Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

if it was'nt for him most people would still be outta job

Uh...what? As far as I know, he didn't fix anything regarding employment.

 

[mazdaman]

Like i said let the man do his job ok.

Obama passed legislation with Republican Senator Jim Talent to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps. The tax credit covers 30 percent of the costs of switching one or more traditional petroleum pumps to E85, which is an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend.

-After a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.

-His first law was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent.Obama created the Illinois Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income working families in 2000 and successfully sponsored a measure to make the credit permanent in 2003. The law offered about $105 million in tax relief over three years.

-Obama joined forces with former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL) to pass the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. The legislation banned the personal use of campaign money by Illinois legislators and banned gifts from lobbyists. Before the law was passed, one organization ranked Illinois worst among 50 states for its campaign finance regulations.

-As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Obama has fought to help Illinois veterans get the disability pay they were promised, while working to prepare the VA for the return of the thousands of veterans who will need care after Iraq and Afghanistan.

-He traveled to Russia with Republican Dick Lugar to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world.

-Obama has been a leading advocate for protecting the right to vote, helping to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act and leading the opposition against discriminatory barriers to voting.

- In the U.S. Senate, Obama introduced the STOP FRAUD Act to increase penalties for mortgage fraud and provide more protections for low-income homebuyers, well before the current subprime crisis began.

-Obama sponsored legislation to combat predatory payday loans, and he also was credited with lobbied the state to more closely regulate some of the most egregious predatory lending practices.

-Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 to provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.

-Obama worked to pass a number of laws in Illinois and Washington to improve the health of women. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services.

-Obama has introduced and helped pass bipartisan legislation to limit the abuse of no-bid federal contracts.

-Obama and Senator Feingold (D-WI) took on both parties and proposed ethics legislation that was described as the "gold standard" for reform. It was because of their leadership that ending subsidized corporate jet travel, mandating disclosure of lobbyists' bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips became part of the final ethics bill that was signed into law.

 

[Keef]

Its true look it up i know obama is making change yall don't think he is doing well is it cause of his race.Give me a true reason why.

If you're going to keep spamming, this forum is the last place you want to do it. Knowing you won't bother reading a long post that proves why you're wrong, and that you'll refuse to read through this thread and see everything that has been discussed, I'll just let you finish, because Obama is one of the best presidents of all time.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Like i said let the man do his job ok.

I didn't read that anyone here was trying to stop him.

 

[Eric Demory]

I didn't even bother reading a single bit of that llooooooooonnnnggg post of his just by proving that he is a HUGE Obama-mama lover.

 

[mazdaman]

I didn't even bother reading a single bit of that llooooooooonnnnggg post of his just by proving that he is a HUGE Obama-mama lover.

Yup i am so you was going for palin if so it just describes your ignorance.

 

[Eric Demory]

Yup i am so you was going for palin if so it just describes your ignorance.

Oohhh, look who's talkin'?! (starting with "yo mama" jokes)

 

[nk4e]

Why does that seem copied and pasted? Obama has done some things though some people still wonder "where" are the jobs are at? though he has created jobs but where?

 

[L_Hamilton]

Yup i am so you was going for palin if so it just describes your ignorance.

You are one of the many reasons why I don't talk about politics. 👎

 

[YSSMAN]

Yup i am so you was going for palin if so it just describes your ignorance.

Dear Mazdaman,

As one of the more prominent (perhaps most-vocal?) Obama supporters on this forum, I would ask that you please attempt to correct your grammar and think your posts through a bit more clearly when attempting to make an argument. I fully appreciate your enthusiasm, and I'm sure that there are many others here that do, but the way you are going about this does not make your case (or Obama's for that matter) any better. Obama has spoken at length about how important it is to debate points with facts, and to be respectful of others when discussing differences of opinion. In this situation, I do not believe that you are living up to either of those expectations of his.

It is not my goal to be overly critical of you and your opinion, but to say that it is not exactly constructive in the way in which you have presented it. When you automatically ramble off "reasons" for why the President as succeeded at "X" with no citation (ie, proof), what good does that do? Furthermore, when others ask questions on your stance, and you can only defend with (implied) insults... What does that say about your cause? Your beliefs? This of course turns around directly on those who are on the opposite end of the spectrum as well.

