Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[ledhed]

You know --here the thing Danoff--

Reality will often intrude on idealism and turn you to pragmatism .

Judge the guy on what he does...not what we think he MAY do .


Who the hell in their right mind would have thought GW would BUY banks and Insurance companies and turn the USA into France ?

 

[YSSMAN]

I can't imagine doing 100 hours per year in college. I hope something like this is only forced on people on federal financial aid.

That has been my understanding, and while I disagree with the suggested hours (40 seems more-likely), I like the idea on *federal* funds. A small portion of my tuition comes from the government every year, but if they're offering to double it for a small investment of my personal time, I'd be willing to do something about it.

...Thing is, most colleges are highly suggesting (or requiring) large amounts of community service for their applicants, and in some cases for their attendees, so this may work out hand-in-hand with some of those programs. Which, again, suggests that there would be a far-lower hourly requirement...

RE: Obama's Suggestion for a Stimulus Package

More BS stimulus (ie: redistribution ie: welfare) packages. I don't like the precedent was created with the last round of "stimulus" checks. But I'm not surprised that Obama thinks this is a good solution.

I believe I've made my point on these before, I don't like them, and I don't think they work. This, of course, will likely be the first (of many) points where I disagree with Obama on certain policy issues. I would prefer for him to look at some other options, but given the nature of Congress and the history of them passing these without thinking too hard, it seems like its the easy option at this point for a short-term gain. Does that make it "right?" Not hardly, but for now, this is up to Bush, not Obama. The Chinese too. Assuming they still have enough Wongs to hand out...

I'm personally in favor for infrastructure spending, but unfortunately that is a much longer process by comparison to what the people demand, but at least in my opinion, its more effective in not only spending tax dollars properly, but also doing repairs or construction that is necessary for the benefit of vast numbers of Americans.

The man needs to spend some time in economics class.

I think everyone does, but that does not guarantee that we will all come to the same conclusions as to what is right or otherwise best under all circumstances.

 

[Omnis]

That has been my understanding, and while I disagree with the suggested hours (40 seems more-likely), I like the idea on *federal* funds. A small portion of my tuition comes from the government every year, but if they're offering to double it for a small investment of my personal time, I'd be willing to do something about it.

Of course, we/they could just do the better thing and yank financial aid from under the schools' feet. Schools would be forced to lower tuition, and could cut costs by having more students work in staff positions in exchange for tuition. Mutually beneficial trade is better than volunteering.

I think everyone does, but that does not guarantee that we will all come to the same conclusions as to what is right or otherwise best under all circumstances.

It only doesn't when you're talking about qualitative economics in quantitative terms (aka the mainstream crap we're witnessing now).

 

[Solid Fro]

Yeah, Florida already tried to coerce me to "volunteer" for 40 hours in high school.

Coercing people to volunteer is NOT volunteering!

I can't imagine doing 100 hours per year in college. I hope something like this is only forced on people on federal financial aid.

Obama has removed the word "require" from his change.gov website.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31851_Obama_Quietly_Revokes_His_Plan_for_a_Draft

The Obama-SS is officially under the bus. Has Obama done anything right so far?

 

[Vasco]

Of course, we/they could just do the better thing and yank financial aid from under the schools' feet. Schools would be forced to lower tuition, and could cut costs by having more students work in staff positions in exchange for tuition. Mutually beneficial trade is better than volunteering.



It only doesn't when you're talking about qualitative economics in quantitative terms (aka the mainstream crap we're witnessing now).

I think you have to consider reality as well (i.e. the present situation and what resources are available to tend to it), you can't just live in a theoretical bubble. That forced community service thing sounds quite terrible though.

 

[YSSMAN]

Of course, we/they could just do the better thing and yank financial aid from under the schools' feet. Schools would be forced to lower tuition, and could cut costs by having more students work in staff positions in exchange for tuition.

