Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[Omnis]

You can read what he will say here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/

Here are some quotes:

"We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country."

"And even when you’re struggling, even when you’re discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you – don’t ever give up on yourself. Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country."

"So today, I want to ask you, what’s your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?"

"I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down."

Yay, nationalism! I failed my country because I haven't cured cancer.

Here are the reasons, from an article by Michael Rozeff, to object to this speech:

1. The speech is beyond the President’s constitutional powers.
2. The President is supporting a national role in education, which also is unconstitutional.
3. The President is not supporting his oath of office, so he is conveying an anti-constitutional message to children.
4. The President is crossing a boundary between the political and social spheres. That boundary is in place in order to control government power and maintain a healthy free society.
5. The President is augmenting national power and influence.
6. The President is starting a new precedent that has dangerous implications.
7. The President’s speech cannot possibly be non-political. The very act itself is politically in furtherance of government and an enhanced government role.
8. The President also leads his party, and that fact may influence children.
9. The President may have an undue influence over children due to his position and power.
10. Will fairness considerations lead to equal time for opposition leaders?
11. Presidential access to communications is dangerous enough without extending it to youth.

 

[Keef]

1. The speech is beyond the President’s constitutional powers.
2. The President is supporting a national role in education, which also is unconstitutional.
3. The President is not supporting his oath of office, so he is conveying an anti-constitutional message to children.
4. The President is crossing a boundary between the political and social spheres. That boundary is in place in order to control government power and maintain a healthy free society.
5. The President is augmenting national power and influence.
6. The President is starting a new precedent that has dangerous implications.
7. The President’s speech cannot possibly be non-political. The very act itself is politically in furtherance of government and an enhanced government role.
8. The President also leads his party, and that fact may influence children.
9. The President may have an undue influence over children due to his position and power.
10. Will fairness considerations lead to equal time for opposition leaders?
11. Presidential access to communications is dangerous enough without extending it to youth.

Have these very same arguments been presented every singe time a president has ever done anything like this? I didn't hear any of this after GWB attented school with little kids on the morning of 9/11. Why didn't I hear about this then?

There's a lot of unconstitutional things presidents have done for decades that I haven't heard about until now that our president happens to be black. I think you're all racist.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

God Forbid, that someone (in this case the president) wants you to become educated....

 

[Casio]

God Forbid, that someone (in this case the president) wants you to become educated....

I know, what would people rather him say?

 

[Small_Fryz]

God Forbid, that someone (in this case the president) wants you to become educated....

You cant win...

I agree with what Obama said, encouraging kids to not give up on themselves, to try hard and to make the most of their potential.

sure he might scare them a little with the if you dont your FAIL YOUR COUNTRY but i cant see whats wrong with that.

 

[FoolKiller]

Have these very same arguments been presented every singe time a president has ever done anything like this? I didn't hear any of this after GWB attented school with little kids on the morning of 9/11. Why didn't I hear about this then?

Because you were three and not paying attention to things like Congressional Inquiries.

There's a lot of unconstitutional things presidents have done for decades that I haven't heard about until now that our president happens to be black. I think you're all racist.

Don't even start that, not even as a joke. I hear it too much now as it is and have even seen articles saying that the white conservative racists want to "keep black people of the tee vee."

Anyone who seriously thinks this only needs to look at the eight years of W's presidency to see that is BS. And anyone who wishes to call me out can go read the thread I started when Bush proposed the bank bailout, or look up my thoughts on warrantless wiretaps.


Obama gets so much grief because he is attempting to tackle multiple major issues immediately, because he knows that he only has a bout a year before the average population catches on to the fact that the only change he brought was a name change on the stationary. The more he talks the more I am convinced that he is equally as dumb as George W. Bush was made out to be, Obama just doesn't stumble on his words as often. But, uh, it is, um, easy to, uh, avoid that when you, um, know how to, uh, hesitate. That way you aren't misunderstanded.

 

[YSSMAN]

A solid speech tonight, I'd say. I still prefer a pragmatic solution to the bills at hand, but it still may sell a lot of people short. I'm still befuddled as to why we aren't talking about the Australian model, as it sounds like a very well-balanced way of getting both public and private schemes to work together at an affordable price.

