Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

2016 Obama's America

Posted Sep 12, '12 at 11:46pm

jeol

jeol

3,565 posts

I almost copied what you said, SSTG, and changed anything involving Republican and Conservative to Democrat and Liberal, and you know what? It pretty much works the other way around.

Funny thing is, there's no proof that Romney didn't pay his taxes. You say that republicans want to stay in war with the Arab countries so that we can steal their oil, but republicans are the ones urging for more oil production within the states as well as offshore than relying on foreign countries for their oil. Nobody wanted birth control anyways - that is, unless you want to protect yourself from having a baby - oh wait, I forgot, you can just get an abortion. Lolme, I'm so stupid sometimes.

As much as I hate politics, more often than not it comes down to opinion, and shooting people because they think that something else will work is honestly against the country's foundations. The country was built as a democracy, that the general consensus of the public is the outcome of the country. In this society, I would only dream that politicians see this from society's point of view - if that's what the general consensus is, that's what the public gets. Obviously, they didn't want to elect me and apply my ideas, and I believe as a democracy that as a whole that is what happened, and that's that. We are a respectable society, and honor each others' opinions.

OR, we could just insult each other and blame each other in hopes that the public will frantically decide that I MUST be the best candidate, and if they didn't vote for me, I'll be sure to let them know that they were WRONG. My opinion is always better than your opinion, because obviously enough I have come to this conclusion and you must not have thought it through enough.

Gawd, I love politics.

Anyways, I've not seen the movie myself, but considering I live in a rather conservative environment, I hear a lot of raves about it. I'm a little meh; I dislike propaganda and anything involving shooting down the other side.

 

Posted Sep 13, '12 at 9:34am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,164 posts

Knight

OR, we could just insult each other and blame each other in hopes that the public will frantically decide that I MUST be the best candidate, and if they didn't vote for me, I'll be sure to let them know that they were WRONG. My opinion is always better than your opinion, because obviously enough I have come to this conclusion and you must not have thought it through enough.

Anyone who thinks politics is just an opinion is daft. Politicians can't work together also because they have fundamentally different views. An easy example would be basic economic policy. Republicans advocate tax cuts and generally support Milton's school of thought. Democrats do not push for overall or drastic tax cuts as they believe an because it does reduce government revenue, leading to a government that can do little to fund it's policies.

 

Posted Sep 13, '12 at 10:01am

TheMostManlyMan

TheMostManlyMan

3,463 posts

It's a good movie, I havent seen it but everyone I know that has seen it said it was really good, one of my friends said that before he didn't want Obama as president, now he's afraid of him getting re-elected.

Nichodemus, you're being fed lies about the taxes, I heard most of a video about how much it would talks to run America for a year with all it's policies like welfare and all that, taxes helped surprisingly little, the way he did it was by how long something could run America for, as I recall you would have to take every penny that anyone poor or rich made in a year and give it to the government to run it the way it is under obowma for one year

 

Posted Sep 13, '12 at 10:25am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,164 posts

Knight

Nichodemus, you're being fed lies about the taxes, I heard most of a video about how much it would talks to run America for a year with all it's policies like welfare and all that, taxes helped surprisingly little, the way he did it was by how long something could run America for, as I recall you would have to take every penny that anyone poor or rich made in a year and give it to the government to run it the way it is under obowma for one year

And what justifies the video you watched from what I have gleaned from sources? Let's run a simple argument. Where does the funds from repairing the roads and highways come from? Where does the salary of the military and judiciary come from? The military alone already consumes 1.035 trillion and that is the lower estimate. If America has 100 trillion people then yes, a Lenny a person can run the system.

Nothing is free in life. People who claim a decrease in revenue is somehow a panacea to the huge budget deficit clearly need to rethink arithmetic.

 

Posted Sep 13, '12 at 5:34pm

TheMostManlyMan

TheMostManlyMan

3,463 posts

Alright my bad. I was thInking about the bigger picture as far as the 16 trillion dollar debt

 

Posted Sep 13, '12 at 8:07pm

jeol

jeol

3,565 posts

Anyone who thinks politics is just an opinion is daft. Politicians can't work together also because they have fundamentally different views. An easy example would be basic economic policy. Republicans advocate tax cuts and generally support Milton's school of thought. Democrats do not push for overall or drastic tax cuts as they believe an because it does reduce government revenue, leading to a government that can do little to fund it's policies.

