The Obama Administration thread

[freedom78]

crazy times with this health care debate. we could be very close to a monumental moment in politics. the Dems are not handling it well, but could succeed in getting it passed anyhow.

Understatement of the year.  Then again, when do they handle anything well? 

I worry that this legislation is far too weak, but if it can be deficit reducing and cover more people, then I suppose I'm for it in even a weakened state. 

[GeorgeSteele]

crazy times with this health care debate. we could be very close to a monumental moment in politics. the Dems are not handling it well, but could succeed in getting it passed anyhow.

Understatement of the year.  Then again, when do they handle anything well? 

I worry that this legislation is far too weak, but if it can be deficit reducing and cover more people, then I suppose I'm for it in even a weakened state. 

Very true, but it's a weak bill because going any further is just not politically feasible.  And maybe it shouldn't be.  I wish we had Medicare for all, like every other developed country, but maybe government-run health care isn't appropriate in a country where people are scared of their government, rather than vice-versa.

[pilferk]

crazy times with this health care debate. we could be very close to a monumental moment in politics. the Dems are not handling it well, but could succeed in getting it passed anyhow. it doesn't sound like this bill will lower premiums (which is unfortunate), and this is far from the best solution. but if it helps cover millions more, prevents consumers costs from rising significantly, and lowers the impact on the deficit, it's not a bad thing. we'll see.

"It is very important to us that this legislation be fiscally sound - that is, save $100 billion in the first 10 years and $1 trillion in the second 10 years," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a briefing on Tuesday.

I agree, the dems are not handling it all that well.  I was actually OK with the idea of Reconciliation, since the bills basically passed, and there was not need to start from scratch.

But...the stuff going on in the House...look, if it can't pass an up or down vote, in sum total, then it can't pass.  It sucks.  It might kill (literally and figuratively) the working/middle class.  But I think shoehorning it through as they're proposing to do is a BAD idea.

[JuicySwoos]

there is a different between supporting our country and wanting big government.  I never wanted big government. Im a little confused on what you are saying I said.

So you were complaining when Bush grew government at a larger pace than any president since Roosevelt and The New Deal.  Right?

I mean, maybe YOU were...but I can tell you, for a fact, that most Repubs were not.  Which is why that objection, NOW, rings a little hollow, ya know?

Bush and his neocons are the reason I am no longer Republican, and why I don't buy the GOP's sudden concern for fiscal responsibilty.  Coke vs Pepsi. Just depends on who is in power.

[Jdog0830]

there is a different between supporting our country and wanting big government.  I never wanted big government. Im a little confused on what you are saying I said.

So you were complaining when Bush grew government at a larger pace than any president since Roosevelt and The New Deal.  Right?

I mean, maybe YOU were...but I can tell you, for a fact, that most Repubs were not.  Which is why that objection, NOW, rings a little hollow, ya know?

Bush and his neocons are the reason I am no longer Republican, and why I don't buy the GOP's sudden concern for fiscal responsibilty.  Coke vs Pepsi. Just depends on who is in power.

Ha when it comes down to it yeah thats basicly it.

Except both have there own flavor and policys!

[Jdog0830]

I am just saying that is the problem republicans have.

I didnt remember saying about you and I am going to change that right away sorry...





Joe

oh ok. Yeah I know what you are saying.  Most republicans when Bush was in office got on the democrats for not respecting the President with the things they said in the media, and low and behold when Obama got in they have done the exact same thing.

Yep its a circle of hate where NOTHING AT ALL gets done.






Joe

[Bodhi]

there is a different between supporting our country and wanting big government.  I never wanted big government. Im a little confused on what you are saying I said.

So you were complaining when Bush grew government at a larger pace than any president since Roosevelt and The New Deal.  Right?

I mean, maybe YOU were...but I can tell you, for a fact, that most Repubs were not.  Which is why that objection, NOW, rings a little hollow, ya know?

what exactly do you mean when you talk about big government?  I'm referring to high taxes, social programs etc... 

