The Barack Obama review/critique thread

[Dak]

It's an irrelevant red herring with no factual meaning or pertinance.

 

[MasterOLightning]

Are you fucking oblivious to current events? Corporate greed is a significant factor in our current economic situation. You can side with the jews all you want, but they're fucking you over and stealing your tax dollars every day.

 

[Dak]

Are you fucking oblivious to current events? Corporate greed is a significant factor in our current economic situation. You can side with the jews all you want, but they're fucking you over and stealing your tax dollars every day.

/facepalm. That is irrelevant to the union issue. Get on topic or find an Obama move that inhibits/assists the "ZOG machine". As far as I am concerned, his assignment of Rahm Emmanuel to Chief of Staff shows whose interest he has in mind, but time will tell. AMIRITE?

 

[Dak]

@Vihris: whenever you check this again, edit your original post with this link : Politifact Obama Tracker

 

[sadistik necrofiend]

/facepalm. That is irrelevant to the union issue. Get on topic or find an Obama move that inhibits/assists the "ZOG machine". As far as I am concerned, his assignment of Rahm Emmanuel to Chief of Staff shows whose interest he has in mind, but time will tell. AMIRITE?

I guess it was just a matter of time before the Zog was mentioned. Not that I disagree and well it should actually be pretty obvious of something going on in that dept.

Its been a tricky and clever admin he has. I have been hearing that one of his main backers and controllers Zbigniew Brezinski is going to have quite a hand in things, but then again Obama came out and is opening seeking relations with Russia, so the Brezinski thing seems maybe not as I thought. Brezinski is not too big a fan of Russia, so I thought that relation might of deteriorated a bit, but now or at least it seems, that is not going to be the case. I don't know about Rahm Emmanuel, but I will definetly look into it. Like I said, there is some very clever stuff going on, existing behind the flashy Hollywood version of events the Zombies are seeing at the moment.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'm not looking to jump into this crap about whether unions are good or bad, but I'd like to get people's thoughts on the new stimulus/spending plan that Obama's heading up.

Tax cuts ($275 billion):
* Payroll tax cuts ($500 for each individual, $1000 for couples)
* $2500 tax credit for higher education
* $7500 non-repayable tax credit for first-time home buyers (for houses bought until July 1)
Education investments ($141.6 billion):
* $79 billion in state fiscal relief to prevent cutbacks to key services, including $39 billion to local school districts and public colleges and universities distributed through existing state and federal formulas, $15 billion to states as bonus grants as a reward for meeting key performance measures, and $25 billion to states for other high priority needs such as public safety and other critical services, which may include education.
* $41 billion to local school districts through Title I ($13 billion), IDEA ($13 billion), a new School Modernization and Repair Program ($14 billion), and the Education Technology program ($1 billion)
* $15.6 billion to increase the Pell Grant by $500.
* $6 billion for higher education modernization.
Health care investments ($112.1 billion):
* $87 billion for a temporary increase in the Medicaid matching rate for the states
* $20 billion for health information technology, including electronic medical records to prevent medical mistakes, provide better care to patients and introduce cost-saving efficiencies.
* $4.1 billion to provide for preventative care and to evaluate the most effective healthcare treatments.
Welfare/unemployment ($102 billion):
* $43 billion for unemployment benefits and job training
* $39 billion for short-term Medicaid insurance and Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) subsidy
* $20 billion for the Food Stamp Program
Infrastructure investments ($90 billion):
* $31 billion to modernize federal and other public infrastructure with investments that lead to long-term energy cost savings;
* $30 billion for highway construction;
* $19 billion for clean water, flood control, and environmental restoration investments;
* $10 billion for transit and rail to reduce traffic congestion and gas consumption.
Energy investments ($58 billion):
* $32 billion funding for an electric smart grid
* $20 billion for renewable energy tax cuts
* $6 billion for weatherizing modest-income homes.

I know there's plenty of room for criticism here, and I'm up for hearing it. The main thing that bothers me is all the higher education spending. It seems pretty irresponsible to be dumping money into that right now of all times.

The unemployment/welfare spending seems justifiable as emergency relief for people who've lost their jobs, though I'm sure the usual complaints of welfare abuse and 'blank checks' will apply. Presumably at least the food stamp program is exempt from those complaints.

There are a lot of 'investments' listed in the bill that I'm sure conservatives are condemning as frivolous, but I think it's safe to say that spending will pay off after a few years, and it'll create a few jobs in the meantime.

So overall the bill seems pretty straight to me, except for the higher education stuff. I'm interested to know what major gripes the Republicans have with the bill that aren't just based on their general unwillingness to provide a safety net for the poor during hard times.

