The Obama Administration thread

[Drew]

and republicans are calling for less regulation.

And B.O. will keep printing money. Change you can believe in and these fucking assholes wasting money. Oh boy, and health care is just around the corner for all the tax payers!

[jarmo]

So I guess sick people don't cost money?

Since health care isn't a good investment?


How about abandoning public schools? What good does that do anyway right? Isn't it a waste of tax payers' money? Do poor people really need to learn how to read? They're just gonna live off your money anyway...



Sometimes you have to spend money to make money.

Personally I think everybody should have the right to an education and health care. No matter what.

It's fucking 2009. We should've managed to figure out a system that does not discriminate people based on the size of their wallet or where they were born.


It makes very little sense to me that certain kids don't deserve a proper education because their parents might not be rich enough.

Also makes no sense that people don't get the medical help they deserve when they get sick because of money issues.

A poor person's health isn't as much worth as some millionaire's?





/jarmo

[1987]

The government owns a major stake in Citi, BOFA, GM..

I found a nifty chart of the percentage of corporate America owned by the US government.



For those not familiar with scientific notation, the 5.07E-02 equates to 0.0507% or 1/20th of 1%.  Be.  Very.  Afraid.

If we are going to be in a war, treat it like a war and try to win it.  If the general says he needs more troops, give him the troops and accomplish the mission.

I agree with this...the real question has to be one of "what is the mission?"  If we stick with the silly neo-con idea of spreading peace by imposing democracy, we'll be in Afghanistan for decades more. 

i agree 100%  the current situation is the worst case.. our poor troops are being asked to fight a war. .. but not given the means to win it.  maybe obama should ask himself.. what would truman do?

Are you suggesting that we use the bomb of Afghanistan/Pakistan?

what did the US do to deserve 9/11? 

Nothing deserves an attack against civilians.  But the "causes" of 9/11 are largely the occupation of the Middle East (bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.), our pro-Israeli bias, and our support for tyrannical regimes in Muslim countries.  I'm not going to argue about the validity of these "causes" because it simply doesn't matter.  Al Qaeda sees them as valid and is willing to act on them and that's really all that matters.

However, a secondary cause that underlies all of this is the size and scope of the US military.  When you have a large military (and an enormous defense industry) you use it.  We know that conflict is likely in the Mid-East, so we put troops there on a semi-permanent basis.  This, then, becomes a cause of aggression against us.  And, because of aggression against us, we then need that military.  It's an unending circle.  Everywhere you find foreign troops you will find increased hostility toward other countries.  There are protests against US presence in Japan and South Korea, for example, even if they do not turn to terrorism. 

The Romans had a similar problem.  They'd expand, thus gaining greater security for the territories they held that had the advantage of a buffer of border provinces.  But, then, their presence in those border provinces would spark insurrection from the local population and a risk of invasion from still further provinces.  So occupy and expand.  Again and again.  And, finally, they fell apart.  In our goal of controlling every little thing that could possibly affect us, we've been spread very thin.  From dealing with FARC in Colombia, to stationing troops in the Middle East, Far East, and Europe, to fighting two wars against non-state entities that can't even "surrender" in traditional terms, we are very, very thin. 

i would rather the UN grows a set of balls and actually do something.. but they are about as useless as an apendix

The UN is the most ineffective organization in the history of international relations.  It's not about them growing balls...it's about the US, China, Russia, France, and the UK all having balls about the same issue, simultaneously, and agreeing about how to handle it.  Thus, given the obvious friction between those states, we can understand the extent to which the UN is ineffective. 

But I am against the life long bottom feeders.

And this argument would make sense to me IF we truly gave people equal opportunities in this country.  Unfortunately, if you're born black and in the inner city, your chances of being successful are markedly less than average.  Bring inner city/rural schools up to par (and then improve all schools) and you'll have a much more accurate conception of who the bottom feeders truly are.  As it is, many of our "bottom feeders" are people who found themselves in a largely untenable situation.   

if a person stopped getting a check from the government every week.. they would get off their ass and get a job. 