[freedom78]

there is a different between supporting our country and wanting big government.  I never wanted big government. Im a little confused on what you are saying I said.

So you were complaining when Bush grew government at a larger pace than any president since Roosevelt and The New Deal.  Right?

I mean, maybe YOU were...but I can tell you, for a fact, that most Repubs were not.  Which is why that objection, NOW, rings a little hollow, ya know?

what exactly do you mean when you talk about big government?  I'm referring to high taxes, social programs etc... 

...but not a national defense more costly than the rest of the world combined?  See this is what makes no sense.  You can't be for small government and spend that much on defense.  We will NEVER have a small government so long as our defense is as enormous as it is.

Also, if we're talking specifically about Bush, he did oversee the creation of a new department in the bureaucracy and a massive (and bad) national education policy.   

[Bodhi]

there is a different between supporting our country and wanting big government.  I never wanted big government. Im a little confused on what you are saying I said.

So you were complaining when Bush grew government at a larger pace than any president since Roosevelt and The New Deal.  Right?

I mean, maybe YOU were...but I can tell you, for a fact, that most Repubs were not.  Which is why that objection, NOW, rings a little hollow, ya know?

what exactly do you mean when you talk about big government?  I'm referring to high taxes, social programs etc... 

...but not a national defense more costly than the rest of the world combined?  See this is what makes no sense.  You can't be for small government and spend that much on defense.  We will NEVER have a small government so long as our defense is as enormous as it is.

Also, if we're talking specifically about Bush, he did oversee the creation of a new department in the bureaucracy and a massive (and bad) national education policy.   

once again, we are talking about different things.  When I say "big" government, I am talking about an "intervening" government.  I want the government to keep their hands off of my paycheck when it comes to funding their social programs that I or anyone I know would never be eligible for.  I am for privatizing social security etc...I want as little government intervention into my daily life as possible.  I am a huge believer in PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY, where as it seems the left thinks this country is full of toddlers and we need mommy and daddy to do everything for us, cause they know whats best.  Healthcare is perfect example.  Obama thinks he knows whats best so he is completely ignoring what the majority of Americans want and is going to shove this down our throats no matter what we say.

 Dont really what defense spending has to do with that.  That is a given that we should spend more money on it than the rest of the world combined, we have a lot of enemies, do we not?

[pilferk]

what exactly do you mean when you talk about big government?  I'm referring to high taxes, social programs etc... 

Government is government.  It includes all branches (social programs, defense, education, FCC, etc) all spending, and all taxes.

Bush grew it faster than any president since FDR, and The New Deal.

What it seems to me you're saying is that your objection isn't to "big government", per se.  It's to Democratic policy, itself.  Because if you object to "big government" or "big spending", you have to object to all of it...not just when it's being done by the other party.  Because then, it's just a convenient excuse to poke holes in their policy.  That was my point....and by your response, you pretty much made it for me.

And I also find it amusing when Repubs complain about higher taxes, at this point, on ANYONE at this point.  Uh...guys.....Bush ran up a HUGE national debt to pay for Iraq.  AND cut taxes for everyone.  How do you increase spending and decrease payments?  Think about that in terms of your own spending.  If you have a credit card and you increase it's use but decrease your monthly payment, what happens, exactly?  Eventually, you gotta start paying more, or you will forever be in debt.  Now think of that in on a MUCH larger scale.  Same principal, only it's a shared debt by the entire country.

[pilferk]

once again, we are talking about different things.  When I say "big" government, I am talking about an "intervening" government.  I want the government to keep their hands off of my paycheck when it comes to funding their social programs that I or anyone I know would never be eligible for.

And that's the thing:  You only want to pay for exactly what you'll use.  Society doesn't work like that.  If it did, you'd pay for your own kids education, your own (as in, the ones you use) road maintenance, etc.  In addition, you say "programs that I or anyone I know would never be eligible for" like it's impossible you'd EVER need those programs.  That's mighty strong confidence, all things considered.  And I can tell you there are a LOT of people who feel that way...right before the bottom drops out and they find out those programs they didn't think they'd ever need are now the only thing keeping them afloat.

