What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

WeWantMore said:
You really think this started with Clinton? I think you're off by around 200 years.
Click to expand...

I really wasn't going to come back out of the corner that I was hiding in, but this comment showed enough of a misread of my comment to goad me out. What I said was something along the lines of The first time I noticed it, or remember noticing it, or something like that. You may have noticed this during the James Madison administration, but I'm not old enough for that. The first president to be in office after I started giving a flying F about politics was Bill Clinton.

So no. I in no way believe that this started with Clinton.

Edit: And while I'm here, thank you pirate. I don't expect people to agree with my thoughts on Obama. I like reading what people think, and pirate's comments are well-taken. I wish that there just was more respect for the presidency. And yes, cards on the table, I have been guilty in the past on this (although not NEARLY as much as lots of other liberals during the W admin or a lot of CON now). And as for the idea that OWS and the Tea Party come from the same place, I agree 100 percent. And I truly believe that if people had respect for the offices of government, then they would actually vote. Imagine what might happen if a President was ever elected by more than 20 percent of Americans. (Number pulled out of butt, just commenting on what a small percentage of total people 50 percent of voters is)
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

duper said:
I really wasn't going to come back out of the corner that I was hiding in, but this comment showed enough of a misread of my comment to goad me out. What I said was something along the lines of The first time I noticed it, or remember noticing it, or something like that. You may have noticed this during the James Madison administration, but I'm not old enough for that. The first president to be in office after I started giving a flying F about politics was Bill Clinton.

So no. I in no way believe that this started with Clinton.
Click to expand...

Okay, I apologize for misreading or misinterpreting your post then. However, in your first post, you said

A comment that was made is, I think, very telling of the problems that we are having in this country...
Regardless of who made the comment on this occasion, the fact is that as long as so many of us see two America's, "Our America" and "Their America" we are all ****ed.
Click to expand...

If you admit that this disrespect you're so up in arms about has been going on since the beginning, how can it be that it's indicative of the problems we are having? If this disrespect means we are all "****ed", have we been "****ed" since the start? I somehow doubt it. We've had some very good presidents over our 200+ years, we've had some pretty poor ones. I doubt the poor ones were due to disrespect and the good ones were due to a bunch of kumbaya singing.

George W. Bush/Barack Obama (delete as appropriate) was a poor president not because of what people thought of him, or because of what names he was called, but because he favored or implemented bad ideas. Anything beyond that is really just excuse making in my mind.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

good stuff today:

I would submit that the definition of bad ideas is 99% subject to the party of the person assessing the idea. To tie in with duper's comments, that is what I think is 'wrong' with our current political climate. There is not enough middle ground, I do think both sides are continuously settling grudges and creating new ones and it shows no signs of stopping because the two parties have more money and support than any one person in office or contending for office. So they don't want it to stop, their number 1 reason for getting donations is to drown out the other side or expose one of their leaders. I don't belong to a party because I think both are corrupt when it comes to furthering this country.

My recurring commentary is we need leaders but we keep electing politicians...but who else could be nominated? To get there you have to suspend your belief in middle ground and pander to your party....they hold all the strings. Sure, they trade power once in a while, which is actually good for business. Their business, not ours.

As for the top 1% paying 40% of the taxes...fair is in the eye of the beholder but I'd ask...is it right? is that really the best path? Where does it stop? What does it say about our current construct regarding distribution of wealth and if you taxed them at 80% would it change that model or just reinforce it? In the end, it really won't impact Buffet if we take another $1mm from him...but we're not doing it because we will make good use of it, not because we are strapped and need it but because we're too lazy to solve it any other way and won't take the steps necessary to make more people rich and fewer people poor in the future. Being rich shouldn't be the boogeyman, we should be trying to make everybody rich, not demonizing those who have (through legal and scrupulous means).

When we devalue success as only being gained via luck, cheating or stealing from the middle class it devalues part of what this country is made of...the pursuit of success should not be an object of disdain.

We'd be better off requiring Buffet to adopt 5 families and tend to their housing, education, health care etc than we would giving the $1mm a year to the government and watching them turn it into poo.