Well, yes, that's the idea. Considering, though, people have all different opinions on what may or may not work. There is no solid proof that socialism works better than capitalism, or vice versa. Consider it this way: if a country proclaims freedom of religion, but the people are constantly abused for being wrong because 'there is no God' or 'my God is better than your God', what's the point of the freedom? This works hand in hand with democracy - it allows for choice, and doesn't apply any specific margins for your beliefs, unlike monarchies might apply. The only difference is that if your ideas are truly radical from the public opinion, your ideas will probably not be showcased and there will not be a candidate that matches a majority of your beliefs, unless it pushes a revolution that people urge for *cough*Enlightenment*cough*. My point is, people shouldn't be so in-your-face about something that us mere difference in beliefs and actually RESPECT what people differ upon.

That's not to say that I don't believe Obama is 'weak', as some right-wing radio show hosts might have said. You know the US Embassy attacks? Obama APOLOGIZED for it. To the radical Islamists who were the exact same people who caused 9/11, he APOLOGIZED. To the creators of a nation-wide panic that killed thousands of American lives, he APOLOGIZED. To the people who are angry that we killed Osama Bin Laden, which was Obama's most agreeable 'accomplishment', he APOLOGIZED.

That's not to say how he's raising taxes on the rich by raising taxes on small businesses (because, shocker, people can get rich from investing in small businesses! :O), which means higher cost of hiring, and he probably raised minimum wage, which is destroying small business and obliterating the chance of the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs... But that's just small business, right? Small business doesn't have THAT big of an effect on the economy, and nor does creating more money to make the economy look good so that he might get re-elected and then he'll be happy again for another four years... Nah, that's not that big of a deal, is it? Nah, it will probably only cause the economy to crash. Nbd.

Of course, that's all beside my point that propaganda is stupid and people should be able to form their own opinions rather than leaning on the media and press to give and censor information that might push the general public into leaning toward a certain candidate.

 

Posted Sep 13, '12 at 8:54pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,164 posts

Knight

That's not to say that I don't believe Obama is 'weak', as some right-wing radio show hosts might have said. You know the US Embassy attacks? Obama APOLOGIZED for it. To the radical Islamists who were the exact same people who caused 9/11, he APOLOGIZED. To the creators of a nation-wide panic that killed thousands of American lives, he APOLOGIZED. To the people who are angry that we killed Osama Bin Laden, which was Obama's most agreeable 'accomplishment', he APOLOGIZED.

Let's get the record straight. Obama apologized to these "Islamists", those who protested against the anti Islam film or the Koran practices NOT because he supported their millenarian views, not because he was weak, but because it was tactful. Many of the ME nations have the deeply entrenched notion since decades ago that thr USA is just the pure embodiment of Satan. It's called diplomacy. Look what "standing up" did to Bush. If anything, these "Islamists" have a bigger right to protest, they're killed over a man they hate too. The Taliban or Al Qaeda isn't exactly well liked by the majority of Muslims. 

Let's also set the record straight for small businesses. The Small Business Administration (SBA) is a United States government agency that provides support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. The mission of the Small Business Administration is "to maintain and strengthen the nation's economy by enabling the establishment and viability of small businesses and by assisting in the economic recovery of communities after disasters". 

The SBA has survived a number of threats to its existence. In 1996, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives planned to eliminate the agency. It survived and went on to receive a record high budget in 2000. Renewed efforts by the Bush Administration to end the SBA loan program met congressional resistance, although the SBA's budget was repeatedly cut, and in 2004 certain expenditures were frozen. The Obama Administration has supported the SBA budget. Significant supplemental appropriations for the agency strengthened SBA lending through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. 

The SBJA in 2010 provides$12 billion in tax cuts, including a 100% exclusion of capital gains taxes on small business investments.
It allows for small businesses to carry back general business tax credits to offset the tax burden from the previous five years. Small businesses also will be able to use these credits against the Alternative Minimum Tax.
It boosts the tax deduction for start-up expenses to $10,000, for small business owners who spend $60,000 or less to start their business.