I know, I know:  Those using social programs are unworthy of them, their lazy, they don't deserve help, they should pull themselves up by their boot straps....yada yada yada.  All the stuff sociologists have said is complete bunk, but the Repub faithful keep preaching.

  I am for privatizing social security etc...I want as little government intervention into my daily life as possible.  I am a huge believer in PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY, where as it seems the left thinks this country is full of toddlers and we need mommy and daddy to do everything for us, cause they know whats best.  Healthcare is perfect example.  Obama thinks he knows whats best so he is completely ignoring what the majority of Americans want and is going to shove this down our throats no matter what we say.

Then we should likewise eliminate public education, public law enforcement and services, etc.  Right?

I'm not a fan of the WAY the Dems are pushing the bill through (though probably not for the same reasons), either.  But arguing you don't like the program because it provides too much government oversight, for me, is like arguing that you don't want the Federal Government involved in education or law enforcement or hundreds of other public issues.  And if that's the case....if you feel we should go back to a loose confederacy of states who's Federal Government is really no more than simply a centralized agency to facilitate trade...then we're going to have to agree to disagree.  But what you seem to be saying is "I don't like "Big Government" except when it's involved in the things I WANT".  Which is entirely different.  THAT really isn't an objection to "big government" (that's just a convenient excuse/rationalization), it's an objection to the dems ideology.

Dont really what defense spending has to do with that.  That is a given that we should spend more money on it than the rest of the world combined, we have a lot of enemies, do we not?

Yeah, but....well, the rich people have more to lose than the poor, right?  So, in theory at least, they should foot the entire bill for the defense budget.  Or, since you only want to pay for what you use, maybe the answer is private security forces.

You can't have it both ways.  Either we function as as society or as a collection of individuals.  I think over the past 200 years, we've proven which path works best for us.

[freedom78]

there is a different between supporting our country and wanting big government.  I never wanted big government. Im a little confused on what you are saying I said.

So you were complaining when Bush grew government at a larger pace than any president since Roosevelt and The New Deal.  Right?

I mean, maybe YOU were...but I can tell you, for a fact, that most Repubs were not.  Which is why that objection, NOW, rings a little hollow, ya know?

what exactly do you mean when you talk about big government?  I'm referring to high taxes, social programs etc... 

...but not a national defense more costly than the rest of the world combined?  See this is what makes no sense.  You can't be for small government and spend that much on defense.  We will NEVER have a small government so long as our defense is as enormous as it is.

Also, if we're talking specifically about Bush, he did oversee the creation of a new department in the bureaucracy and a massive (and bad) national education policy.   

once again, we are talking about different things.  When I say "big" government, I am talking about an "intervening" government.  I want the government to keep their hands off of my paycheck when it comes to funding their social programs that I or anyone I know would never be eligible for.  I am for privatizing social security etc...I want as little government intervention into my daily life as possible. 

I suppose you can cherry pick how you want...I certainly do and have my own preferences about where government should and should not intervene.  My only point is that you can't generally be against "big government" and support the size of our national defense, among other things.  If our national defense were priced to adequately protect our country and to never be aggressive in war, then we'd likely be in far fewer conflicts and would save a bundle (both on defense, the VA, and on the wars we wage).

Obama thinks he knows whats best so he is completely ignoring what the majority of Americans want and is going to shove this down our throats no matter what we say.

I fail to see how a President doing something central to the platform on which he was elected is "shoving this down our throats" or going against a majority of Americans' wishes.  He said he wanted to reform healthcare, we elected him, and now he's trying to reform healthcare.  Is it identical to what he campaigned on?  I would challenge you to find ANY case where a President's campaign promises were identical to the policies they pushed through.  But it's not as if Americans said "Healthcare?  I don't want that changed...I'm voting McCain"...or at least not in large enough numbers to matter.

Granted, polls have slipped some (despite having been all over the place) after a year of Republicans making shit up (OOoooh...the big bad government is going to KILL your GRANDMA!).  But if you don't want to see moves toward big healthcare reform, I'd suggest to anyone that they don't vote for Democrats. 