I have no problem paying my taxes, I don't think the earned income credit should produce a net refund for somebody (nobody should get back more than they paid in) etc. but I think we should expect more in return than what we get...unsafe and unproductive schools, bloated administrations in every building, fiddle players instead of leaders in DC and a terrible return on our investment in the US.

{steps off soap box; exits, stage middle}
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

pirate said:
good stuff today:

I would submit that the definition of bad ideas is 99% subject to the party of the person assessing the idea. To tie in with duper's comments, that is what I think is 'wrong' with our current political climate. There is not enough middle ground, I do think both sides are continuously settling grudges and creating new ones and it shows no signs of stopping because the two parties have more money and support than any one person in office or contending for office. So they don't want it to stop, their number 1 reason for getting donations is to drown out the other side or expose one of their leaders.
Click to expand...

One thing that used to guard against this was there was a large overlap ideologically between the parties. Dixiecrats were well to the right of Rockefeller Republicans. Now that overlap is gone so there are no countervailing voices in each caucus.

Generally speaking, when this has happened in history it is not reversed until the underlying issues affecting the nation change. Then a new system emerges with all sorts of new fractures. The system immediately begins to rationalize itself, and that process takes several generations, after which we reach another crisis, another reconfiguration, and so on.

The last great change was the rise of America from one of a number of competing regional powers to the dominant world power. The next great challenge, how we manage as the unipolar world disappears and other great powers catch up to us, will probably rip the current party system apart and start a new political configuration.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Kepler said:
One thing that used to guard against this was there was a large overlap ideologically between the parties. Dixiecrats were well to the right of Rockefeller Republicans. Now that overlap is gone so there are no countervailing voices in each caucus.

Generally speaking, when this has happened in history it is not reversed until the underlying issues affecting the nation change. Then a new system emerges with all sorts of new fractures. The system immediately begins to rationalize itself, and that process takes several generations, after which we reach another crisis, another reconfiguration, and so on.

The last great change was the rise of America from one of a number of competing regional powers to the dominant world power. The next great challenge, how we manage as the unipolar world disappears and other great powers catch up to us, will probably rip the current party system apart and start a new political configuration.
Click to expand...

Ironically, the only times you see dissenting voice in either party is during wave elections. Conservative dems in the south and liberal republicans in the northeast.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

dxmnkd316 said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ecast/2012/02/13/gIQA2Rn1AR_story.html?wprss=

I guess I'm confused. Did this President completely miss the shot across the bow fired by the credit ratings agencies? Not that they should dictate fiscal policy within the US, but their ratings DO have a significant impact.

I just don't get it...
Click to expand...

The same credit ratings agencies Republicans wanted to ignore during the debt ceiling "crisis"?
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

dxmnkd316 said:
I don't give a **** what the Republicans whined and *****ed about. I'm talking about reality here.
Click to expand...

We're just going to send the military to S&P and Moody's and reissue our own credit rating. What are they going to do about it? Hide behind France?
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

dxmnkd316 said:
I don't give a **** what the Republicans whined and *****ed about. I'm talking about reality here.
Click to expand...

Last year the president's budget received 0 votes for and 97 votes against in the Senate. It's not intended to be a realistic document.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

If it was re-told to me accurately...quote from Prez during talk in Annandale..."sooner or later we're going to run out of money".

Uh, hello, that happened quite a while ago Sir Spendalot.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

WeWantMore said:
Last year the president's budget received 0 votes for and 97 votes against in the Senate. It's not intended to be a realistic document.
Click to expand...
Election year budgets are always political theater. This particular one is probably even moreso, since there was no way the House Republicans are going to work with Obama.

I can't remember the last time a president actually had coattails -- Reagan's second term I guess -- but if Obama opens up any daylight in the race during the summer he should center his campaign around the idea that unless people also give the Dems control of Congress it's pretty much pointless to re-elect him. There has always been an argument that the out party in Congress can't just block the president because of the electoral blowback, but if there isn't any, that theory is dead. And it's not just an (R) problem -- by the same token, the next time things are reversed, the Dems could essentially undo the election of a Republican president by sitting on their hands.