*shrug*

Obama gets so much grief because he is attempting to tackle multiple major issues immediately, because he knows that he only has a bout a year before the average population catches on...

Typically, that happens with any President, regardless of party. This would be the time where they have the greatest amount of political capital, where they can make the greatest amount of moves while still having the majority of the support of the people who elected them into office. That's the way the game is played. Obama gets a lot of flak because he is the President. That's the easiest way to put it.

What is going to be critical in the next year or so is how the Democrats will continue to move legislation, and how the President can control his message on policy direction(s). Afghanistan, Healthcare and the short-term health of the economy will be the deciding factors, it would seem. It seems likely that the Democrats will lose a fair number of seats in Congress, that is to be expected following most major swings in politics.

 

[Omnis]

Sometimes I wonder why Abraham Lincoln was such a dick. A split country would've been great for the wacky socialists and their useful idiots.

I can't wait for a Governor to tell Obama to shove it. And I hope it's not just Rick Perry.

 

[FoolKiller]

So, yesterday a man stood up in front of a crowd and gave the country hope, while proposing an idea that can help people live.

YES HE CAN!!!

"I'm vertical," with just those two words he gave sick people hope and showed the effectiveness of being an organ donor.

Obama...not so much.

So, reading through the text of the speech I see that the president has basically not changed a thing. He started with some sob stories of failure and heartbreak, yet then went on to say he won't change what we have, only to later mention the various restrictions he will add to what we have.

It is the same stuff as before. He finally addressed the Free Market proposal, while completely misconstruing it, as well as addressing the single payer plan, which he claimed to support as a candidate, but in the end he wants what works, which is, to no one's surprise, the same crap he has been talking about all summer.

He wants a government run health care option that is paid for by taxes, and he wants to create new regulations that harm the profitability of private companies, while claiming they will be the same. He fails to see how this means that some people will pay for health insurance and pay for the public option. He fails to see how this unbalanced taxing is just a new form of wealth redistribution, and he fails to see how a mandate restricts freedom.

If he can take people's money and force them into health care in the name of the public good what else can he do? Can they make unhealthy products and activities, such as fatty foods and smoking illegal, place ridiculous taxes on them, or charge high insurance surcharges for that activity to people who are forced to get insurance?

And at the end of it all he failed to explain how this can be paid for while keeping his earlier promises to not raise taxes on the middle class or sign a bill that would increase our deficit. There aren't enough rich people to cover all his spending. Wealthiest country in the world does not translate into bottomless piggy bank, unless you count The Fed. But they can only go so far before they completely destroy the economy. They don't know it, nor does the president apparently, but it is true.


And reading the Republican response, they appear to want all the restrictions on private insurers without an affordable option on the side. Great, screw us all without taxing the rich along the way. But they did propose allowing people to buy insurance across state lines. Finally, someone in the mainstream freaking says it. Too bad Republicans will likely change their story when they are the majority party again.


I found this Cato "translation" of the president's speech to be humorous:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/09/10/obamas-health-care-speech-in-plain-english/

Obama’s Health Care Speech in Plain English
Posted by Michael F. Cannon

Hell of a speech last night, eh? Here are a few of my favorite gems.

Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

Translation: I, Barack Obama, ignoring thousands of years of failed price-control schemes, will impose price controls on health insurance. I will force insurers to sell a $50k policies for $10k. What could go wrong?

We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month.

True. And your employer mandate would kill hundreds of thousands of low-wage jobs that would never come back.

They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses…. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care.

Translation: Boy! Are we going to force you to buy a lot of coverage!

I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.

…except for the bureaucrats I proposed to put between you and your doctor.

Some… supported a budget that would have essentially turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program. That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.

Translation: I will never let seniors control their own health care dollars. I will never give up Washington’s control over your health care decisions. Mmmmuuuuhahahahahaha!

…there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed.

Translation: There are too many lobbyists counting on me to succeed: drug-industry lobbyists, health-insurance lobbyists, physician-cartel lobbyists, large-employer lobbyists, hospital lobbyists….

It’s a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge – not just government and insurance companies, but employers and individuals.