Overall through the SBA he has supported tax cuts for small businesses 18 times. It is true that in some areas he raised taxes, but overall he was business friendly. Obama supported small businesses. The Republicans tried to thumb them down.

Let's set the record straight too for my opinions. I dont dislike and no support the Republicans because I detest all of them. There are some that I did admire. Snowe. The old Romney. What I disagree is the evolution towards the repellant Christian right they are taking. And I cannot in good conscience agree with those policies.

Yet you claim to be objective in your views. Yet you also claim we should form our opinions, but not on information from the media, because it's often "propaganda"? Aren't these seemingly contradicting? 

 

Posted Sep 13, '12 at 9:42pm

jeol

jeol

3,565 posts

Let's get the record straight. Obama apologized to these "Islamists", those who protested against the anti Islam film or the Koran practices NOT because he supported their millenarian views, not because he was weak, but because it was tactful. Many of the ME nations have the deeply entrenched notion since decades ago that thr USA is just the pure embodiment of Satan. It's called diplomacy. Look what "standing up" did to Bush. If anything, these "Islamists" have a bigger right to protest, they're killed over a man they hate too. The Taliban or Al Qaeda isn't exactly well liked by the majority of Muslims.

USA is USA, you can't change that. Standing up was no problem with Reagan. Why should he change America to match the Middle East? America is a nation based on Enlightenment principles, free from religious restraint. I suppose you probably understand symbolism more than most people. Then you know what burning a flag means? Simple comes to simple, that means they don't like us. Trying to make friends with enemies in terms of global power usually doesn't mean you get the good side of the stick, or everyone does, or whatever that expression means. Also, I understand the difference between Radical Muslims and Muslims, as to why I mentioned Radical Islam instead of just Islam. That doesn't change what I said, other than how you may interpret it.

Let's also set the record straight for small businesses. The Small Business Administration (SBA) is a United States government agency that provides support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. The mission of the Small Business Administration is "to maintain and strengthen the nation's economy by enabling the establishment and viability of small businesses and by assisting in the economic recovery of communities after disasters".

An increase in minimum wage, even for the larger corporations, makes it harder to employ people because that money could go into the much needed investment of the business. Sure, it means more benefits for the employees. But would you rather have a low-paying job or a low chance at having a job at all? It actually kills business because employers can't hire anybody to expand upon their businesses. Obama may have supported the SBA, but that may also support the claim that Obama is just trying to look good. Anything I look at says a raise in minimum wage.

Also, you may not grasp this idea, but I don't actually agree with everything the Republicans say or seem to do. I don't agree with a bunch of stuff that Bush did, and the only reason that he actually got into office was because his opponent was an idiot. There are liberal Republicans, and in some cases there are conservative democrats. The two-party system is pretty ****, and horrible labels, but there's not much to do about it at this point.

But the ironic thing is, you claim that most of what the Republicans stood for would make the country horrible but you also claim that Obama's policies, while they may seem horrible now with all this spending that built up, looks bad now, but down the road will save the country. Unless that was someone else. That might have been someone else; I get my liberals confused sometimes. My point is, the country will probably not last that long. This constant printing of money is causing inflation and will most likely crash the economy and force a reformation within the 'walls' (that aren't really being built, *cough*) of America itself. It's a little obvious that Obama is trying to be friends with everyone, but you can't be friends with everyone when it comes to policy and religion. Universalism has tried that, and it only shows that people hate it even more than legitimate religion. It often makes all sides go against you. I'm not saying that that will happen, but it is oversight.

Let's set the record straight too for my opinions. I dont dislike and no support the Republicans because I detest all of them. There are some that I did admire. Snowe. The old Romney. What I disagree is the evolution towards the repellant Christian right they are taking. And I cannot in good conscience agree with those policies.

Yet you claim to be objective in your views. Yet you also claim we should form our opinions, but not on information from the media, because it's often "propaganda"? Aren't these seemingly contradicting?

Ah, I see you may understand the label concept somewhat. I see a few 'exceptions' to a generalist belief. (No offense meant.)

I don't disagree with that; there are a lot of stupid things people say and believe, but it's not my position to insult them for that. I honestly respect your opinion in that matter.