Real talk, for a moment; If I'm being completely honest here, while I do support Obama with most of his causes, that does not necessarily mean that I agree with him on everything. Does that place me in a category of "ignorance" as well? Simply put, Obama has not done everything perfectly in the past nine months. In fact, in the grand scheme of things, while he is attempting to do a lot of things, both good and bad, ultimately his level of accomplishment has been negligible in many circumstances. This, of course, is a byproduct of spreading yourself too thin, on too many topics, all at once (an argument to be made about Democrats in general). A great level of hullabaloo has already been created on the topic, and I do agree with you that we do need to allow Obama to do his job, but that does not exempt him from all types of criticism. Part of the problem here is that Obama is almost too willing to bow to criticism, which will not allow for a successful first term as President.

In summation, do yourself, myself, and Obama a favor and put a little more effort into your posts. I appreciate your enthusiasm on the issue, I honestly do, but a well-constructed argument goes a long way to prove a point. I could care less where a person's politics may lie, whether or not I may agree with him or her, but if they can make for a reasonable discussion with facts to back up their opinion, I have little reason to dislike what I'm hearing. Generally speaking, while this thread typically leans heavily against that of the Democrats and the Obama Presidency, I can fully understand many of their points, and in some cases, agree completely with them. Total agreement on any subject is not fun, nor entirely possible. We are likely to disagree on some (often, most) points on a frequent basis. That's politics. That's why we have discussed it at length, respectively, for so many pages. I'd love to have you be a constructive contributor in this thread.

Sincerely,
YSSMAN

 

[Duke]

Its true look it up i know obama is making change yall don't think he is doing well is it cause of his race.Give me a true reason why.

If you're making this post in this language, all the patient and careful explaining is not going to make the slightest difference to you.

Just trust me when I say I couldn't possibly care less about his race or ancestry.

 

[FoolKiller]

I have no clue why you left me a message on my profile asking me to come in here, considering my posting history in this thread. But you asked for it, so here goes.

Truly offeded,he has done lot if it was'nt for him most people would still be outta job.

Obama based his entire stimulus plan's defense on a report put out by his council of economic advisors, chaired by Christina Romer. You can see the full report here (PDF). But the main important part that the president was basing his statements on was this chart (Page 5 of the report):

With the recovery plan they predicted that by the end of this year we would have an unemployment rate of approximately 7.0% and improving. Without we would hit 8.8%.

But if we visit the government's own Bureau of Labor Statistics we can see this chart.

With the recovery plan we have hit 9.8% and appear to still be climbing. So, as you can see, he hasn't given anyone a job. They were wrong. They failed to do what they said they would do and screwed it up. The sad part is that he had supposed economic experts giving him this info. Now, in light of how badly they flubbed it and how little his economic experts appear to understand economics, why does anyone want to trust any further economic policies he implements until he fires his current group of "experts" and hires some more?


Now, I want to return to the chart the president was using for a second, because there is a second issue I have with the stimulus, other than it wouldn't work and created debts.

Look at the trend lines between with or without a plan. They are very similar and by the end of the chart they are equal again. He wasn't planning to save anything, he wasn't fixing anything, he was throwing money to shave about six months off when we stopped losing jobs. A trillion dollars that Americans will be paying back for generations, for what? So that some people today could get a job back even quicker? Is it worth it to you to screw over your children and grandchildren just so that you can have a job six months sooner?

Not that it matters, they were completely wrong on both accounts anyway. So now we have just screwed over our children and grandchildren for nothing.

Its funny how erveryone wats to talk sine bush left.Also obama is doing everything bush did'nt

Everything Bush didn't? Like expanding the war in Afghanistan into Pakistan, thus causing us to be at war in three countries, instead of just two now? That sounds like a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Or maybe you mean adding trillions to the national debt...oh wait, Bush did that too, and Obama agreed and voted for it. I know, he complained about Bush's bank bailout, even though he had voted for it. I guess he forgot to read it first because he was too busy trying to show how much he cared just before the election. What about extending the Patriot Act? Yep, Obama likes the Patriot Act too.

Heck, the only thing Obama did that Bush didn't was win a Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush. Of course, it seems like the odds were stacked against Bush in that one.

also he as fixed the economy from horrible to workable.

I believe I already answered this.

