Forum
My summary (and the reasons for my discontent) of Obama's Presidency
|
greekboi wrote
at 7:45 PM, Wednesday May 18, 2011 EDT
Can someone PLEASE tell me what good Obama has done for this country since the start of his Presidency? You can write an essay or list bullets, either way is fine. I'm not sure you will be needing more than a sentence though.
Without further ado, here's my summary of Obama's Presidency (in no particular order of importance or chronology) : -he's shown a lack of convictions/decisiveness (very diplomatically stated) that has been displayed through his failure to implement any of the changes he advocated in his campaign that made him such an attractive candidate -->his health care reform is good in theory, but it is constitutionally offensive, and it won't work without tort reform (did i mention the bill was over 2000 pages long and didn't even begin to explain how the program would be implemented?) -->he did not close Guantanamo Bay, nor did he investigate if any human rights abuses occurred during GWB's term -->he did NOT end American involvement in the ongoing wars in the Middle East -->he bombed Gaddafi's personal dwelling (where his family lives) -->he dropped immigration reform -->he dumped his energy policy -->he is now caving in to the demands for increased oil drilling and less regulations, which is not only something that Liberals have historically been opposed to, but also can potentially endanger Americans while NOT dropping gasoline prices at all -->he announced a new national policy this week in which he promises to reduce drug use by focusing on prevention and treatment YET the $10 BILLION of spending on interdiction and law enforcement out of his $15.5 BILLION dollar drug-control budget is a record high in terms of dollars and percentage -->he showed an inability to react quickly to a major crisis - the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico - yet the media coverage left him relatively unscathed (which is very interesting considering the amount of blame placed on Bush for the lack of cohesiveness surrounding Katrina) -->he used the aforementioned major crisis to promote green energy (instead of cleaning it up, lol) -->he created an "economic stimulus" plan (not to be confused with President Bush's "bailout") that he said would not allow unemployment to exceed 8%, although last month it reached 9% (A HISTORIC HIGH) The only thing clear about Obama's agenda is his vision of increasing entitlement program benefits and paying for it through increased taxation of those providing the most value to society (the high income earners) and over-taxing corporations. This is a great policy, if you support socialism. |
|
Boner Oiler wrote
at 3:37 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT Also Harry unless you're trolling could you produce any evidence of George Washington referring to monolithic parties or even an opposition to a two party dichotomy?
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 4:38 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT BO:
Washington was not a member of any political party and hoped that they would not be formed, fearing conflict that would undermine republicanism.[107] His closest advisors formed two factions, setting the framework for the future First Party System. Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton had bold plans to establish the national credit and build a financially powerful nation, and formed the basis of the Federalist Party. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Jeffersonian Republicans, strenuously opposed Hamilton's agenda, but Washington typically favored Hamilton over Jefferson, and it was Hamilton's agenda that went into effect.[108] From the Wikipedia article on George Washington. Washington was not a member of any political party and hoped that they would not be formed, fearing conflict that would undermine republicanism.[107] His closest advisors formed two factions, setting the framework for the future First Party System. Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton had bold plans to establish the national credit and build a financially powerful nation, and formed the basis of the Federalist Party. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Jeffersonian Republicans, strenuously opposed Hamilton's agenda, but Washington typically favored Hamilton over Jefferson, and it was Hamilton's agenda that went into effect.[108] 107. Elkins and McKitrick, p. 290. |
|
Boner Oiler wrote
at 5:09 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT Thanks bro I got a 5 on ap us history.
|
|
Boner Oiler wrote
at 5:10 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT Still has nothing to do with my point.
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 5:22 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT "AP" means "Applied Pie".
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 5:49 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT Also Harry unless you're trolling could you produce any evidence of George Washington referring to monolithic parties or even an opposition to a two party dichotomy?
Washington discusses his opinions of "factions" in his farewell address. He warns against their "evils." You can ctrl+f "factions" and "parties" in it and see exactly what he says: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp The section of his address that refers to political parties is summarised on wikipedia: http://bit.ly/oIBWnJ |
|
Boner Oiler wrote
at 6:17 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT I'm familiar but there was no establishment or institutionalized factions which is what Harry was referring to when he said the founding fathers designed us to be a two party system. I don't think it was intentional but obviously such a system as ours trends eventually to two monolithic parties - most systems do.
|
|
WWCSD wrote
at 7:12 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT All I have to say is that shit went down when Bush took over. During Clinton's presidency the deficit decreased and there were actually profits(every presidency since Roosevelt had deficit at the end).
I don't think Obama has been that great but much of that is the Republican's fault. He hasn't been able to put programs that he wanted. Example: Now they don't want to raise the debt ceiling. That will depreciate the dollar. That will make Americans, or anyone holding dollars, loose money. Which means that the world reserve could move to another currency. This would be really bad since the USA has many debts and the only reason that is not asked to pay is because people trust that the value of the dollar is very stable. Any depreciation would create panic and lenders will want their money back. |
|
Boner Oiler wrote
at 8:01 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT Woops miss read some of what gb said. Either way parties real fucked shit up because nowadays people either bote R or D instead of for the actual person.
|
|
WWCSD wrote
at 9:35 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT Well you really don't vote for a person but a team. One person can't control a country but he can choose people to control different sectors and make general decisions.
GREEKBOI stop with your Republican propaganda. Anyone who knows about economics and politics knows that during Bush's presidency the debt ceiling was raised 8 times... but one debt ceiling raise now is not necessary. And is ok to tax low income people but not rich people? |