I don't claim to be objective in my views; I try to be as logical and reasonable as I can be, but that still means that I take a side. And obviously, I grew up at some point, and I naturally soaked in the beliefs of those around me. However, I see that it was in their best interest and do my best to see objective to my emotions. It is virtually impossible to be completely objective of beliefs and opinions and misunderstandings, especially when your head houses a human brain. However, you can strive to use it to the best of your ability.

The media is biased. Not all propaganda is bad, of course, but people should still form a reasonable conclusion on their own and not rely on the petty things that media so conveniently shoves into your face. As a general question, when was the last time you perhaps saw an article about how this person is stupid, found both sides' relating opinions, and judged it based on the facts that you see? Even apart from emotional attachment to whatever person or 'party' or beliefs you have, but straight from the source to the deducing portions of your brain. This may be treated as a rhetorical question, but hopefully it does spark something to think about.

Also, perhaps it may be useful to point out that I may argue an opposite point at times just to try and create a counter-tension or perhaps spark an epiphany about some idea or simply get a better grasp of a logical conclusion. While at heart I am a conservative Christian, I do try and keep logic and reasoning in situations, to at least get people to think. It's more fun that way.

 

Posted Sep 13, '12 at 10:46pm

SubZero007

SubZero007

401 posts

Gents, while this is a beautiful conversation y'all are having about politics, don't you think it's a little beside the point of the quality of the movie?

 

Posted Sep 13, '12 at 11:32pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,164 posts

Knight

USA is USA, you can't change that. Standing up was no problem with Reagan. Why should he change America to match the Middle East? America is a nation based on Enlightenment principles, free from religious restraint. I suppose you probably understand symbolism more than most people. Then you know what burning a flag means? Simple comes to simple, that means they don't like us. Trying to make friends with enemies in terms of global power usually doesn't mean you get the good side of the stick, or everyone does, or whatever that expression means. Also, I understand the difference between Radical Muslims and Muslims, as to why I mentioned Radical Islam instead of just Islam. That doesn't change what I said, other than how you may interpret it.

Let's also note what Reagan did since you're an advocate of the Reagan Victory School. Reagan stood up in his first term; he was remarkably dovish in his second, sharing a paradoxical streak of virulent anti-nuclearism much more akin to his Left opponents than the Right. He personally met up with Gorbachev at 4 summits which fostered better understanding in a remarkable convergence; hardly the sigh of someone who firmly stands up. The collapse of the Cold War caught everyone by surprise, particularly the hardliners who had believes the Soviet US struggle was a permanent feature of the world. As Zbigniew Brzezinski the former National Security Council advisor said in 1986 "The American Soviet Contest is not some temporary aberration but a historical rivalry that will long endure". 

For everyone of Reagans rhetoric of the Evil Empire, he matched with his extreme anti nuclearism; seen in his views at the 1985 Geneva Conference that pushed for cooperation with the Soviets.

Egypt is a good friend of America. So is Saudi Arabia. So are the smaller gulf states. Yet they are all avowedly Islamic and radical at that, especially the puritanical Wahhabi monarchy. Saying that it's impossible to make friends with them is only to invite a permanent rift, and to ignore reality. It also entrenches the mindset that that the rest of the world has of the US; belligerent bullies.

 

An increase in minimum wage, even for the larger corporations, makes it harder to employ people because that money could go into the much needed investment of the business. Sure, it means more benefits for the employees. But would you rather have a low-paying job or a low chance at having a job at all? It actually kills business because employers can't hire anybody to expand upon their businesses. Obama may have supported the SBA, but that may also support the claim that Obama is just trying to look good. Anything I look at says a raise in minimum wage.

Obama's blatant deep measures to support small businesses is just to look good? That's so silly I giggled. It's concrete proof that he supports small businesses; even if we're cynical enough to claim every action as a political ploy, the irrefutable bottom line is, he supported them.

As for the minimum wage rising, yes basic economics does state that it'll lead to a surplus of labour And hence unemployment. Yet we must consider why the government might choose to narrow the inequity gap over faster economic growth. Simply put, it's a more pressing problem. 