 

[sadistik necrofiend]

I'm not looking to jump into this crap about whether unions are good or bad, but I'd like to get people's thoughts on the new stimulus/spending plan that Obama's heading up.



I know there's plenty of room for criticism here, and I'm up for hearing it. The main thing that bothers me is all the higher education spending. It seems pretty irresponsible to be dumping money into that right now of all times.

The unemployment/welfare spending seems justifiable as emergency relief for people who've lost their jobs, though I'm sure the usual complaints of welfare abuse and 'blank checks' will apply. Presumably at least the food stamp program is exempt from those complaints.

There are a lot of 'investments' listed in the bill that I'm sure conservatives are condemning as frivolous, but I think it's safe to say that spending will pay off after a few years, and it'll create a few jobs in the meantime.

So overall the bill seems pretty straight to me, except for the higher education stuff. I'm interested to know what major gripes the Republicans have with the bill that aren't just based on their general unwillingness to provide a safety net for the poor during hard times.

Like I said in this thread a bit earlier. Although it is slightly different and the stimulus that was put into effect last year by Bush which granted a bunch of tax payers the stimulus check, which was supposed to boost the economy etc. That seemed to of just sinked us in a bigger hole. Now here Obama goes with another stimulus of sorts. I can't do anything but be a little skeptical here.

It seems a little late for the education part and I agree, that it is not the right time.. Anyone in their right mind would be trying to boost the economic growth of jobs and focusing more on that in general.

 

[Dak]

Tax cuts ($275 billion):
* Payroll tax cuts ($500 for each individual, $1000 for couples)
* $2500 tax credit for higher education
* $7500 non-repayable tax credit for first-time home buyers (for houses bought until July 1)

In general everyone is always for tax cuts, but these aren't true cuts, instead they fall under "refunds/redistribution". A cut is taxes that existed are reduced or eliminated. Redistributing tax dollars to people to reward more spending is wrong.

Education investments ($141.6 billion):
* $79 billion in state fiscal relief to prevent cutbacks to key services, including $39 billion to local school districts and public colleges and universities distributed through existing state and federal formulas, $15 billion to states as bonus grants as a reward for meeting key performance measures, and $25 billion to states for other high priority needs such as public safety and other critical services, which may include education.
* $41 billion to local school districts through Title I ($13 billion), IDEA ($13 billion), a new School Modernization and Repair Program ($14 billion), and the Education Technology program ($1 billion)
* $15.6 billion to increase the Pell Grant by $500.
* $6 billion for higher education modernization.

While not ignoring that our public education system is pathetic compared to most of the rest of the developed world, this has nothing to do with fixing the economy and should have been addressed seperately.

Health care investments ($112.1 billion):
* $87 billion for a temporary increase in the Medicaid matching rate for the states
* $20 billion for health information technology, including electronic medical records to prevent medical mistakes, provide better care to patients and introduce cost-saving efficiencies.
* $4.1 billion to provide for preventative care and to evaluate the most effective healthcare treatments.

Same problem as spending for education. While the spending to fix the system may be needed, it is not a long term economic fix.

Welfare/unemployment ($102 billion):
* $43 billion for unemployment benefits and job training
* $39 billion for short-term Medicaid insurance and Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) subsidy
* $20 billion for the Food Stamp Program
Infrastructure investments ($90 billion):
* $31 billion to modernize federal and other public infrastructure with investments that lead to long-term energy cost savings;
* $30 billion for highway construction;
* $19 billion for clean water, flood control, and environmental restoration investments;
* $10 billion for transit and rail to reduce traffic congestion and gas consumption.

The projects I highlighted in bold are high priority and need more funding than they were given, especially if highway construction included general road infrastructure repair, but again, these do not have alot to do with economic recovery.

Energy investments ($58 billion):
* $32 billion funding for an electric smart grid
* $20 billion for renewable energy tax cuts
* $6 billion for weatherizing modest-income homes.

Here we go, Energy. But what does renewable energy tax cuts cover and what falls under the electric smart grid?

Becoming energy independent/efficient is something that will help long term, but where in this entire bill is something to benefit production? Whether it be energy production, or other commodities/goods, production and export are key to a successful economy, not to mention not participating in deficit spending, which as what this entire nearly 1 Trillion dollar bill is. So based of of the looks of this bill, we are about to borrow nearly 1,000,000,000,000 and not spend it on anything that will create any kind of tangible returns. This bill looks like the equivalent of pissing in the wind to water a dying garden.