Dont really what defense spending has to do with that.  That is a given that we should spend more money on it than the rest of the world combined, we have a lot of enemies, do we not?

We do have a lot of enemies.  Many of them have a lot to do with the size of our military and the ways we've used it.  It's a lovely circle.

Step 1: We have this big military left over from WWII.
Step 2: Let's strategically position ourselves all over the world
Step 3: Bomb something
Step 4: Oh no!  We just got attacked!  We must need a bigger military!
Step 5: Repeat step 2 in new and wonderful places where we haven't yet been at war.
Step 6: Repeat steps 3-4 ad infinitum.

[Bodhi]

We do have a lot of enemies.  Many of them have a lot to do with the size of our military and the ways we've used it.  It's a lovely circle.

Step 1: We have this big military left over from WWII.
Step 2: Let's strategically position ourselves all over the world
Step 3: Bomb something
Step 4: Oh no!  We just got attacked!  We must need a bigger military!
Step 5: Repeat step 2 in new and wonderful places where we haven't yet been at war.
Step 6: Repeat steps 3-4 ad infinitum.

regardless of how we got our enemies, I would like to keep breathing.  I dont wanna pay the price for the selfish and stupid acts of my government.  So if we have to keep building up our military so be it.  Whats the alternative?

[Bodhi]

Good post Pilferk.  I think you are right, Im not necessarily against the size of government but what its being spent on.  I am more against the way they intervene in our life.  I want limited gov input, not zero.  I usually agree with what the republicans spend their money on, I can be crazy for that but I do. I have no problem with defense spending.  I do have a problem with all the social programs though.  The type I'd never be eligible for.  When I say I'd never be eligible for, I wasn't saying I am so well off I will never need help.  Im talking about the other types of programs.  For example, how am I ever going to be eligible for a program that gives money to minority owned businesses.  I am not a minority therefore I am out.  If I want to start a business Im shit out of luck, but Ill guarantee you some of my money went into that program.  That is the type of program I'm talking about.  As far as the saying those using social programs are lazy, well a lot are.  I didnt say all, but you dont think there area  good amount of lazy people taking advantage of the system?  I know a few personally .  As far as tax dollars being spend on defense, I am a flat tax person, always have been, always will be.  If a rich person is already paying more in taxes than a poor person, why do we have to punish that rich person even more by raising the percentage that they have to pay?  I understand a flat tax will never happen in this country, and might be a better idea on paper than it would be in the real world, but I dont think its fair to punish people for making more money.

[Vicious Wishes]

Did you hear Lindsay Vonn was stripped of her gold medal?  It was given to Obama after it was determined he went downhill faster. 

Heeeeyyyyyyoooooooooooh!

NOTE: Just a stupid joke, and not an endorsement of any particular ideology, politician, and/or political party.

here's some more..

I knew it was cold outside when I saw a democrats hands in his own pockets... hey, now
and
The only problem with socialism is, eventually you run out of other peoples money.

[freedom78]

We do have a lot of enemies.  Many of them have a lot to do with the size of our military and the ways we've used it.  It's a lovely circle.

Step 1: We have this big military left over from WWII.
Step 2: Let's strategically position ourselves all over the world
Step 3: Bomb something
Step 4: Oh no!  We just got attacked!  We must need a bigger military!
Step 5: Repeat step 2 in new and wonderful places where we haven't yet been at war.
Step 6: Repeat steps 3-4 ad infinitum.

regardless of how we got our enemies, I would like to keep breathing.  I dont wanna pay the price for the selfish and stupid acts of my government.  So if we have to keep building up our military so be it.  Whats the alternative?

The vast majority of countries have no capability to invade our country, so our risk is fairly low.  Of those who have the capability, the vast majority of that group (European states) is allied with us and the biggest threat of all is a country (China) with which we're so deeply economically entwined that any violent conflict would cripple their economy (and ours).  So, yes, there's an alternative.  Unlike most countries in the world, we have no real risk of being attacked by another country.  Our only real risk is from individuals acting alone or as part of small organizations. 