Yes, because there's just a wealth of high paying jobs out there, if only the lazy and indigent would take them, right?  Economies are meant to operate with unemployment, because full employment means that there are jobs that need doing that aren't being done.  The idea that everyone on unemployment or welfare is simply lazy is just another myth created by the right about a class of people they blame for all our troubles.

why would you quote the FACT that the government owns a stake in CITI, GM and BAC.  the government not only owns a stake but has a significant say in how the us banks operate.  Including the amount of risk they are allowed to keep on their balance sheet and compensation to their employees.   It doesn't stop with just the companies i mentioned.  It applies to every bank that was forced to accept TARP money.  And some were forced.  GS and JPM both did not want any TARP funds but were forced by the government because they thought their balance sheet was not strong enough.  If you look at GS balance sheet its very clear that debt to capital was well within acceptable operating standards for any bank.. not to mention that their exposure to mortgaged backed securities was significantly less than other banks.  this was all backed by the fact that GS was able to pay back all of the funds the government forced on them.  Yes their CEO and several traders will get bonuses north of 10MM.. good for them.. they earned it.  not only did they make share holders money (over 100% this year).. but the american tax payer made over 15% on the TARP investment.  so well done. 


the quote about truman.. very good.. thats exactly what i'm implying

i don't really disagree with your points on the UN or the cause of 9/11.. if it was up to me..  i wished that there was no dependence on foreign oil.. and let isreal and the rest of the middle east work themselves out.. unfortunately .. it is in our interest that there is somewhat some order in that part of the world.. and it appears that we need to support isreal at the moment.  I think fighting over religion is stupid.  i wish the US had no involvement.

as far as unemployment.. the optimal level of unemployment is 4%.. currently that number is at about 8%.. so we are nowhere close to becoming inefficient economically. so your statement about operating with unemployment is not applicable.   i never said anything about high paying jobs.. i just said jobs.. a person could be a bartender or waitress and make enough money to support themselves.   there are situations.. where someone truely is having bad luck and can't find a job.  but i believe that the overwhelming majority of the people on welfare are there because they choose to be and are lazy.  ive seen a person panhandle in front of mcdonalds with a help wanted sign in the window..  i think unemployment checks are ok.. for a limited amount of time.. and i think money for disabled or children under the age of 18 is ok.. i don't feel that a single penny should be GIVEN to anyone else.  put it towards improving schools or something that would actually improve society.. not encourage their lazy parasitic lifestyle

[freedom78]

why would you quote the FACT that the government owns a stake in CITI, GM and BAC.

Very well, here the entire relevant section of the quote:

"socialism

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists."

The government owns a major stake in Citi, BOFA, GM.. not to mention the healthcare bill.. where the government actually plans on being a provider.. finanaced by our never ending tax dollars..  Maybe you are the one who needs to study what is happening in the US before being another moron that has no idea what is really being proposed.. 

The conversation was about socialism and/or communism and you defined socialism and offered up these companies as evidence of US socialism.  I then chose to give a larger view of the ownership of the US economy by government, which is minuscule despite recent high profile examples to the contrary.       

the quote about truman.. very good.. thats exactly what i'm implying

I'm not sure how using tactical nuclear weapons would benefit us.  If anything, the use of such infamous weapons would only rally public opinion against the US and draw many into the use of terrorism.  If Bin Laden can be killed with a bullet, all the better.

as far as unemployment.. the optimal level of unemployment is 4%.. currently that number is at about 8%.. so we are nowhere close to becoming inefficient economically. so your statement about operating with unemployment is not applicable.   i never said anything about high paying jobs.. i just said jobs.. a person could be a bartender or waitress and make enough money to support themselves.   there are situations.. where someone truely is having bad luck and can't find a job.  but i believe that the overwhelming majority of the people on welfare are there because they choose to be and are lazy.  ive seen a person panhandle in front of mcdonalds with a help wanted sign in the window..  i think unemployment checks are ok.. for a limited amount of time.. and i think money for disabled or children under the age of 18 is ok.. i don't feel that a single penny should be GIVEN to anyone else.  put it towards improving schools or something that would actually improve society.. not encourage their lazy parasitic lifestyle

No, we're clearly not close to economic inefficiency because of over-employment.  I brought it up simply to do away with any illusion that we'd ever reach full employment or, even, that such a scenario was desirable.

I partially agree with your remark about transferring spending from welfare to schools and if we significantly improved our schools I do believe we could see major cuts in welfare.     