So please stop with all your ignorance it's sad.

Yes, ignorance makes me sad too.

Let the man do his job.👍

I'm trying but he keeps screwing it up, or did you forget that he took a vow to uphold the Constitution as part of his job?

Its true look it up i know obama is making change

I looked it up, and posted graphs and facts and reports. The only change I see is an increase in the federal deficit.

yall don't think he is doing well is it cause of his race.Give me a true reason why.

What has anyone done or said to make you think race is playing a role? Who in here said a word about the color of his skin? I think the closest anyone has come is Solid Fro making fun of Obama's defenders that keep bringing race into it for no reason.

As for a true reason for why I don't think he is doing well:
- Complaining about a bank bailout plan that he voted for.
- Increased the federal deficit by close to a trillion dollars for a failed stimulus.
- Gave more money to the banks, increasing the deficit more.
- Cash for Clunkers that failed to do anything other than prove economic theory that he ignored, and added to the deficit.
- Pushing for healthcare reform that removes people's rights and risks even greater deficits.

Things he did well:
- Gave the kill order for pirates holding an American hostage.
- Picked out a cute puppy.

Like i said let the man do his job ok.

[Bunch of stuff Obama did...before he was president]

Nice list of things he did before he was president. Where is your list of achievements he has done as president. More specifically, as this is the topic to start all this, where is the list of things that makes him deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize?

Yup i am so you was going for palin if so it just describes your ignorance.

The more the president talks and says things like the US invented the automobile the more I am convinced he is just as intelligent as Sarah Palin. He is just more discreet in how often he talks without a teleprompter and shows it.

 

[YSSMAN]

The politics of the stimulus, regardless of how big or small (or non-existent) it was leads me to a basic conclusion: No one would have been happy no matter what had been done. The problem with the unemployment figures, as Foolkiller noted is that they have not been corrected as expected. I'd peg that on a poor allocation of funds, but there are likely better arguments to be made by people who study economics. While unemployment is still going up, as of the past few weeks, it has been slowed significantly compared to where it had been. That does not mean "recovery" to me, but it is a somewhat more positive sign, particularly when combined with the consumer spending figures.

We've got a little more than a year for unemployment growth to level off, and to hopefully begin to decrease. I still think we're going to be stuck in a "jobless recovery" for some time. That, compared to some of my friends here at school, would be deemed "optimistic."

 

[FoolKiller]

The problem with the unemployment figures, as Foolkiller noted is that they have not been corrected as expected. I'd peg that on a poor allocation of funds, but there are likely better arguments to be made by people who study economics.

I don't have any kind of degree but I can follow that Website number Joe Biden gave me to find this.

Out of $787 billion they have only actually given out $173.2 billion, 22%. For an emergency they are moving slow, especially if the goal was to begin the reversal of unemployment by the end of this month (Q4). In order to have poor allocation you have to have allocation. Even if the stimulus did/does work, it wouldn't be having any kind of effect by now because they are moving at the pace expected of government.

At the rate the government is moving I am willing to bet that the economy will recover on its own before they finish handing this out. Actually, by the time they are done regulating pay and benefits and restricting things there will probably be even less hiring and a drawn out recession.

Wait, didn't some other economic recovery plan draw a recession out and make things worse than predicted before? When was that?

 

[Danoff]

No one would have been happy no matter what had been done.

That's not true. I could have been made happy. Not attempting to blow $1 trillion dollars we don't have would have been a good start. That alone would make me much happier than I am now.

 

[Duke]

And not sending the stimulus money to political allies would help, too.

Did you know that out of several hundred million dollars allocated towards fire services (to pick one example), not one dollar went to volunteer fire companies? It all went to paid companies...

...because those firefighters are all union members.

 

[Joey D]

I still don't think it matter who the president is, you are always going to have someone doing the wrong thing.

Obama really seems no better or no worse then any other president I can remember. Granted I don't have much to go on: Regan, Bush V1.0, Clinton, and Bush V2.0. This is a problem though as for the past 20 some odd years we've pretty much had the same face on our government and all it does it screw over average citizens. I really wish I was insanely rich or horribly poor, that way I could make it in America.

 

[FoolKiller]

This is a problem though as for the past 225 some odd years we've pretty much had the same face on our government and all it does it screw over average citizens.