Is that really the way we want to go?
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

WeWantMore said:
Speaking of the budget, another great NYT infographic.

I'm no mathematician, but we might want to do something about those 2 huge green circles, eh?
Click to expand...
You are no mathematician. Look at the second tab. They're both on the Mandatory side, so I think both the size and the color of those circles is being driven more by demography and prior decisions than anything Obama is doing.

In the long run, we are going to do something. It's called "watch the Boomers die."

Anyway, the Commission on Fine Arts was gutted. I'm sure that will help. :)

Also, Hilda Solis should get some recognition for taking one for the team.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Kepler said:
You are no mathematician. Look at the second tab. They're both on the Mandatory side, so I think both the size and the color of those circles is being driven more by demography and prior decisions than anything Obama is doing.

In the long run, we are going to do something. It's called "watch the Boomers die."

Anyway, the Commission on Fine Arts was gutted. I'm sure that will help. :)

Also, Hilda Solis should get some recognition for taking one for the team.
Click to expand...

I'm not blaming Obama for the increases in them. Those would have come no matter what, you're correct. Even the aggressive reform plans wouldn't produce results for another 10 years at minimum, and that's rosy.

That's the point though. Every year we go without addressing them is another year out in the future that the circles keep swelling. "Watch the Boomers die" comes nowhere close to solving the problem.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

WeWantMore said:
Speaking of the budget, another great NYT infographic.

I'm no mathematician, but we might want to do something about those 2 huge green circles, eh?
Click to expand...

I love the NYT graphics. They are always really well done.

What strikes me the most isn't the massive circles or the hues of green and red. It's the second to last category on the "Department Totals" tab. We really whined and moaned about $78 million dollars? We probably spent $78 million on whining and moaning about it.

I'm more curious in how we spend $4.8 billion on the legislative branch. How do we spend more on a bunch of asshats yet the Army Corps of Engineers has less than them. Almost $2 billion in discretionary spending between the two houses of congress. The ACoE has a 30% cut this year. These are the people that maintain the dams, locks, levees, and dykes.

How does the FCC spend $9.6 billion? (This is being asked more out of ignorance rather than incredulity.)

Also, I do get a chuckle out of the category with the largest amount of red. It's like a matador waving his flag at the bulls... er, elephants.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

dxmnkd316 said:
I love the NYT graphics. They are always really well done.
Click to expand...
Communist!

pirate said:
If it was re-told to me accurately...quote from Prez during talk in Annandale..."sooner or later we're going to run out of money".

Uh, hello, that happened quite a while ago Sir Spendalot.
Click to expand...

During the 80's, actually. But hey, deficits don't matter, right?
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

WeWantMore said:
That's the point though. Every year we go without addressing them is another year out in the future that the circles keep swelling. "Watch the Boomers die" comes nowhere close to solving the problem.
Click to expand...
It depends upon the demographic patterns -- if we restored a 1950 population pyramid:

color-pyramid.jpg


it would in fact solve it completely. If we push retirement ages up and keep either making or attracting lots of young people to enter the workforce, SS and Medicare are sustainable.

But focusing entirely on spending is masking the bigger issue. Medical costs are going to show up somewhere in the economy -- either in the government account or in personal accounts. Moving health costs to the government side of the ledger is not, in and of itself, a bad thing, as long as it realizes efficiencies (this is what the debate should be about) and, if we do it, that they are paid for in revenues (also what the debate should be about, but never will be with one side claiming that all taxation is theft blah blah blah).

The main problem we have is not that we have grown government, it's that we have grown government and refused to pay for it. Some costs are certainly best left with individuals, some definitely should be pooled like insurance under government accounts. The rule for how we divide those costs should be utilitarian. I don't particularly think there are big Constitutional concerns, but say there were -- that's why the Constitution is amendable.

This is not intractable. It just requires honesty. The main problem is not politicians lying to the electorate; it's the electorate lying to themselves.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top