[1987]

obviously the US is not a socialist state.. but you can't argue that many of this admin policies are not socialist..  the bailout fiasco was a very slippery slope.. and the government choose to abuse it and move from banks to insurance companies to auto makers.  and now there is a bill on the table to have a government provided healthcare.  i would agree that there are problems with healthcare but having the governement provide anything is not the solution.  The government cannot run anything efficiently.  It will cost the american tax payers billions and provide a subpar service... which seems to be the emo for any government ran operation.  just ask anyone who has ever had the displeasure to ride the government subsidized amtrak... The biggest issue that needs to be addressed.. is when someone has insurance.. but if they have cancer and need 100s of thousands of dollars of chemo.. their insurance caps the coverage.. and the patient is left with piles of debt.  I don't think the government should force insurance companies to provide unlimited coverage.. but they do need to make the coverage more transparent and could even provide tax incentives to employers or insurance companies who offer unlimited coverage..   The other issue is that freelance or small business's have a difficult time affording insurance.  Rather than the government decide to create a new insurance company.. they should become the largest client.. and play the role of the employer.  All of the freelance and small business could qualify for the rates that would be offered the government entity.  i would even go as far to say that anyone who works a minimum number of hours of week could qualify for this rate.. but it shouldn't be free..  because nothing is free..

and if you want to see something that is just mindboggling.. checkout the farm subsidies that are still in place today.. the fact that no politician.. republican or democrat has came out and pulled these ridiculous programs out of fear of losing votes is awful.. 

[jarmo]

Fair enough. You think the government couldn't run anything efficiently. I'm not gonna argue that they're the best at running things smoothly. They can definitely learn a thing or two.


But do you think the insurance companies are running things great?

Do you think people's health should be made into a profit making industry? It already is with the pharmaceutical companies etc. But does the heath care itself have to be that way too? And insurances.


There's something "weird" about that.





/jarmo

[pilferk]

obviously the US is not a socialist state.. but you can't argue that many of this admin policies are not socialist..  the bailout fiasco was a very slippery slope.. and the government choose to abuse it and move from banks to insurance companies to auto makers.  and now there is a bill on the table to have a government provided healthcare.  i would agree that there are problems with healthcare but having the governement provide anything is not the solution.  The government cannot run anything efficiently.  It will cost the american tax payers billions and provide a subpar service... which seems to be the emo for any government ran operation.  just ask anyone who has ever had the displeasure to ride the government subsidized amtrak...

There are two different goals for the government run option:

1) To provide health care to those unable to afford it.

2) To provide a impetus to competition in the marketplace.

To accomplish #1, if that's your goal, you're going to need to spend a lot of money, anyway.  Either by providing the service internally or by paying someone else to.  Right?  So, your choice, as a tax payer, is to either feed another companies profit margin (because no private payor is going to provide coverage at cost) or to pay for that coverage at cost, albeit maybe a slightly increased one, by creating a public payor.  EVEN if the government run option runs less efficiently than the current players in the market (and, having worked with many of them, you'd be very surprised at the inefficiency that already exists in that market, trust me), that "inefficiency" would have to cost MORE than the % of premiums going toward the corporate profit margins.  We'll have to see...but I think even a government option is capable of THAT.

Which brings us around to #2:  In order to accomplish the goal, you HAVE to be at least as efficient, and at least as competitive in terms of price, as the current players in the market.  If you don't do that....you fail.  Consumers won't buy your product, either because your service stinks or because your price isn't competitive.  IF that happens...well, you have nothing to worry about because the government option won't be widely consumed and will have zero effect on the current market.  If it DOESN'T happen, and people flock to the government option, you'll see the industry transform itself, virtually overnight.  And it WILL continue to exist.  Because, as you rightly point out, no government option SHOULD be able to operate as efficiently, or as idustriously, as a private company. 

Witness Fedex and UPS vs the Postal Service.

But the goverment option will FORCE them to be efficient and industrious...rather than inefficient and "lazy" (at least in terms of product and service...they're VERY creative when it comes to creating profit).

The biggest issue that needs to be addressed.. is when someone has insurance.. but if they have cancer and need 100s of thousands of dollars of chemo.. their insurance caps the coverage.. and the patient is left with piles of debt.  I don't think the government should force insurance companies to provide unlimited coverage.. but they do need to make the coverage more transparent and could even provide tax incentives to employers or insurance companies who offer unlimited coverage..   The other issue is that freelance or small business's have a difficult time affording insurance.  Rather than the government decide to create a new insurance company.. they should become the largest client.. and play the role of the employer.  All of the freelance and small business could qualify for the rates that would be offered the government entity.  i would even go as far to say that anyone who works a minimum number of hours of week could qualify for this rate.. but it shouldn't be free..  because nothing is free..