Fixed that for you. Washington was likely the only one that didn't want the job. To me that says he was likely the only one that deserved it. I mean, even Adams V1.0 and Jefferson couldn't agree on crap like the central bank.

 

[Joey D]

Fixed that for you. Washington was likely the only one that didn't want the job. To me that says he was likely the only one that deserved it. I mean, even Adams V1.0 and Jefferson couldn't agree on crap like the central bank.

Ya unfortunatly I dosed off during much of American history so I'm not real sure on any of that. I was just commenting on the stuff I can remember, or at least vaguely remember. But I would imagine you are right.

 

[FoolKiller]

Ya unfortunatly I dosed off during much of American history so I'm not real sure on any of that. I was just commenting on the stuff I can remember, or at least vaguely remember. But I would imagine you are right.

Check out HBO's John Adams mini series. It covers from the Boston Massacre until Adams' death. It mixes a bit of what is likely legend in, but also has a lot of unknown not commonly known facts as well.

 

[livemusic]

Warren Harding also had good economic policies, despite being corrupt, according to Tom Woods.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods125.html

 

[nk4e]

Check out HBO's John Adams mini series. It covers from the Boston Massacre until Adams' death. It mixes a bit of what is likely legend in, but also has a lot of unknown not commonly known facts as well.

I want to finish that series too. Along with Over There which they cut off T-T

 

[YSSMAN]

Ya unfortunatly I dosed off during much of American history so I'm not real sure on any of that.

Its a shame, politics and history often go hand-in-hand. If I had it my way here at Aquinas, I'd figure out a way to require several of the history classes for a political science major. But, history isn't for everyone. Although I've never understood why people can't tolerate knowing their country's history, particularly when so much of it directly effects what is happening in their life today.

 

[FoolKiller]

Its a shame, politics and history often go hand-in-hand. If I had it my way here at Aquinas, I'd figure out a way to require several of the history classes for a political science major. But, history isn't for everyone. Although I've never understood why people can't tolerate knowing their country's history, particularly when so much of it directly effects what is happening in their life today.

A single political history course should be enough to just cover the American political system from the ground up. Keep it focused so that there isn't a need to focus on Lewis & Clark, Daniel Boone, etc and just on the events that have shaped the American government.

I think the main reason for not having it in any poli-sci program though is that most people who are there are pre-law. They will get any historical legal events knocked out in law school. And even very few of them are thinking about politics, so the main American history stuff is not that important to them.

 

[Joey D]

Check out HBO's John Adams mini series. It covers from the Boston Massacre until Adams' death. It mixes a bit of what is likely legend in, but also has a lot of unknown not commonly known facts as well.

I'll have to check it out, I assume it's on DVD and can be procured from Netflix.

Its a shame, politics and history often go hand-in-hand. If I had it my way here at Aquinas, I'd figure out a way to require several of the history classes for a political science major. But, history isn't for everyone. Although I've never understood why people can't tolerate knowing their country's history, particularly when so much of it directly effects what is happening in their life today.

I love history, but listening to a professor drone on and on about stuff that really didn't matter that much is boring. Not to mention you get whatever the professor's take on the history was. I had one professor who I seriously thought was a Communist and I'm pretty sure he wished the Soviets would have won the Cold War.

I'd rather get my trowel and go dig up history so I can study it that way.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'll have to check it out, I assume it's on DVD and can be procured from Netflix.

I just checked Netflix, and yes. It is three discs. I just recorded it off of HBO on my TV Tuner card when they were running an all-day marathon. I think the whole thing takes about 9 hours to watch.

 

[YSSMAN]

Almost all of my history classes were post-Civil War, with the exception of "The Federal Union" (1770-1830), as well as my German and Russian history classes. We do have political history classes, which are a lot of fun. In those, we get to read through a majority of the political writings of our figureheads throughout American history. Some of the best arguments I've ever participated in were in that class.

 

[FoolKiller]

You guys knew this was coming:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/22/news/companies/compensation_white_house/?postversion=2009102215

Washington's bank pay crackdown

Obama's pay czar demands executive pay cuts at biggest bailout firms. Federal Reserve proposes sweeping review of pay plans at 28 largest U.S. banks.

