The Barack Obama review/critique thread

[mutantllama]

If that was the case I would be making ML type posts in every thread possible, since apparently it isn't ban worthy.

Leave me out of this you cock grabbing headphone jack fucking bitch!

 

[Vimana]

You ebay fucking cunt fucking shit fucking ebay fucking cunt!

 

[Dak]

 

[Cythraul]

We've already gone over unions before. If he wanted to make a change, he would urge Congress to ban unions.

I don't recall what you had to say about unions. I'm interested to know why you're against them as such. I can see them serving a legitimate purpose when they, e.g. ensure that workers get the full market worth for their services, but I can imagine them being counterproductive when they, e.g. agitate for fixing wages of their members above their real market worth.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

These two go together. There shouldn't have been a ban on federal funding, but there shouldn't be federal funding. No "this moment". Tax dollars should not be funding either thing. How about all this research money and foreign aid being used to help the people in America, or revitalize our infrastructure, our create renewable energy jobs, etc etc. But no, we are trying to teach Jose how to use a condom instead, or fund scientific breakthroughs that will be too expensive for the majority of the people who paid the taxes to fund it.

Okay, then I think you're just wrong. Funding for humanitarian and scientific projects is important, as long as it's not interfering with the development of the country's infrastructure and economy. And keep in mind that if we teach José how to use a condom, he won't end up having 80 billion kids who spill over into our country and leech on our system.

Maybe you didn't realize we have been in Afghanistan longer than Iraq already.

No shit, but most of our time in Afghanistan was under Bush. Of course Obama's not going to do a complete pullout from the Middle East, but we're not going to have nearly as much of a presence there as we did under Bush.

I am talking about how a lot of the national parks etc. have been in essence handed to the UN with little fanfare.

Not sure what you're talking about here.

Until electric vehicles can be charged in 5 minutes to go for 400miles and haul 10000+ lbs, or do serious offroading, I personally have no interest in them. They are mostly impractical outside of your big city work commute.
We still haven't even come close to making vehicles as gas-efficient as we could and I am sure that is because of backroom deals between the auto industry and gas companies, or at best because of general laziness and greed of the auto industry, especially in the US.

I'll admit, it's not a simple problem. But drilling the shit out of our national parks isn't going to fix it either - only create more problems on top of the original one.

As stated before, it's not true change because it's still growing the government just like Bush did. Bush just used the "terror" crisis and Obama is using the economic crisis to do whatever he wants.

It's not "whatever he wants", for christ's sake. By far, the majority of what he's done is in accordance with statements he made during his presidential campaign.

Obama can't really fix the recession, but what he is doing is running up a rediculous debt that is going to have to be paid back at some point, and if these policies don't work, the bad recession we would be having will instead just be a delayed greatest depression.

I am not overlooking the people out of work, I get out of the Marines this year and I will be hitting the job market at a bad time, so I am quite aware of the employment situation. This does not excuse running up the deficit.

As far as I am concerned the difference between Obama and Bush is the difference between two killers who use different weapons. You are still dead whether you got stabbed to death or gunned down.

K. Have fun playing the ultimate pessimist until we actually get some sense of what the real effects of Obama's spending will be.

 

[Cythraul]

K. Have fun playing the ultimate pessimist until we actually get some sense of what the real effects of Obama's spending will be.

I think the fact that we don't have a clear idea of what the effects will be is precisely one of the causes for worry! What empirical evidence is there to support the idea that this sort of thing works? Even at the level of theory, it's far from obvious (to me at least) how this is going to do any good in the long term.

edit: just in case my point is missed, I should say instead that it's not clear how this won't make things worse or won't prolong the situation.

 

[Dak]

Okay, then I think you're just wrong. Funding for humanitarian and scientific projects is important, as long as it's not interfering with the development of the country's infrastructure and economy. And keep in mind that if we teach José how to use a condom, he won't end up having 80 billion kids who spill over into our country and leech on our system.

If we didn't hand Jose's kids free stuff they probably wouldn't come over here. Also if our military actually guarded the US border instead of playing world bully/policeman we might be able to stem the tide (and I use the term bully rather loosely, since we can't really bully anyone but second and third world countries). Aren't we tough.

No shit, but most of our time in Afghanistan was under Bush. Of course Obama's not going to do a complete pullout from the Middle East, but we're not going to have nearly as much of a presence there as we did under Bush.

We have exactly the same presence there, regardless of how many boots on the ground. We are still butting in where we have no business. By staying over there we are making a bad situation worse.

I'll admit, it's not a simple problem. But drilling the shit out of our national parks isn't going to fix it either - only create more problems on top of the original one.

What problems are created by responsible drilling in national parks other than spoiling the view? TBF, we can already pull enough oil out of the gulf/alaska and should be pulling more out of ND to provide plenty of oil for America and even exporting it. But we aren't, and no one wants to ask or explain why. That "strategic reserve" bullshit is about 20 years out of date.