It would be a good start.  The problem is...the tax payer is still paying the bill, one way or the other.   The "Senate healtcare" proposal (where you could get the same government employee health care plan as your Senator gets) WAS interesting. It might have worked, depending on how they enacted it.  The problem is, very early on in the discussions, the payor balked at it.  The company that would have actually had to provide the coverage essentially called "No Joy".  The government could have FORCED them to do it, or gone out and tried to find another company that would have done it (and there were no guarentees they would have)...but then, what's the difference between that and a government run option?

and if you want to see something that is just mindboggling.. checkout the farm subsidies that are still in place today.. the fact that no politician.. republican or democrat has came out and pulled these ridiculous programs out of fear of losing votes is awful.. 

Agreed.  There's lots of inefficient spending being done in our government.  Instead of $50 hammers (there may still be those, too), you just have the budget leaking money to all these small (and some not so small) "blue law" projects.  But they keep doling out the money....I'm right with you on that one.

[pilferk]

Does anyone else find it weird that the conservatives (and I mean in a broad sense, not necessarily the ones posting here) are staunchly against abortion, but are also staunchly against universal health care?

Don't kill babies...but deny them health care, later on,  so they'll die quicker, later.

Yes, I know..it's an oversimplification.  But it's still an odd juxtaposition....more so because it seems to put a price on the "morality", IMHO.  They'll take the moral position...right up until it start to cost too much coin to take.  Then...it's money over morality.

And yes,obviously I do think providing health care is a moral issue.

[AxlsMainMan]

When you have an asshole like Bush who set the country back a good 10 years, expect people to be angry.

I was gonna respond . . . but then saw you have a picture of Iverson and that pretty much tells me all I need to know!!!

At some point Obama needs to start living up to all the "promises of change" that he made to get elected, and dems/liberals need to start talking about what Obama is DOING and not have their pat answer to anybody that questions Obama be to blame it all on Bush. At some point, Obama needs to take charge and this presidency be about HIM and not past presidents.

If that's the case, then why did/why are Bush and your ilk trying to latch the financial crisis were in right now to Bill Clinton

Maybe if you didn't live in the USA and you actually had seen socialism around you, you'd object a bit to those who throw the word around just because they don't have anything better to say.

I live in a country that's way more socialist than the USA will ever be.

I guess that makes us communists! 



/jarmo

No wonder you're coming to Canada

[freedom78]

Does anyone else find it weird that the conservatives (and I mean in a broad sense, not necessarily the ones posting here) are staunchly against abortion, but are also staunchly against universal health care?

Don't kill babies...but deny them health care, later on,  so they'll die quicker, later.

Yes, I know..it's an oversimplification.  But it's still an odd juxtaposition....more so because it seems to put a price on the "morality", IMHO.  They'll take the moral position...right up until it start to cost too much coin to take.  Then...it's money over morality.

And yes,obviously I do think providing health care is a moral issue.

It's the basic contradiction between economic and social conservatisms.  Big tents really make very little sense and are full of hypocrisy.  Yet another reason that majoritarian, two party politics makes NO sense.

[1987]

i think the pro choice pro life political debate is one of the dumbest.. since ro vs wade.. there has been over 20 years of a Republican pres.. and its never once even been brought back to the supreme court.. its really stupid..  this shouldn't even be a topic.. michale moore could be president or pope benedict could be president.. and the abortion laws wouldn't change.  This is just another stupid topic that is always brought up to try to get votes.. the pro choice nuts will vote republican.. because think a republican president will appoint all conservative judges and change the law.. and the liberal nuts vote democrat..  i would really respect it if some politition would just say when asked what their position on abort was would say.. "my position is irrelevant.. i can't change the law and its none of your buisiness.. so if you cast your vote based on my position on abortion.. you are an idiot.  anyone have a question that is relevant?" 

[Groghan]

When you have an asshole like Bush who set the country back a good 10 years, expect people to be angry.

I was gonna respond . . . but then saw you have a picture of Iverson and that pretty much tells me all I need to know!!!

At some point Obama needs to start living up to all the "promises of change" that he made to get elected, and dems/liberals need to start talking about what Obama is DOING and not have their pat answer to anybody that questions Obama be to blame it all on Bush. At some point, Obama needs to take charge and this presidency be about HIM and not past presidents.