The only three things that I would want to see on a "economic recovery" bill is:

Money to modernize public utilities and roadways, and creation of nationalized energy production facilities, whether they be solar, wind, or nuclear.

Seperate legislation needs to be penned to ban any further deficit spending, and drastic cuts in beauracracy and defense spending, as well as re-structuring all current military contracts. The United States has the resources and the power right now to be completely self sufficient, why we are not is a big question everyone likes to ignore.

Edit: Vihris, please get that link from a few posts back.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Like I said in this thread a bit earlier. Although it is slightly different and the stimulus that was put into effect last year by Bush which granted a bunch of tax payers the stimulus check, which was supposed to boost the economy etc. That seemed to of just sinked us in a bigger hole. Now here Obama goes with another stimulus of sorts. I can't do anything but be a little skeptical here.

Yeah, I don't know if those "stimulus checks" are supposed to be part of the plan I quoted above, but it's pretty moronic to just hand out checks to people without some way of requiring that they be spent on what they're intended for.

 

[Dak]

Yeah, I don't know if those "stimulus checks" are supposed to be part of the plan I quoted above, but it's pretty moronic to just hand out checks to people without some way of requiring that they be spent on what they're intended for.

I know I would either be saving it or buying bullets. Interesting note, went to the local Walmart(s) in the area to buy some rounds, and every store is currently wiped out. All they had was some random boxes of odd calibers or low grain rounds. Never seen a whole wall of glass cases empty like that.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

@Vihris: whenever you check this again, edit your original post with this link : Politifact Obama Tracker

Was there something specific you wanted me to see here, or is this just for future reference?

I know I would either be saving it or buying bullets. Interesting note, went to the local Walmart(s) in the area to buy some rounds, and every store is currently wiped out. All they had was some random boxes of odd calibers or low grain rounds. Never seen a whole wall of glass cases empty like that.

Didn't realise paranoia was running that high.


(p.s. - response to your long post coming when I have time)

 

[zabu of nΩd]

In general everyone is always for tax cuts, but these aren't true cuts, instead they fall under "refunds/redistribution". A cut is taxes that existed are reduced or eliminated. Redistributing tax dollars to people to reward more spending is wrong.

I think I could argue that most tax cuts are redistributions of money since they generally shift the tax burden from one group of people to another. As far as the tax credits for housing, I'm not really sure why we're giving special attention to 'recovering' the housing market.

Same problem as spending for education. While the spending to fix the system may be needed, it is not a long term economic fix.

Health care is actually one of the central economic problems we're facing right now, so anything that can lower health care costs is a step in the right direction. I would call this money well spent - especially the electronification of medical records. However, what's on this bill seems to be only a small part of the very large restructuring that needs to happen eventually.

Here we go, Energy. But what does renewable energy tax cuts cover and what falls under the electric smart grid?

Becoming energy independent/efficient is something that will help long term, but where in this entire bill is something to benefit production? Whether it be energy production, or other commodities/goods, production and export are key to a successful economy, not to mention not participating in deficit spending, which as what this entire nearly 1 Trillion dollar bill is.

Yeah, I'd like to do some more research on the details of all this. It's not clear who's intended to benefit from this tax cut. And as you point out, a lot of this seems to go more toward improving efficiency of our current energy system instead of creating new energy facilities.

So based of of the looks of this bill, we are about to borrow nearly 1,000,000,000,000 and not spend it on anything that will create any kind of tangible returns. This bill looks like the equivalent of pissing in the wind to water a dying garden.

I think that's an exaggeration, but there are definitely a lot of question marks about the bill. Just keep in mind that much of the spending is aimed at providing support for the extra number of unemployed we have right now. I see it as part economic recovery and part emergency relief.

 

[Dak]

I think I could argue that most tax cuts are redistributions of money since they generally shift the tax burden from one group of people to another. As far as the tax credits for housing, I'm not really sure why we're giving special attention to 'recovering' the housing market.

Obviously whoever is setting this up doesn't understand the housing market from probably the late 90s until this past year was a rediculous bubble that is self correcting. Once the housing market resets, people will be buying houses again because they are affordable again.

As far as tax cuts go, I am against the retarded system of taxation we have now. All taxes should be flat, no incentives, credits etc etc. The way the system works now, the hardest workers (the middle class) still pay the majority of actual taxes paid because the "rich" pay people to squeeze their money through every loophole in the tax code. If we instituted say, a 10% flat tax, it would work towards balancing the budget. We could cut out tons of paperwork and paid man hours working the current convoluted system.