Translation: I’m going to tax the hell out of you, but I don’t want you to notice how much I’m going to tax you. So I’m going to tax employers and insurance companies, and they’re going to pass the taxes on to you. Most of the taxes won’t even show up in the government’s budget. It’s all very clever. No, seriously – just ask my economic advisor Larry Summers.

It’s a plan that incorporates ideas from Senators and Congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans – and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.

Translation: I may have savaged your ideas in the past, called them irresponsible…risky…dangerous…whatever. But that wasn’t about principle; I just wanted to become president. Now that I’m president, I need a win. So you’ll help me, won’t you? Hey, where’s Hillary?

And finally, I heard more in the news this morning about Senator Wilson yelling, "That's a lie," than I did the speech itself. Everyone was acting all upset and offended.

Let me take you back to 2005, when ALL the Democrats booed Bush during his State of the Union address, or back even further when Republicans did it to Clinton.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200502040014

It isn't new, and the fact that only one Senator acted out shows that they are acting a bit more mature.

 

[Omnis]

You can't step on Obama's toes, dude. This guy is more of an egomaniac than all previous presidents combined.

 

[FoolKiller]

If he can take people's money and force them into health care in the name of the public good what else can he do? Can they make unhealthy products and activities, such as fatty foods and smoking illegal, place ridiculous taxes on them, or charge high insurance surcharges for that activity to people who are forced to get insurance?

Apparently someone thinks he should regulate the agricultural industry for this very reason.

A friend just sent me this article. Imagine my surprise when I found that what I thought was a slightly exaggerated bit of commentary turned out to be an actual idea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=2&emc=eta1

And a counterpoint argument.
http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/extension/update/articles/v11n2_1.pdf

 

[Omnis]

Yeah, let's make all agriculture organic.

and starve 2 billion people on earth.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yeah, let's make all agriculture organic.

and starve 2 billion people on earth.

It is like I keep saying, if you let them set a precedent on some lame argument they won't stop using it to do more and more until you find you have very few rights.

 

[FoolKiller]

Well folks, the time to renew/extend Patriot Act provisions is coming up. Many Obama supporters used the Patriot Act as an attack on Republicans, as they should have. Now, President Obama has a chance to end this now and stop violating rights for the illusion of security.

Unfortunately, he won't

Hot off the Associated Press:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PATRIOT_ACT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Obama supports extending Patriot Act provisions
By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration supports extending three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year, the Justice Department told Congress in a letter made public Tuesday.

Lawmakers and civil rights groups had been pressing the Democratic administration to say whether it wants to preserve the post-Sept. 11 law's authority to access business records, as well as monitor so-called "lone wolf" terrorists and conduct roving wiretaps.

The provision on business records was long criticized by rights groups as giving the government access to citizens' library records, and a coalition of liberal and conservative groups complained that the Patriot Act gives the government too much authority to snoop into Americans' private lives.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he would take a close look at the law, based on his past expertise in constitutional law. Back in May, President Obama said legal institutions must be updated to deal with the threat of terrorism, but in a way that preserves the rule of law and accountability.

In a letter to lawmakers, Justice Department officials said the administration supports extending the three expiring provisions of the law, although they are willing to consider additional privacy protections as long as they don't weaken the effectiveness of the law.

Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that the administration is willing to consider stronger civil rights protections in the new law "provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important (provisions)."

Leahy responded with a statement saying it is important for the administration and Congress to "work together to ensure that we protect both our national security and our civil liberties."

The committee has scheduled a hearing next week on the Patriot Act.

CHANGE

Yes, he can.

 

[Joey D]

Fail. What the hell is the point of the Patriot Act again other then to spy on people who don't deserve it?

 

[Danoff]

Fail. What the hell is the point of the Patriot Act again other then to spy on people who don't deserve it?

Safety at any cost.

 

[Omnis]

I hope this guy doesn't get reelected.

 

[Joey D]

Why? You are going to get the same exact person in there again, no matter what party they are.

 

[Omnis]

That's not the point.

 

[Joey D]

Then what is? You can say you don't like Obama but he's more or less the same as Bush. I have to imagine the next guy will be exactly the same as both of these guys and so-on.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, Congress has to pass the stuff first, and I have my doubts if that will happen or not. Of course, that means the Democrats have to act cohesively, and I don't know if that will happen.