If that's the case, then why did/why are Bush and your ilk trying to latch the financial crisis were in right now to Bill Clinton

Maybe if you didn't live in the USA and you actually had seen socialism around you, you'd object a bit to those who throw the word around just because they don't have anything better to say.

I live in a country that's way more socialist than the USA will ever be.

I guess that makes us communists! 



/jarmo

No wonder you're coming to Canada

And you just proved my point.
You just did exactly what I accuse dems of doing!!!!!! Too funny.
First - it doesn't matter what Bush DID because he is  NOT president anymore. Correct?
Second - My "ilk"?  I am not part of an "ilk" of any  kind. I am rooting for Obama and would be the happiest guy around if he ends up being the best president that the U.S. has ever had. I tend to vote more republican, but I also don't reduce my voting philosophy just to toe one party line. I could care less if an idea is from the dems or republicans. The GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY and the world is what is important - not being a faithful slave to EITHER political party.
So again - sad that you proved my point. Or were you being sarcastic to try and be funny??  The question is when will dems start letting Obama's actions dictate his fate - and STOP blaiming any failure he has on Bush? Is Obama not a strong enough president to stand on his own two feet? The reason he got elected was all his promises about "change." 
Also, on a side note, why would you have a picture of Iverson on your name thing? The guy typlifies what is wrong with pro sports. Why would you hype him up?

[1987]

people just blindly hate bush..  i love how dems blame him for the war.. really??  last time i checked the president is not a dictator.. war was declared by congress.. and many of the dem darlings..like hilary clinton voted in favor of the war.  I think his polocies were actually pretty good... his public speaking was his biggest downfall.. 

[pilferk]

i think the pro choice pro life political debate is one of the dumbest.. since ro vs wade.. there has been over 20 years of a Republican pres.. and its never once even been brought back to the supreme court.. its really stupid..  this shouldn't even be a topic.. michale moore could be president or pope benedict could be president.. and the abortion laws wouldn't change.  This is just another stupid topic that is always brought up to try to get votes.. the pro choice nuts will vote republican.. because think a republican president will appoint all conservative judges and change the law.. and the liberal nuts vote democrat..  i would really respect it if some politition would just say when asked what their position on abort was would say.. "my position is irrelevant.. i can't change the law and its none of your buisiness.. so if you cast your vote based on my position on abortion.. you are an idiot.  anyone have a question that is relevant?" 

I largely agree with you.

But it's still an odd juxtaposition amongst the conservatives.

[pilferk]

people just blindly hate bush..  i love how dems blame him for the war.. really??  last time i checked the president is not a dictator.. war was declared by congress.. and many of the dem darlings..like hilary clinton voted in favor of the war.  I think his polocies were actually pretty good... his public speaking was his biggest downfall.. 

C'mon...there's no way you're that naive.

You can't possiblly ignore the fact that very key information was withheld from the voting members of Congress..BY the administration.  The Bush admin had access to intelligence that very few members of Congress had access to, and those that did couldn't share it without committing treason.   Bush rolled out Colin Powell, who conservatives just adore and liberals had huge respect for, to "sell" the war...and when he found out what had gone on, he abandoned the administration faster than you can say "loss of credibility".  Bush trashed his reputation, essentially lied to the man, to accomplish his (and Cheney's) goals.  And all that ignores the fact that, as the CIC, he had the right to...at least for a "short term" commit troops to Iraq WITHOUT Congressional approval.

His policies, and his lack of any commitment to regulation (and, actually, an ardent pursuit of deregulation in many things), largely led us into the recession we're now all feeling (and no, the dems were no better...but then, they didn't have control of Congress AND the White House).  So did his radical overspending.  Its intersting to hear some taking the Dems to task over THEIR spending...when Bush was not remotely a fiscal conservative by any measure.  He grew goverment by more than ANY OTHER administration since the New Deal (and he was close to rivaling that).  You simply cannot, objectively, look at the Bush administration and call it successful.  You can't give him a pass on what HAS occurred simply because he's no longer in charge.  The mess still needs cleaning up (and yes, Obama needs to be held accountable for the cleanup..but not the mess, itself).  Bush's administration wasn't an abject failure, either...it would be hard for any administration to achieve that...but there was far more bad than good.

There is a fundamental difference between "blindly hating bush" and fundamentally disagreeing with his policy.  It's tough to term the lib hatred as "blind", really.   There is PLENTY of reasoning, evidence, and ideological difference to support that "hatred", actually.

