly this money has helped to provide jobs in the construction sector which has otherwise been decimated in this recession.

[ July 09, 2010, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: yossarian22c ]

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Before I'm accused of drinking the cool aid let me post how I am disappointed in Obama. I borrowed from D's list.

Renditions.
Guanatanamo's still open.
PATRIOT ACT and Homeland Security violating citizen's Constitutional rights.
War in Afghanistan re-escalating.
NOT "Universal Healthcare," but a Government-enforced insurance industry granted cartel.

The first three I consider an extraordinary cowardly act. Obama ran against those policies but once in office made the political calculation that if he really ended them and another attack happened he would be blamed. He chickened out and kept abusing the constitution. This is one of the big reasons I would consider voting for the republican's candidate if they nominate someone decent.

[ July 09, 2010, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: yossarian22c ]

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> yossarian22c

> Cherry simple question. Do you think the economy be better or worse today with or without the stimulus or parts of the stimulus?

I think an awful lot of the stimulus was squandered as political payback to favorites of the administration.

> Tax cuts. About 1/3 of the stimulus was tax cuts.

I don't consider tax cuts in this way. Yes, it is stimulus, but the good kind. Instead of taking money and wasting the redistributive bureaucratic cut in the process of deciding who deserves it more and how much to give back, we let it be spent the way the people who earned it want to spend it. The whole stimulus could have been tax cuts as far as I'm concerned. Instead of bail outs, just cut their taxes if it's necessary to save them. Although that goes against my principles of letting the failures fail, it's better than giving them our cash and then charging us the interest we need to pay to borrow it. Maybe make up for the tax cuts later after they've recovered.

> Aid to state governments. This prevented the lay off of lots of police, firemen and teachers. Would paying those people unemployment instead of a salary helped the economy?

Again, cutting taxes could have served the same purpose. Going into debt on this massive scale with the interest payments that will haunt us for years to come was not the answer.

> Various infrastructure and other projects. While being spent fairly slowly this money has helped to provide jobs in the construction sector which has otherwise been decimated in this recession.

A lot of our infrastructure is deteriorating and needs this maintenance, but if it's just make-work it's wasting money.

I think more money was just wasted than ever in the history of the world. Even worse than wasted because if we had simply flushed it down the toilet that would have been okay compared to borrowing from future generations. President Obama went to Vegas with our tax dollars and bet it all, lost it all, then bet the farm, the pink slip to the car, the house, and the kitchen sink too. And lost again. Now we're thinking about another stimulus? From the beginning we should have been thinking about cutting costs instead of borrowing to pay for the largess of local governments and unions with cushy pensions to pay them back for the last election and buy their votes in the next one.

And this might make me a bad guy but the harsh reality is that extending unemployment benefits probably hurt the economy also, both in borrowing to pay for those benefits as well as causing a disincentive to employment. I understand Pelosi even said that paying unemployment benefits is stimulating to the economy, and that doesn’t even make any sense but is a pretty good example of the deficiency of business acumen liberal spendthrifts in our government apparently have with our money. It’s almost like their on a shopping spree with a stolen credit card, buying gifts for their friends and doing whatever makes them feel good without a care in the world about when the bill comes due.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the other hand, I'm not really that mad about Obama keeping Gitmo open and a few of the other things he's doing for our national security such as continuing the renditions. If someone is a citizen of another country and they are a suspected criminal they should be returned to that country even if we don’t agree with their punishments as long as the guilty won’t simply be set free. I know I don’t like it when Mexico let’s people who murdered cops in America just walk free because they don’t believe in the death penalty. I don't trust this government's lust for power though and am very concerned about their over-reach for purposes not of national security but for establishing their permanency. I just finished reading 1984 for the first time and it's all just too familiar now. But it was nice to see that some things aren't over-rated, and that work deserved it's rep. I'm even impressed by the possibility that it's accuracy helps us to stave off the predictions because every time we start to see them people can jump up and point and shout "1984!" and that works as a nice hue and cry.
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Again, cutting taxes could have served the same purpose. Going into debt on this massive scale with the interest payments that will haunt us for years to come was not the answer.
Tax cuts don't pay the bills for one person, never mind, say, a family of four when you're unemployed. Unless you're suggesting a negative income tax including a guaranteed minimum income across the board, in which case I'd fully agree that that would be a better system than our current hodgepodge.

quote:
I understand Pelosi even said that paying unemployment benefits is stimulating to the economy, and that doesn’t even make any sense
You don't see, on the most basic level, how people getting enough money to pay their bills and feed themselves until jobs become available is better for the economy than dumping them on the streets and taking that revenue away from the people who supply those basic needs?

quote:
It’s almost like their on a shopping spree with a stolen credit card, buying gifts for their friends and doing whatever makes them feel good without a care in the world about when the bill comes due.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps I went a little too far yesterday. Greg, I’m not trying to pick a fight but your bias does get on my nerves on occasion. Of course, I’m sure I do the same to others…

I will not provide substantiation – 1 because I don’t care to take the time, and 2 because it very likely won’t matter.

You are an ideologue because you go after “the right” no-holds-barred, and – if you even call them on anything – you treat “the left” with kid gloves. You do this naturally and without noticing it because you agree with most of what the leftists do. There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself; however, it is an obvious bias, and it comes through in what you say (and don't say).

For example, I do not understand one bit how a proper progressive, leftist, – whatever you want to call it - can remain silent on things such as:
-As CINC, Obama has allowed a private multinational (BP) some level of control over the Coast Guard.

-Safety measures for BP were waived by his administration- why?

-EPA mandates to BP are being ignored by BP (still using the toxic dispersant they were ordered to stop using) – we can’t do anything about that?

-Has increased our war spending and is rattling the saber for even more wars of aggression on foreign soil. We are supporting record Afghan opium production while making up no ground. No plan for withdrawal, no plan to “win” – we are stuck there. We remain in Iraq why?

-Post election, dumped his economic team and reloaded with mostly Goldman Sachs connected people. Progressives and leftists complain a lot about big business influence and corruption of the government process (rightfully so), yet you become silent when your “side” does it? It’s things like this that get you the blinded by your own bias label.

-Has placed private industry (mostly from Monsanto) insiders into key FDA positions – virtually a carbon copy of Bush’s placement of Oil industry insiders into government positions, which got the left all stirred up (rightfully so). How is this any different?

-Health care. Massive shift of power and funds to private corporations when he promised a proper national plan. (this one baffles me the most that any good progressive could possibly support this plan). So he “made good on his promise”, but it is nothing like anyone thought it should be. The common refrain of “better than nothing, this is just the first step” is ridiculously naive. Once that private cartel parasite is dug that deep into the economy, they will not be dug out and replaced with real socialized care.

-Then Daruma’s list – those are good things? At about every turn he’s supported the corporate welfare state over progressive/liberal ideals.

From the BS “war on terror”, to corporate welfare, we might as well call him the Bush IV administration.

[ July 09, 2010, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Colin JM0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Colin, interesting question on the difference between bias and plain disagreement. Bias is a pejorative term, do you mean it as judging equivalent actions by a different standard, or by inappropriately comparing very different actions against the same standard, or by a disproportionate focus on some issues vs. others. Or do you just find that I consistently disagree with you on a series of positions?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1