I'm not completely sure how well that would work, but I'd be willing to see what'd happen. Although going to a private school, it wouldn't change much for me. As far as the state schools are concerned, it would be interesting. The "big school" around here, Grand Valley State, has had its tuition costs increase by $3000+ (I think?) in the three years I've been at Aquinas, most of that occurring last year as I recall. The differences between they and us (a private school) seems to be limited to roughly $3000 now, which in my opinion is a bit odd.

 

[Omnis]

I think you have to consider reality as well (i.e. the present situation and what resources are available to tend to it), you can't just live in a theoretical bubble. That forced community service thing sounds quite terrible though.

That is reality. It's the financial bubble that you just can't live in forever.

The cost backlash can be further reduced by eliminating taxes on schooling and students.

 

[Prosthetic]

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/john_mccain_accidentally_left_on?utm_source=videomrss_81809

 

[Solid Fro]

How Obama got elected:





I'm starting to believe that uneducated voters won this election for Obama. *I* shouldn't have to explain Obama's positions (or lack of) to my friends and co-workers who voted for Obama. Absolutely pathetic.

http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

This isn't...



the first time...

 

[Bram Turismo]

I'm starting to believe that uneducated voters won this election for Obama.

Wow, that certainly took you some time to find out Most of the norwegians that are no politicians, did what you just told... But then again, we didn't vote, so we aren't really affecting America. Still, it shouldn't be an excuse not to be uneducated when the voting time arrives...

On that, I saw Obama's TV interview partially on the news. I must admit that I disagree with him putting the Iraq War as the most important issue at the moment. I believe that the topic of the economical crisis should be put forth as the most important thing, because not only America is dying from it, the whole world is facing the crisis.

 

[Solid Fro]

Wow, that certainly took you some time to find out

I don't start blaming others when I don't get my way, unlike those on The Left. I want to know how Republicans combat this stupidity, if that's possible at all. Seriously, Bill Maher and Jon Stewart? They're comedians!

Is it media bias?

 

[Omnis]

I don't start blaming others when I don't get my way, unlike those on The Left. I want to know how Republicans combat this stupidity, if that's possible at all. Seriously, Bill Maher and Jon Stewart? They're comedians!

Is it media bias?

Republicans can combat this stupidity by getting rid of their own. Repubs lost because they became more concerned with power than principle. They even sacrificed principle for power.

 

[YSSMAN]

I want to know how Republicans combat this stupidity, if that's possible at all.

You do realize how dumb voters were on both sides of the issue, right? I just want to be clear on that...

===

Nevertheless, Republicans have to reform, split, or die. There isn't any way around it. I am of the belief that the "Hyper-Reaganism" (coined by Sean Wilentz) that has dominated the GOP since 2000 will have to go away if they're going to bring back the votes of moderate Republicans and that extremely important middle 30% of Independents. Reform would be the easiest solution, but that means that a lot of Republicans (if they haven't already been pushed out) will have to change their position on some things dramatically. Simply put, the demographics of voters has changed, and the majority of the GOP does not cater to it.

Lets explain in simple terms why McCain-Palin lost...



The central BLACK line measures the political view points and the number of votes available. Obviously, the majority of Americans tend to drift towards the center of the political spectrum, playing towards both sides of the field. The left BLUE line represents what Obama had run on during the primary. Similarly, the right RED line represents what McCain had run on. **NOTE** McCain's line is closer to the center, something that he has constantly done, being to the left of a large portion of the Republican party since the Reagan years.

The key is to move your political position closer to that gray center line in order to get the highest number of votes. Traditionally the United States operates as a right-of-center country, so in theory, this should have been in the bag for McCain if he would have stuck to his Republican-fighting principles. The teal line on the left demonstrates where Barack Obama moved in his position, slightly to the right, but still left of center. By comparison, McCain did what you're not supposed to do. Republicans were far too worried about catering to the "base," and consequently, McCain had to move his position further to the right... Something that alienates moderate Republicans, Independents and conservative Democrats. This is something that was repeated across the country.