[1987]

people just blindly hate bush..  i love how dems blame him for the war.. really??  last time i checked the president is not a dictator.. war was declared by congress.. and many of the dem darlings..like hilary clinton voted in favor of the war.  I think his polocies were actually pretty good... his public speaking was his biggest downfall.. 

C'mon...there's no way you're that naive.

You can't possiblly ignore the fact that very key information was withheld from the voting members of Congress..BY the administration.  The Bush admin had access to intelligence that very few members of Congress had access to, and those that did couldn't share it without committing treason.   Bush rolled out Colin Powell, who conservatives just adore and liberals had huge respect for, to "sell" the war...and when he found out what had gone on, he abandoned the administration faster than you can say "loss of credibility".  Bush trashed his reputation, essentially lied to the man, to accomplish his (and Cheney's) goals.  And all that ignores the fact that, as the CIC, he had the right to...at least for a "short term" commit troops to Iraq WITHOUT Congressional approval.

His policies, and his lack of any commitment to regulation (and, actually, an ardent pursuit of deregulation in many things), largely led us into the recession we're now all feeling (and no, the dems were no better...but then, they didn't have control of Congress AND the White House).  So did his radical overspending.  Its intersting to hear some taking the Dems to task over THEIR spending...when Bush was not remotely a fiscal conservative by any measure.  He grew goverment by more than ANY OTHER administration since the New Deal (and he was close to rivaling that).  You simply cannot, objectively, look at the Bush administration and call it successful.  You can't give him a pass on what HAS occurred simply because he's no longer in charge.  The mess still needs cleaning up (and yes, Obama needs to be held accountable for the cleanup..but not the mess, itself).  Bush's administration wasn't an abject failure, either...it would be hard for any administration to achieve that...but there was far more bad than good.

There is a fundamental difference between "blindly hating bush" and fundamentally disagreeing with his policy.  It's tough to term the lib hatred as "blind", really.   There is PLENTY of reasoning, evidence, and ideological difference to support that "hatred", actually.

if you hate bush because of the war (not you personally.. "you" in general)..  and you really believe the the bush admin tricked congress..   then i suggest you read up on the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Bush had the right to send in troops and Congress can remove them whenever they want after 90 days. more than 3000 days have passed and Congress have never once moved to do such a thing.  Dems were in the majority 4 out of the 8 years Bush was in office and never moved to remove troops.

Also i'm not sure what government programs the bush adim has implemented that you are referring to that grew government.  I agree with deregulation.  Individuals need to take responsible for themselves.  the housing crisis was not the governments fault.  it was the fault of individuals being too greedy or stupid to realize that if they only make 50k per year.. they shouldn't buy a 600k house just because they were approved by a bank for a mtg with 10% interest with nothing down.  The blame can also be put on the banks for being too aggressive with the amount of risk they were willing to take on their mtg portfolios..

[1987]

also.. i the vile hatred toward bush is really stupid.. if you don't agree with his policies so be it..  but to call for his impeachment ect.. give me a break.. I don't agree with many of obama's policies..  but i certainly wouldn't want to see him impeached.. or anything negative happen to him.  he is still the president of the country and his success should be what every american hopes for.  I strongly disagree with the conservative's who keep trying to push for impeachment based on the theory that he might not have been born on US soil.. technically does it matter??  i suppose.  but that is something that should have been address last fall.  the best interests of the nation should be at the top of everybody's list.. not the best interest of the party.  The only issue that personally have a problem with obama.. is the circus around the 9/11 trial.. leveraging this case for his and the attorney general's agenda is pretty low

[freedom78]

if you hate bush because of the war (not you personally.. "you" in general)..  and you really believe the the bush admin tricked congress..   then i suggest you read up on the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Bush had the right to send in troops and Congress can remove them whenever they want after 90 days. more than 3000 days have passed and Congress have never once moved to do such a thing.  Dems were in the majority 4 out of the 8 years Bush was in office and never moved to remove troops.

also.. i the vile hatred toward bush is really stupid.. if you don't agree with his policies so be it..  but to call for his impeachment ect.. give me a break.. I don't agree with many of obama's policies..  but i certainly wouldn't want to see him impeached.. or anything negative happen to him.  he is still the president of the country and his success should be what every american hopes for.  I strongly disagree with the conservative's who keep trying to push for impeachment based on the theory that he might not have been born on US soil.. technically does it matter??  i suppose.  but that is something that should have been address last fall.  the best interests of the nation should be at the top of everybody's list.. not the best interest of the party.  The only issue that personally have a problem with obama.. is the circus around the 9/11 trial.. leveraging this case for his and the attorney general's agenda is pretty low

Randomly jumping in again, if you'll excuse me.