Health care is actually one of the central economic problems we're facing right now, so anything that can lower health care costs is a step in the right direction. I would call this money well spent - especially the electronification of medical records. However, what's on this bill seems to be only a small part of the very large restructuring that needs to happen eventually.

Of course. That my point. The band-aid approach really doesn't work when there is a gaping wound. I also have another take on the whole medical issue which is, why is no one asking why are illnesses skyrocketing? Instead of dumping money into reactionary systems, how about into preventative systems/legistlation?
Ban MSG/HFC/majority of processed/preservative laden foods and shut Monsanto down and go back to using exclusively non-GMO fruits/vegetables/grains, and get people active again, and you would start seeing an increase in good public health. But of course this won't happen, because all of the above is big business as is the health industry, with plenty of lobbyists and donations to keep their interests at the top of the pile.

Yeah, I'd like to do some more research on the details of all this. It's not clear who's intended to benefit from this tax cut. And as you point out, a lot of this seems to go more toward improving efficiency of our current energy system instead of creating new energy facilities.

Our public utilities and roadway systems are mostly decades old and crumbling and need to be completely renewed/added on to. Becoming energy independent should also be a top priority. The automatic trade "hole" we start in because of oil when we have plenty of reserves is rediculous.

I think that's an exaggeration, but there are definitely a lot of question marks about the bill. Just keep in mind that much of the spending is aimed at providing support for the extra number of unemployed we have right now. I see it as part economic recovery and part emergency relief.

It really isn't an exaggeration. The United States has a sucking chest wound (debt[private and national],trade deficit, crumbling infrastructure, outdated energy system, etc) and this bill is the equivelant of trying to improve the health of a patient by putting bandaids on the nicks and abrasions (updating computers, increasing education grants, etc.)

Eventually the band aids are going to run out (since we borrowed them anyway) and the patient (the US) is just going to be a better looking corpse.

The key to this whole crisis is (bad) debt, and you can't borrow your way out of a debt crisis unless the borrowed money is going to create (production) systems that create gains.

 

[waif]

/facepalm.

You want me to rip that statement to shreds or do you want to do a little research on successful high-school(or less) educated entrepeneurs first and retract it?

Go ahead and rip it apart. This should be amusing.

 

[Dak]

What makes you think that someone with no more than a high school diploma and no money can start a business?

Ok, heres a brief list of extremely successful people who did not need a college education to succeed. You can't modify with " and no money" because there are tons of loans, both private and government provided for starting up businesses, not to mention saving capitol while working for someone else etc:

Mary Kay Ash (Mary Kay)
Richard Branson (Virgin)
Coco Chanel (Chanel)
Simon Cowell (Sony Exec, Americon Idol, producer)
Michael Dell (Dell)
Barry Diller (FOX, Expedia, CEO of InterActiveCorp)
Walt Disney (Duh)
Debbi Fields (Mrs Field's)
HENRY FORD (Duh)
BILL GATES (Duh)
Milton Hershey (Duh)
Steve Jobs (Duh)
Rachel Ray (TV personality)
Ty Warner (Ty, Inc. [Beanie Babies, etc.])
Frank Lloyd Wright (Successful Architect)

OBVIOUSLY not everyone can be a Bill Gates or a Henry Ford, but that is beside the point. Even if you were 1/100 as successful as the people on this list you would be doing quite well.

 

[Matt]

Come on. Do really think most people have the intelligence to actually pull something like that off?

 

[The Ozzman]

Bill Gates went to college but didn't graduate. He dropped out a few years in to start Microsoft

 

[Dak]

Come on. Do really think most people have the intelligence to actually pull something like that off?

You obviously didn't pay attention to everything I wrote. No, of course not everyone is going to have the combination of ideas/luck/skill to be another Bill Gates, but even someone of below average intelligence can run a small business if they want to. But that takes extra work, at least on the front end, and most people want to just go through the motions week in and week out and collect a paycheck.

@Ozzman: You don't get a "tried college" diploma. I know he dropped out. He also came from a upper middle class family. Probably afforded him some advantages that others didn't have but that really doesn't have much bearing on the general arguement and is only one scenario out of many.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

This whole debate seems pretty stupid to me tbh. How difficult it is to start a business is not the pivotal factor behind whether unions are needed to keep businesses in check.

 

[Dak]

This whole debate seems pretty stupid to me tbh. How difficult it is to start a business is not the pivotal factor behind whether unions are needed to keep businesses in check.

Rabbit trail from arguing you have options if you don't like how your employer treats you. The point is still that unions are bad and Obama shouldn't be supporting them.