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 6:26 AM, Friday May 20, 2011 EDT Yah but you realize this deregulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
signed by GWB is what allowed the private sector to do that. If it was just the CRA we wouldn't have had as huge of a meltdown like we did, so I agree with you on that point. But you should realize the above act is what allowed for the creation of the market you are referring to. I did research the topic, relax. |
|
Gauntlet15 wrote
at 6:52 AM, Friday May 20, 2011 EDT BO, did you minor in American History?
|
|
dasfury wrote
at 8:38 AM, Friday May 20, 2011 EDT BO, i hope you realized i was just switiching your statement around. Expectations are relative. I doubt Thrax had high expectations for Barry.
|
|
|
Boner Oiler wrote
at 9:00 AM, Friday May 20, 2011 EDT dont worry it wasnt lost on me, but moon raised a good point about expectations (especially for progressives) were way too high for him to fulfill and he was destined to disappoint (the progressives anyway).
gaunt i'm a finance major what i know about american history and the dynamics of foreign policy come from my eclectic background, the courses i've taken on american history, and my brother who was a history major. specifically i learned about the relationship between america and israel and its intricacies from my brother whose senior dissertation was on this relationship. if anyone's curious why we gave israel the bomb, it's basically because we used the israeli intelligence network in eastern europe to diplomatically out maneuver the soviets and ultimately became dependent on their intelligence. if anybody knows anything about soviet history, back in the day a lot of high level party members were jewish and once the soviet union started backing the muslim nations (who were flirting with communism at the time) in opposition to israel these soviet jews became alienated and some of them probably became spies today i'm betting we still use their intelligence network but to a lesser degree, which is why the government has been wavering in its usual stalwart backing of israel, despite its military occupation of palestine, syria and other nations. |
|
MadHat_Sam wrote
at 10:22 AM, Friday May 20, 2011 EDT Vouchers for private schools do not take into account that the private schools are often under no obligation to accept kids that have vouchers. This allows private schools to pick and choose which students they want to accept, which makes voucher programs look successful since the kids using the vouchers tend to be successful. This doesn't take into account that many private schools will refuse to accept special needs kids leaving them to be the burden of the public school in a failing district.
Vouchers are a nice concept but the failures and short comings of the programs tend to be obfuscated by calls for free markets and school choice and pointing out the success of the exceptional cases. As far as DREAM and immigration goes, I agree with you deadcode on securing the border and allowing everyone in. It may be an obnoxious pill to swallow but we cannot simply ignore the massive amount of illegal immigrants or deport them. Amnesty may not be a pretty solution but when considering the logistics and costs of other solutions it is the best solutions and gives the best chance to reset our immigration policy back to a point that makes sense. |
|
deadcode wrote
at 11:58 AM, Friday May 20, 2011 EDT BO: "Yah but you realize this deregulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
signed by GWB is what allowed the private sector to do that. If it was just the CRA we wouldn't have had as huge of a meltdown like we did, so I agree with you on that point. But you should realize the above act is what allowed for the creation of the market you are referring to." See this is where you and I split ways on our thinking. As we discussed in our KDice game together; you believe that people should choice; but that the government should remove "bad options" from their set of choices; because, and I quote, "most people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves." I simply fundamentally disagree with that statement. CFM only allowed banks to use a few additional investment vehicles; some of which are very risky investments if not used properly. But you gloss over the fact that things like Options trading and futures are already much more risky then these swaps and and other vehicles. These vehicles themselves didn't break the financial system; it was the governments insistence that the banks take larger and larger risks. To make an analogy; the government gave the banks a handgun; banks already own several shotguns and use them responsibly; but the government forces the banks to shoot themselves in the head with the handgun. After the fact; Detective BO concludes "if only the government didn't give them a handgun!" |
|
|
deadcode wrote
at 12:08 PM, Friday May 20, 2011 EDT SAM: "Vouchers for private schools do not take into account that the private schools are often under no obligation to accept kids that have vouchers. This allows private schools to pick and choose which students they want to accept, which makes voucher programs look successful since the kids using the vouchers tend to be successful. This doesn't take into account that many private schools will refuse to accept special needs kids leaving them to be the burden of the public school in a failing district.
Vouchers are a nice concept but the failures and short comings of the programs tend to be obfuscated by calls for free markets and school choice and pointing out the success of the exceptional cases. " I'm not familiar to the statistics you are referring to; but the success of the program is due to the ability of kids to avoid the current system; where they are condemned to bad school based on where they live. "Cream skimming" is what you are referring to when you say that the stats are flawed due to private schools being able to choose students. I definitely recommend looking at the study by Hoxby. "Hoxby found that the effects of vouchers in Milwaukee and of charter schools in Arizona and Michigan on nearby public schools forced to compete made greater test score gains than schools not faced with such competition (see Hoxby, 2001), and that the so-called effect of cream skimming did not exist in any of the voucher districts examined." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher Once again; I will assert that the reason that the voucher system was squashed by Obama was to protect the union dominated public schools from decreasing tax dollars due to parents fleeing from them. Let's face it; parents know whats better for their child then any Washington bureaucrat; just allow the parents freedom of choice and they will choose the best option for their child. Those of you with children will understand this. |
|
|
deadcode wrote
at 12:17 PM, Friday May 20, 2011 EDT SAM: "As far as DREAM and immigration goes, I agree with you deadcode on securing the border and allowing everyone in. It may be an obnoxious pill to swallow but we cannot simply ignore the massive amount of illegal immigrants or deport them. Amnesty may not be a pretty solution but when considering the logistics and costs of other solutions it is the best solutions and gives the best chance to reset our immigration policy back to a point that makes sense. "
I think immigrants are very important to the life blood of this country. In fact I think most immigrants understand the "American Dream" better then the native Americans. I don't think we should be limiting their access to our country at all. However; until the border is secured and a legal option of entry is created that is simple and fast; Amnesty will only serve to incentivize more illegal activity. Remember this is not the first amnesty; Reagan did amnesty during his term. Now we have 12 million more people here illegally. They came because they are waiting for the next amnesty. Btw; If i were them I would sneak in too. Who wouldn't choose a better life for their children/family? However I think it is shameful that we allow the current system to promote the violation of our own laws. America has no need to fear more hard workers. Trust me; these workers will need to eat; drink coffee; watch tv; buy electronics; etc. all of which create jobs. The net result of the influx of immigrants would actually be increased hiring amongst all fields. So once again; I assert; secure our border; and let them all in (minus diseased and criminals). |
|
Travis O Johnson wrote
at 12:21 PM, Friday May 20, 2011 EDT Don't ask don't tell
|
|
neutraI wrote
at 12:22 PM, Friday May 20, 2011 EDT You might be interested in this read, greekboi: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/hcfow/the_bush_people_have_been_let_off_the_telecom/c1ubqdv
|