I'm not one who believes that, without an official declaration of war, any militarized conflict is unacceptable.  We've only declared war five times, amazingly enough, and an AUMF is sufficient to my mind, meaning that any impeachment push based in the lack of a declaration of war is faulty (IMO).  But to suggest that there was no push to remove troops is incorrect.  The House, in 2007, voted to pull out of Iraq and Bush threatened to veto which he should NOT be able to do under the WPA of 1973.  However, since every President has pretended that that law doesn't exist (under the premise that it's an unconstitutional limiting of the President's CiC authority), it's no surprise that Bush would do the same.  As President, Bush did show one ability that's noteworthy.  He was willing to destroy anything to get what he wanted.  He'd threaten to veto any spending that didn't authorize funds for Iraq and Afghanistan.  He threatened to veto FISA, a critical law for our domestic security, if it didn't include immunity for those who had broken that same law at his admin's direction.  He was willing to take a stance against popular opinion and be as stubborn as any person I've ever seen.  And he got his way every single time. 

It's uncanny, really.  Bush, bluffing or not, with the benefit of being term limited and having little chance to create much of an historical legacy worth remembering, backed into a corner and refused to budge an inch.  Remember his press conference the day after the 2006 midterm election ass whooping he received?  It was all "the people have spoken" conciliatory stuff, and he didn't follow through with a WORD of it.  If there's one thing I've seen repeated again and again, it's the GOP having very little respect for the will of the people, whether it's about a war we don't support or the agenda of opposing politicians that we elected.

[pilferk]

if you hate bush because of the war (not you personally.. "you" in general)..  and you really believe the the bush admin tricked congress..   then i suggest you read up on the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Bush had the right to send in troops and Congress can remove them whenever they want after 90 days. more than 3000 days have passed and Congress have never once moved to do such a thing.  Dems were in the majority 4 out of the 8 years Bush was in office and never moved to remove troops.

There were at least 3 different movements to either vote to remove troops or to vote to impose a deadline on troop removal.  Bush threatened to veto every single one (whether he legitamately had the right to, or not).   That was during the last 2 years of his administration, which was really the only point in which the Dems had much of a chance to effect change.

On the Dems controlling congress for 4 years of the Bush admin??? Huh??

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

Repubs took over the house in 1995.  They didn't relinquish it til the last 2 years of Bush's administration.

They had a VERY slim majority in the Senate from 01' to '03 (again, largely dealing with Sept 11th), based on an indie (Republican turncoat) caucasing with them.  But a) that wasn't even enough to be filibuster proof and b) the House was still under republican control and most importantly c) the Iraq war hadn't really even started for most of it.

The Dems controlled congress for the last 2 years of Bush's 8.  That's it. 

Also i'm not sure what government programs the bush adim has implemented that you are referring to that grew government. 

These are widely know, widely discussed issues that have been on the table for a LONG time. I'm surprised you're unaware of them.

http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/750-big-government-under-the-bush-administration

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Bush-Government-Grows4sep03.htm

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1208/p01s02-uspo.html

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=4589

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1104/111104ol.htm

Those are just the tips of the iceberg in terms of discussion.  Really, a simple google search will get you on your way.

I agree with deregulation.  Individuals need to take responsible for themselves.  the housing crisis was not the governments fault.  it was the fault of individuals being too greedy or stupid to realize that if they only make 50k per year.. they shouldn't buy a 600k house just because they were approved by a bank for a mtg with 10% interest with nothing down.  The blame can also be put on the banks for being too aggressive with the amount of risk they were willing to take on their mtg portfolios..

You agree with deregulation?  So fat cats should be completely able to take advantage of anyone, anywhere with no repercussions, because, ultimately, the other party should be responsible for themselves?  Then, really, shouldn't we just institute anarchy and let the "survival of the fittest" commence?  You realize that deregulation, and lack of regulation, of the financial institutions are very likely responsible for this mess, right?  Just like it was in the 1980's S&L fiasco...we're just not learning from history.

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2008/04/reregulate_fina.html

Look, we all know that consumers are sheep.  They're practically bred that way, suckled at the teet of corporate America. That's a cultural issue that probably needs to be addressed...but likely won't be until there is a larger catastrophe than the one we just faced.   On that, we likely agree.