Otherwise, I agree with the general point. FAIL if we keep the Patriot act as-is.

 

[Keef]

Is it really that difficult to make sense of this stuff? Is it really that hard for the vast majority of Americans to pay any attention at all and soak any of this up and understand what the deal is? Do this many Americans really refuse to learn anything about the subject at all?

My parents are two of them.

 

[Small_Fryz]

Is it really that difficult to make sense of this stuff? Is it really that hard for the vast majority of Americans to pay any attention at all and soak any of this up and understand what the deal is? Do this many Americans really refuse to learn anything about the subject at all?

My parents are two of them.

Thats how it is in almost any country that i know of..

politics comes across confusing.. they talk in a language that only lawyers can understand so that the general public really dont bother to invest proper time to understand it all. Plus add in the fact that very little about the systems get taught at school so its basically an elective subject from the get go.

I guess this is why they can and do what ever they want.

 

[Joey D]

Is it really that difficult to make sense of this stuff? Is it really that hard for the vast majority of Americans to pay any attention at all and soak any of this up and understand what the deal is? Do this many Americans really refuse to learn anything about the subject at all?

My parents are two of them.

I believe a lot of the country gets their opinions from political commentators, whether through the TV, radio, newspaper, internet, etc. It's probably why they can't make sense of it, they get a very one sided opinion, consider that person's opinion golden and never gets the big picture.

I believe another huge part of the country gets their political news from shows like the "Daily Show" where it's obviously out to mock things.

Then there is the other part that just do not care unless something directly affects them.

It's not really that hard to see why the country is so clueless on most political issues, well at least in my view.

 

[livemusic]

I think what people lack to form proper opinions are principles. By having a philosophical base of right and wrong, good and bad, life and death, you can draw logical conclusions on a variety of issues and form your opinions based on your principles. A lot of people are all over the place in these issues, contradicting themselves because they don't have that. They hear the news, or a politic's speech, or some commentator voicing his opinion about something and see if it "feels" right or wrong.

I know I was like that at least.

 

[Omnis]

Yep. Values give rise to beliefs which give rise to attitudes.

Anyway, for those of you who still think Obama is the peace president: we've invaded Somalia. 3000 troops are on the way to Afghanistan. Oh, and 1000 more troops are headed off to Iraq.

But you won't hear any of that on TV. I haven't until I read about it.

 

[Joey D]

Didn't anyone learn that when you attack Somalia by helicopter you don't win? Clinton found that out really quick in 1993. I mean there is even a book, a movie, and a video game all based on how awful it was. Seems like it should be a pretty straight forward thing that special ops in an urban environment, with no defined enemy is going to end badly.

I'm disappointed with Obama not getting out of Iraq like he promised, but then again he is a politician so it's not surprising he lied about the whole thing.

 

[KSaiyu]

Is it really that difficult to make sense of this stuff? Is it really that hard for the vast majority of Americans to pay any attention at all and soak any of this up and understand what the deal is? Do this many Americans really refuse to learn anything about the subject at all?

My parents are two of them.

I think it's because a lot of people feel they have no real choice in what goes on in politics so they're not prepared to invest time learning about the subject. That and the people who are just indifferent to it all, as said by Joey D.

 

[Joey D]

I think it's because a lot of people feel they have no real choice in what goes on in politics so they're not prepared to invest time learning about the subject. That and the people who are just indifferent to it all, as said by Joey D.

And really if you think about does the average person have a say in politics? I don't think so. It seems like Washington is ran by interest groups and lobbies with big cheque books. I mean any politician will support anything barring the person asking has a big enough bank account and is willing to make a
"substantial" contribution to their re-election campaign.

I'm almost boarder line "why-bother" because of this and not to mention it doesn't matter what idiot gets elected, things will stay the same. I think Obama is showing that pretty well because he's not really changing anything at all, just doing more of the same. It's sort of disheartening when you think about it.

I unfortunately do not know enough about world politics to know if this is how it is in other countries though, but I would love some input on it.

 

[Solid Lifters]

http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Poli...rt-hands-conseratives-a-nut-by-slamming-ACORN