I've heard arguments that the center gray line has moved further to the left based on the voting preferences of younger voters, and the needs of the middle-class being catered to better by the Democrats. That, or this is a political trend based on perceived need right now. I find it somewhat hard to believe completely, but understandably, if we are to follow what we call "Barkan's First Law of Politics" (ie, people die), the Republicans have not done enough to bring in youth and minority votes to keep their voter base big enough to offset that of the Democrats.

But in even more simple terms, Omnis hit the nail on the head.

 

[Keef]

YSSMAN, it sounds like you think the Republican party should cater to the people more than they do now if they want to survive. Of course that's what you're saying, it's only logical.

If that's the case, then I prefer the party die. The People has moved further left than ever before, and it drives me nuts. If the Republican party moves any further "moderate" they'll be Democrats in no time. Republicans are already almost Democrats, and Democrats have become fire breathing liberal extremists. I think the People should straighten its act up and stop caring so much. Is there such thing as a moderate Libertarian? Or would that defeat the purpose of the party?

 

[YSSMAN]

YSSMAN, it sounds like you think the Republican party should cater to the people more than they do now if they want to survive. Of course that's what you're saying, it's only logical.

Yes, I believe they should cater to the needs of the people, that is most-logical. But being Republicans, they should be slightly to the right of that, and in just the same way, the Democrats should be slightly to the left. My argument is that the Republicans have drifted too far to the right (the GWB, neocon, "Hyper-Reagan" BS is what I'm in reference to), further than what the majority of Americans are willing to deal with. This represents a disconnect that they should not be having given the general nature of the American voter to be slightly right-of-center.

Granted, my opinion of what a Republican should be is likely different than some of the other people on here. Because I'm a moderate, I tend to side more with people like Senator Hagel, Senator Specter and my Congressman Vernon Ehlers. But, nevertheless, I count myself as one, and I'd generally prefer to see the party survive in some way, shape or form. Therefore, we as Republicans must figure out how to make our positioning the stronger of the two. That may require middling some of the party's positions on some things, dropping issue with others, or attempting to make a solid stand against what Obama and the Democrats are suggesting.

I am not about to suggest that the Republicans begin to act as the Democrats did 2002-2006, but they're going to have to walk a thin red line to make sure that they not only stay alive politically, but also find a few points at which they'll be able have solid ground over the Democrats with.

 

[Omnis]

YSSMAN, I don't think you can explain why McCain lost like that. It's just way too simple. Besides, your method solves the "how", not the "why"-- the "why" remains "because McCain got fewer (electoral) votes."

I'm still more baffled at why and how McCain even got the Republican nomination.

If the Republican party moves any further "moderate" they'll be Democrats in no time. Republicans are already almost Democrats, and Democrats have become fire breathing liberal extremists. I think the People should straighten its act up and stop caring so much. Is there such thing as a moderate Libertarian? Or would that defeat the purpose of the party?

To quote von Mises, "Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism" http://mises.org/midroad.asp

You can call repubs and dems anything you want; they're both increasingly statist entities; unfortunately, that is the nature of political parties.

And, yes, there is such a thing as moderate Libertarians. Cato Institute has a couple... and look at Bob Barr. I think anyone could say they're moderate libertarians. Even if they would be telling the truth, who would have the spine to say that they're against liberty?

 

[YSSMAN]

YSSMAN, I don't think you can explain why McCain lost like that. It's just way too simple. Besides, your method solves the "how", not the "why"-- the "why" remains "because McCain got fewer (electoral) votes."

I did say it was basic, but its the way we've broken it down quite often in class. If he would have stuck truthfully to his "maverick" (har har) position that made him popular before, he shouldn't have had any problem with Obama. Poor campaign management and the increasing pressure to move further right, I assume, is what put him in the ground.

That, and the poor campaign finance choice. Who wants to bet the FEC doesn't let that happen again?