Were people stupid?  Sure.  But that's why laws and regulations are enacted.  MOST crime is "stupid people syndrome" related.  The point is: You can't let your financial system fall victim to "stupid people syndrome".  There has to be regulation in place so that you're not building a house of cards in the very support structure (ie: Your banks and lending institutions) you depend on.  We can largely weather things like dot com balloons, changes in technology that make certain businesses obsolete, and things of that nature.  But when the money system crashes and the banks fail....that's not so easy to recover from (as we're finding now).  IMHO, the whole POINT of government is to prevent things like that from happening, ultimately.  It's the point of law.  If you largely believe that "Individuals should take responsibility for themselves", and actually have faith that they will, then we should completely eliminate all criminal and civil law. 

Banks/lenders were dumb. No, strike that because dumb implies ignorance, and they weren't that...they were greedy and shortsighted. They made shaky loans, engaged in predatory lending, and offered the most assinine products (INTEREST ONLY MORTGAGES??!!) to people who barely (or, frankly, didn't..without some creative "help) qualified for mortgages.  Debt to income went out the window, income verification was close behind, and NOBODY sat there an thought about what would happen when/if the bubble burst.  Or, rather, nobody CARED so long as the profits kept streaming in.   And these are institutions who should know better.  Consumers SHOULD know better, too...but studies show that, largely, they don't.  They trust the system to tell them what's best for them.  If they get approved for credit, they MUST be able to afford it...if they get a mortgage, they MUST be able to afford it.    So yes, shame on them, too....they made mistakes. They were ignorant, didn't educate themselves, and were far too trusting of the system.  The difference is, it's tough to raise as much outrage at ignorance,, misplaced trust and doing exactly what the market has conditioned them (and studies have proven) they will do.

 The lenders though?   They weren't stupid.  They KNEW what they were doing..they were just gambling they wouldn't get their hands caught in the cookie jar.  Or, rather, that they'd pocket enough profit, by the time they did, that it wouldn't matter.  And, I suspect, they figured that they'd get bailed out, somehow.  You can't allow any set of institutions THAT much control over your financial system.  You can't allow them to engage in practices that risk your entire economic system....and you can't trust that they'll "learn from their mistakes", either.  So you regulate.  Not with a heavy hand....you don't need to control the entirety of the way they do business...but you DO need to impose some checks and balances. Partial regulation doesn't work (witness what's occurred). Deregulation wouldn't work (you're talking complete removal of all government involvement, including FDIC insurance, etc..and let the buyer and seller beware).    You need comprehensive, common sense, even handed regulation that's overseen NOT by politicos and ideology hacks, but by actual experts in the field.

Look for the SEC as a model of when it works relatively well, and look at the FCC for a model of what NOT to do.

[pilferk]

also.. i the vile hatred toward bush is really stupid.. if you don't agree with his policies so be it..  but to call for his impeachment ect.. give me a break.. I don't agree with many of obama's policies..  but i certainly wouldn't want to see him impeached.. or anything negative happen to him.  he is still the president of the country and his success should be what every american hopes for.  I strongly disagree with the conservative's who keep trying to push for impeachment based on the theory that he might not have been born on US soil.. technically does it matter??  i suppose.  but that is something that should have been address last fall.  the best interests of the nation should be at the top of everybody's list.. not the best interest of the party.  The only issue that personally have a problem with obama.. is the circus around the 9/11 trial.. leveraging this case for his and the attorney general's agenda is pretty low

I'm not an "impeach Bush" guy, so can't comment on that section of the population.  However, if I saw evidence of criminal wrongdoing, fraud, treason, or obvious felony....that's when I think you impeach.  Not for ideological differences, though.  That would be dumb.

For Obama...they've proven so many times he's a US citizen, from his birth certificate onward that all that stuff strikes me the same way the 9/11 conspiracy theories did:  Mindless ideological bunk spouted by the ravenous, indoctrinated fanatics.

As for Obama harnassing the press around the 9/11 trial..it's a fair criticism, I suppose.  Just realize that every administration, since Nixon (at least...mabye since Kennedy) have engaged in the same sorts of things.  It's par for the course when, in some people's minds, approval rating = notoriety/celebrity.  Every president has done SOME playing down to the lowest common denominator.  I dont' think this is any more egregious (and in some cases, far less egregious) than things that have been done in the past.