Even at $10 an hour, the minimum wage would still be below 1968 levels when adjusted for inflation. Real wages hasn't kept up with inflation; nominal wages might have increased, but this is misleading. The  purchasing power of the average American has decreased. The rich poor gap has increased too much to be ignored.

And in any case, whilst businesses have to pay more wages, they get massive tax cuts. Ultimately they all benefit. 

And in any case, Two thirds of the American public -- including a majority of Republicans -- supported raising the minimum wage in a October 2010 poll by the Public Religion Research Institute.
It's curious the Republicans dislike it under Obama, yet Congress increased the wage in 2006 under Bush. 

Yet another argument to refute the minimum wage claim is that Obama hasn't even enacted such a policy. He did promise it in 2008; It is now four years later, and there has been no increase to the minimum wage. There has been no congressional vote, much less a whisper from the White House on the minimum wage, apart from congressmen occasionally piping the idea. 

President Obama understood the importance of this issue in 2008. The merits of raising the minimum wage haven’t changed since then, but his political courage has. The inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage has been in decline since the 1960s, losing over 30 percent of its value and leaving hard-working Americans struggling to get by from paycheck to paycheck. At the same time, the cost of living has continued to rise steadily, further eroding the value of a minimum wage. Had the minimum wage kept pace with inflation since 1968, today it would be at $10.57 per hour, instead of the current federal minimum wage of $7.25.

Studies show that the minimum wage could help jump-start the economy and increase consumer spending. A 2011 study by the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank found that for every dollar increase to the hourly pay of a minimum wage worker, the result is $2,800 in new consumer spending from that worker’s household over the year. And a 2009 study from the Economic Policy Institute estimated that simply by raising the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour, $60 billion in additional spending would be added to the economy over a two-year period.

What is shameful therefore is not that Obama has implemented a minimum wage; but that he didn't. The charges leveled against him should come from the disgruntled 2008 Obama supporters and not Republicans.

But the ironic thing is, you claim that most of what the Republicans stood for would make the country horrible but you also claim that Obama's policies, while they may seem horrible now with all this spending that built up, looks bad now, but down the road will save the country. Unless that was someone else. That might have been someone else; I get my liberals confused sometimes. My point is, the country will probably not last that long. This constant printing of money is causing inflation and will most likely crash the economy and force a reformation within the 'walls' (that aren't really being built, *cough*) of America itself. It's a little obvious that Obama is trying to be friends with everyone, but you can't be friends with everyone when it comes to policy and religion. Universalism has tried that, and it only shows that people hate it even more than legitimate religion. It often makes all sides go against you. I'm not saying that that will happen, but it is oversight.

The Centre for Automatic Research reports that the U.S. auto industry spared more than 1.14 million jobs last year alone, and prevented “additional personal income losses” of nearly 97 billion". Obama's bailouts didnt spectacularly turn the economy around into a powerful engine for growth; no policy can in 4 years. He has not fulfilled his election promises that's for sure, but no President has. Yet he has gone down with the grit and grime and pulled the USA out of a far worst fate. Just ask Spain what's I like to have a 24% unemployment rate.

Also, printing money doesn't automatically lead to inflation. The inflation rate is at an incredibly low 1.14%; because America's economy isn't at full potential; it isn't approaching then vertical portion of the AD/AS diagram. It is absurd to claim that inflation and money printing will destroy the economy; inflation is the least of America's worries now. The Volcker Shock of the 1970s was an example of high inflation, this isn't. 

The media is biased. Not all propaganda is bad, of course, but people should still form a reasonable conclusion on their own and not rely on the petty things that media so conveniently shoves into your face. As a general question, when was the last time you perhaps saw an article about how this person is stupid, found both sides' relating opinions, and judged it based on the facts that you see? Even apart from emotional attachment to whatever person or 'party' or beliefs you have, but straight from the source to the deducing portions of your brain. This may be treated as a rhetorical question, but hopefully it does spark something to think about.

Just actually, when I was reviewing my lecture notes for the Reagan Victory school article. So do my sources for economic policies; I read newspaper articles that merely print facts and not opinion pieces. I then form my own opinions based on economics framework that I have been taught. 

 
Reply to 2016 Obama's America

You must be logged in to post a reply!