I'm still more baffled at why and how McCain even got the Republican nomination.

Agreed. He should have backed out when he was polling so low, I'm surprised he managed to regain so much traction after that. By all means, Romney (*shudder*) should have taken the nomination based on popularity and the way this campaign ended up working out. He would have been far more credible on the economic stance, but I believe some of the back-room guys were a bit more worried about his Mormon heritage than they should have been. To that end, Huckabee would have had a far better chance (he was one of the candidates I didn't mind) presumably on his down-home, populist nature. Again, hard to know for sure...

Either way, we're going to be dissecting this cycle for years. Kinda makes me sad that I won't be able to sit through all the classes discussing it...

 

[Danoff]

McCain did not lose because he was too far right. He lost because he was not far enough to the right. And he lost because Bush was not far enough to the right.

There was almost nothing separating McCain's policy and Obama's. Taxes were one (where McCain had the edge), foreign policy was another. But for the most part they both agreed with Bush. When you don't have real differences in policy, the most charismatic guy wins.

Who do you think was the most charismatic?

 

[Omnis]

When you don't have real differences in policy, the most charismatic guy wins.

Who do you think was the most charismatic?

Takes a hell of a lot of charisma to put a corpse on stage and have him perform.

 

[Bram Turismo]

McCain did not lose because he was too far right. He lost because he was not far enough to the right. And he lost because Bush was not far enough to the right.

I always thought the choice of Palin as running mate was also responsible for a reputation less than Obama. I've always thought Palin was a crazy minded aunt, and some of her claims she outed live about Obama made me go

 

[YSSMAN]

McCain did not lose because he was too far right. He lost because he was not far enough to the right. And he lost because Bush was not far enough to the right.

I think we need to differentiate between where he stood on "right." I agree that he truthfully was not far enough to the right on economic policies, but as far as social things are concerned, he was a very different character compared to Obama. Again, catering to the "base" (that I hate so much).

 

[Solid Fro]

On a side note...

How Obama got elected?

By eating:



Chicken wings, waffles, and pie.

 

[RACECAR]

Just for good measure, I'd like to see that exact same questionaire applied to the Mccain voters as it sounds like they are saying basically anyone who voted for Obama didn't know what the hell they were voting for

On a side note...

How Obama got elected?

By eating:



Chicken wings, waffles, and pie.

Apparently, he likes Chicken Wings, Waffles, and Pie(strangely, the same things I like). Whats the matter with that?

 

[Keef]

Obama's love of pie has been the running joke of 700 WLW for at least a month now. He wants his pie, and he wants a piece of your pie, too.

 

[ledhed]

Pie !!

Go obama !!

 

[buickgnx88]

Chicken wings, waffles, and pie.

Could someone let me in on how chicken and waffles go good together? In other words, are they the same waffles that you would have for breakfast, or are they like another word for paddle-fries?

Edit: looked it up on Wiki, and it is indeed breakfast-type waffles. Seems odd, but then again it is more of a southern traditional food!

 

[FoolKiller]

Could someone let me in on how chicken and waffles go good together? In other words, are they the same waffles that you would have for breakfast, or are they like another word for paddle-fries?

Edit: looked it up on Wiki, and it is indeed breakfast-type waffles. Seems odd, but then again it is more of a southern traditional food!

That is in LA.


Also, if you watch Heroes, this past week (in the US) Hiro got a craving for chicken and waffles and teleported to a chicken and waffles restaurant in Japan.

 

[Omnis]

So Sarah Palin held an interview. Except this time, turkeys are being slaughtered in the background. I think this lady has had a little too much of that McCaine.



/ULTIMATE FACEPALM.

 

[Touring Mars]

/ULTIMATE FACEPALM.

I'm lost for words....

 

[Keef]

Now, I like eatin' my turkey, but watching them struggle and die like that makes me sick. What was he doing, strangling it until it suffocated!?! A swift chop of the neck would work better and would be less barbarian.