By David Ellis, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: October 22, 2009: 4:37 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Washington launched its biggest offensive yet against runaway Wall Street pay practices Thursday, taking aim at everyone from senior executives to high-flying traders of complex securities.

Leading the charge was the White House, which outline a series of drastic pay cuts for top executives at the nation's biggest bailed-out companies, including AIG (AIG, Fortune 500), Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500).

Separately, the Federal Reserve proposed a review of pay practices at 28 of the nation's largest banks to make sure employees are not tempted to make the kinds of bets that helped sink firms like Lehman Brothers.

Much of Thursday's focus, however, was on a ruling issued by White House "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg, who has been actively reviewing pay plans for top executives at the seven biggest bailout firms -- AIG, Citigorup, Bank of America, General Motors, its former finance arm GMAC, as well as Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.

Among other things, Feinberg demanded that each of the bailout recipients lower total compensation for their top 25 highest-paid employee by 50%, on average.

Much of those cuts came at the expense of executives' salaries, which were reduced more than 90% on average.

This will affect roughly 175 executives. And this isn't where he stops, as the Obama administration has claimed they want to monitor pay of all employees of these institutions. This is just the big dogs report.

So, 175 executives will be facing an overall 50% cut in their total compensations? Why do I predict 175 executive job openings? If they cannot offer competitive wages they cannot hire the best and brightest. Sure, we can argue that these guys are obviously not that as they participated in the actions that precipitated the recession, but how can you bring in guys that do fit that bill if other companies can just hand them twice the compensation?

Here is the deal: These guys were given bailout money because they were supposedly "too big to fail." Now, they are having their ability to hire and keep quality executives handicapped. If they are too big to fail why would you want to put them at a competitive disadvantage when trying to hire the leaders of the company?


Speaking of competitive disadvantage:

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSTRE59L4UR20091022

Pay czar rulings to keep firms competitive: Geithner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Thursday that the U.S. pay czar's rulings for compensation at bailed out firms strikes a balance between cutting excessive pay and keeping strong management in place.

"We all share an interest in seeing these companies return taxpayer dollars as soon as possible and Ken today has helped bring that day a little bit closer," Geithner said in a statement about rulings by pay czar Kenneth Feinberg that are expected to be released on Thursday.

Feinberg is ordering sweeping pay cuts at the firms that have received exceptional taxpayer assistance during the financial crisis, which are: AIG (AIG.N), Bank of America (BAC.N), Citigroup (C.N), General Motors GM.UL, Chrysler, GMAC and Chrysler Financial.

"We gave him the difficult task of cutting excessive pay, striking a balance between compensation and risk taking, and keeping strong management teams in place to help the companies recover -- all in the public interest," Geithner said.

(Reporting by Karey Wutkowski and David Lawder, Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

It is official. The US Treasury Secretary learned business and economics at the Zoolander center for kids who can't do math well, and then he likely barely passed the remedial courses.

Hamstringing a company's ability to give compensation to employees does not keep them balanced or competitive. It destroys them, you dolt!

I can't believe I am hearing a government interventionist program being defended as protecting free market competitiveness. It sounds like something that could only be found in fiction.

Oh wait.

 

[Keef]

Why do I predict 175 executive job openings?

So tell me what would happen in a theoretical situation where all those 175 people really did simply quit their jobs, on the same day. What would come of that?

I'm also curious what would happen if companies across the country started paying all their bills, purchases, payroll, and everything in cash or personal checks. Paying under the table, so as to avoid all taxes. Would that be possible? Why not? If it is possible, what would happen if everyone did that all at the same time? It would be funny at the end of the week when the government saw that it collected no tax revenue whatsoever.

 

[Omnis]

I was told by one of my brain-bowl teammates that he went to a "discussion" kind of thing hosted by faculty at lunch time today. I was busy in a lecture, but from what I gathered it was a "Why the economic collapse happened" thing by a socialist (hedging should be banned and the gov should control the financial market) vs. an almost-but-not-quite-there (It's congress's fault) argument. I have a feeling these two people were going back and forth with eachother over email when they decided they would discuss it openly and invite students so that they could learn something. Walter Block tried to do this with an idiot teacher publicly accusing him of being a sexist/misogynist over email (ie, To: Walter Block; cc: Everyone). It was something I would've liked to attend and bring an Austrian-school perspective, but sadly I missed the opportunity.