It's not "whatever he wants", for christ's sake. By far, the majority of what he's done is in accordance with statements he made during his presidential campaign.

His campaign statements are what he wanted.....Most people don't know what he was going to do specifically, they just knew he promised to not be Bush, to bring "Change". He still is having trouble with those transparency and no-pork promises.

K. Have fun playing the ultimate pessimist until we actually get some sense of what the real effects of Obama's spending will be.

Cyth already answered this. There is a difference between realism and pessimism, and just because I see the worst coming doesn't mean I hope for it.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I think the fact that we don't have a clear idea of what the effects will be is precisely one of the causes for worry! What empirical evidence is there to support the idea that this sort of thing works? Even at the level of theory, it's far from obvious (to me at least) how this is going to do any good in the long term.

edit: just in case my point is missed, I should say instead that it's not clear how this won't make things worse or won't prolong the situation.

I already admitted that it's not a solution for the recession - it's more of just a "hey, let's expand government programs since we're in control now," but I think the programs they expanded are still beneficial in terms of rescuing people who will get crushed by the crisis.

It is very worrying how little discussion there is in either the White House or Congress on re-regulating the financial industry, which is probably key to restoring confidence in the system again. But hopefully this international summit thing in April will deal with that.

 

[Dak]

I'll admit, it's not really a solution for the recession - it's more of just a "hey, let's expand government programs since we're in control now," but I think the programs they expanded are still beneficial in terms of rescuing people who will get crushed by the crisis.

It is very worrying how little discussion there is in either the White House or Congress on re-regulating the financial industry, which is probably key to restoring confidence in the system again. But hopefully this international summit thing in April will deal with that.

This is a problem, but a much bigger problem for us is not only the skyrocketing deficit, but that Obama has only promised to halve the fiscal deficit by the time he leaves office (After doubling it). That is absurd. That means regardless of whatever else is accomplished, we will be going over a trillion dollars in the hole every year unless taxes are raised, which is also bullshit.

This fiscal irresponsibility has been going on way to long and has only gotten progressivily worse. The deeper the hole gets the longer*** and more difficult it is to get out.

 

[The Ozzman]

We're not going to get out of the hole. The best we can do is just slow the decline into the abyss substantially

 

[zabu of nΩd]

If we didn't hand Jose's kids free stuff they probably wouldn't come over here. Also if our military actually guarded the US border instead of playing world bully/policeman we might be able to stem the tide (and I use the term bully rather loosely, since we can't really bully anyone but second and third world countries). Aren't we tough.

Look, I know we need better border security, but I really hope you are capable of understanding that social initiatives within Mexico itself can be at least as cost-effective, if not much more so, at dealing with the immigration problem - not to mention being much more humane.

We have exactly the same presence there, regardless of how many boots on the ground. We are still butting in where we have no business. By staying over there we are making a bad situation worse.

Um, if the financial aspect of our Middle East campaign weren't an issue, I'd say we've very much improved the situation over there - at least in Iraq. Not that we should have gone in the first place, but since we're there now it would be nice to not have Iraq end up a giant bloodbath due to a power vacuum. Not that we can really afford to see to that anymore.

What problems are created by responsible drilling in national parks other than spoiling the view? TBF, we can already pull enough oil out of the gulf/alaska and should be pulling more out of ND to provide plenty of oil for America and even exporting it. But we aren't, and no one wants to ask or explain why. That "strategic reserve" bullshit is about 20 years out of date.

I'm going to call bullshit on this until you can provide some numbers. From what I've gathered, we use 7.7 billion barrels a year, and even the Trans-Alaska Pipeline has only brought in 15 billion barrels in the 32 years it's been running. If Alaska is our biggest oil zone, and we've already depleted most of the recoverable oil from our current fields there, we're not going to be getting "plenty of oil" from anywhere else in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Oil_consumption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Alaska_Pipeline_System

His campaign statements are what he wanted.....Most people don't know what he was going to do specifically, they just knew he promised to not be Bush, to bring "Change". He still is having trouble with those transparency and no-pork promises.

Yes he is, but my point is that for the most part we are getting very much what we expected from him based on the policy views he gave during his campaign. I don't know why you even bring up this "doing what he wants" thing in he first place - obviously he wants to take action on his policy views. It sounded like you were framing it as though he was just bullshitting around during the campaign and has since gone hog-wild with unexpected policies, which is not the case.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

This is a problem, but a much bigger problem for us is not only the skyrocketing deficit, but that Obama has only promised to halve the fiscal deficit by the time he leaves office (After doubling it). That is absurd. That means regardless of whatever else is accomplished, we will be going over a trillion dollars in the hole every year unless taxes are raised, which is also bullshit.

This fiscal irresponsibility has been going on way to long and has only gotten progressivily worse. The deeper the hole gets the harder and more difficult it is to get out.

This is a very good point you bring up. He really should be seeking to stop the budget deficit by the end of his term. If he doesn't do that, this country's going to have a serious problem, and I might have to call his Presidency a failed one at that point.

edit: I have no problem with him raising taxes on the rich, though. The wealth disparity in this country is sickening, and we've gotten by with much higher tax rates on the wealthy in the past. I wish he would kill that part of the Bush tax cuts now, and not wait two more fucking years for money to continue pooling up at the top.

 

[Dak]

This is a very good point you bring up. He really should be seeking to stop the budget deficit by the end of his term. If he doesn't do that, this country's going to have a serious problem, and I might have to call his Presidency a failed one at that point.

edit: I have no problem with him raising taxes on the rich, though. The wealth disparity in this country is sickening, and we've gotten by with much higher tax rates on the wealthy in the past. I wish he would kill that part of the Bush tax cuts now, and not wait two more fucking years for money to continue pooling up at the top.

That is another issue, the current taxcode has so many loopholes that a richer person can always exploit.

If we had a flat tax that would solve a shitload of problems.
Like 10-15% of income period. No deductions.

 

[Dak]

Look, I know we need better border security, but I really hope you are capable of understanding that social initiatives within Mexico itself can be at least as cost-effective, if not much more so, at dealing with the immigration problem - not to mention being much more humane.

My point was more about the money needing to go back into the US's problems than invalidating a need in Mexico. Also, if we stopped letting Jose have those kids over here for free and giving them citizenship that might help stem the tide. Is that somewhat "inhumane"? I don't think so, they made the decisions, they get to live with potentially unpleasant consequences.

Um, if the financial aspect of our Middle East campaign weren't an issue, I'd say we've very much improved the situation over there - at least in Iraq. Not that we should have gone in the first place, but since we're there now it would be nice to not have Iraq end up a giant bloodbath due to a power vacuum. Not that we can really afford to see to that anymore.

I don't think it would be a bloodbath if we pulled out, Iran would just fill the big brother void (which obviously "we" are not in favor of).

I'm going to call bullshit on this until you can provide some numbers. From what I've gathered, we use 7.7 billion barrels a year, and even the Trans-Alaska Pipeline has only brought in 15 billion barrels in the 32 years it's been running. If Alaska is our biggest oil zone, and we've already depleted most of the recoverable oil from our current fields there, we're not going to be getting "plenty of oil" from anywhere else in the U.S.

North Dakota Oil

At our current usage levels (which have dropped and as things get more fuel efficient should continue to drop as we wean away from oil) here is potentially 25 years worth of oil excluding Alaska and Texas and the Gulf.

Yes he is, but my point is that for the most part we are getting very much what we expected from him based on the policy views he gave during his campaign. I don't know why you even bring up this "doing what he wants" thing in he first place - obviously he wants to take action on his policy views. It sounded like you were framing it as though he was just bullshitting around during the campaign and has since gone hog-wild with unexpected policies, which is not the case.

I did not mean that, he is ramrodding a lot of what he promised through despite opposition, and most of it involving increasing spending.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

That is another issue, the current taxcode has so many loopholes that a richer person can always exploit.

If we had a flat tax that would solve a shitload of problems.
Like 10-15% of income period. No deductions.

Oh Christ. It figures that you'd support a flat tax. Don't you understand the concept of disposable income, and that a progressive tax system addresses the fact that people at the low end of the income scale have none?

 

[MasterOLightning]

The tax reform I'd like to see most is a reduction of fees and taxes on utilities and also sales tax on food. These are basically regressive taxes that are disproportionately hard on the poor.

 

[Dak]

Oh Christ. It figures that you'd support a flat tax. Don't you understand the concept of disposable income, and that a progressive tax system addresses the fact that people at the low end of the income scale have none?

Even have a graduated "flat" tax. But no deductions.

IE: Under
$20,000 = 0%
$50,000 = 5%
$100,000 = 10%
$250,000+ = 15%

Edit: Unrelated to this topic, but an expert on the Narcissistic Personality/Disorder says that based off remote observation Obama exhibits Narcissistic/NPD traits.

Dr. Sam Vaknin on Obama

 

[Cythraul]

I already admitted that it's not a solution for the recession - it's more of just a "hey, let's expand government programs since we're in control now," but I think the programs they expanded are still beneficial in terms of rescuing people who will get crushed by the crisis.

This seems wrongheaded to me. What needs fixing is our bad monetary policy. The mainstream media gives off the impression that our economy is far less regulated than it actually is.

 

[skeptik]

Why don't we focus on things that might actually happen? Sure, it'd be lovely if the entire global system of monetary exchange was completely renovated, but it won't ever happen ever ever ever, so I'm more interested in realistic things that may make small changes for the better.

 

[AchrisK]

I don't know much, but Obama seems like a loser to me.