Additionally, that massive military that you believe will protect you now will also be used for more and more "selfish and stupid acts" (read: Iraq) that will certainly not endear us to the peoples of the world.  To this we'll then point and say "see...they DO hate us!" and that will be the excuse for an even larger military.  As I said, it's cyclical.  If we could have our big military and not feel a need to use it, then that would be fine.  But, if we didn't use it, then we wouldn't need it.  So, we use it and then use that use as an excuse for why we need it.  It can be infinitely justified because someone has committed violence against us, but that violence is often caused in part by our previous uses, much like our troops in Saudi Arabia make anger against us fester, much like Kim Jong Il can claim his actions are because he feels threatened by our troops in S. Korea and Japan, and so forth. 

I am not saying that without a military we would never have need for one.  But, as it stands right now, a much smaller military would be able to deal with threats below the level of a major conflict (i.e. a world war) and, considering that we have an all volunteer force now, it's hard to imagine that we couldn't create a similar one in the face of a real, major threat. 

[Bodhi]

I am not saying that without a military we would never have need for one.  But, as it stands right now, a much smaller military would be able to deal with threats below the level of a major conflict (i.e. a world war) and, considering that we have an all volunteer force now, it's hard to imagine that we couldn't create a similar one in the face of a real, major threat. 

I see what youre saying, but wouldnt a larger military be able to take care of all of the above?  The large threats and the smaller,  I would agree more imminent threats, such as individual extremists?

[D]

We do have a lot of enemies.  Many of them have a lot to do with the size of our military and the ways we've used it.  It's a lovely circle.

Step 1: We have this big military left over from WWII.
Step 2: Let's strategically position ourselves all over the world
Step 3: Bomb something
Step 4: Oh no!  We just got attacked!  We must need a bigger military!
Step 5: Repeat step 2 in new and wonderful places where we haven't yet been at war.
Step 6: Repeat steps 3-4 ad infinitum.

regardless of how we got our enemies, I would like to keep breathing.  I dont wanna pay the price for the selfish and stupid acts of my government.  So if we have to keep building up our military so be it.  Whats the alternative?

The vast majority of countries have no capability to invade our country, so our risk is fairly low.  Of those who have the capability, the vast majority of that group (European states) is allied with us and the biggest threat of all is a country (China) with which we're so deeply economically entwined that any violent conflict would cripple their economy (and ours).  So, yes, there's an alternative.  Unlike most countries in the world, we have no real risk of being attacked by another country.  Our only real risk is from individuals acting alone or as part of small organizations. 

Additionally, that massive military that you believe will protect you now will also be used for more and more "selfish and stupid acts" (read: Iraq) that will certainly not endear us to the peoples of the world.  To this we'll then point and say "see...they DO hate us!" and that will be the excuse for an even larger military.  As I said, it's cyclical.  If we could have our big military and not feel a need to use it, then that would be fine.  But, if we didn't use it, then we wouldn't need it.  So, we use it and then use that use as an excuse for why we need it.  It can be infinitely justified because someone has committed violence against us, but that violence is often caused in part by our previous uses, much like our troops in Saudi Arabia make anger against us fester, much like Kim Jong Il can claim his actions are because he feels threatened by our troops in S. Korea and Japan, and so forth. 

I am not saying that without a military we would never have need for one.  But, as it stands right now, a much smaller military would be able to deal with threats below the level of a major conflict (i.e. a world war) and, considering that we have an all volunteer force now, it's hard to imagine that we couldn't create a similar one in the face of a real, major threat. 

of course then unemployment reaches 25 percent.

[freedom78]

We do have a lot of enemies.  Many of them have a lot to do with the size of our military and the ways we've used it.  It's a lovely circle.

Step 1: We have this big military left over from WWII.
Step 2: Let's strategically position ourselves all over the world
Step 3: Bomb something
Step 4: Oh no!  We just got attacked!  We must need a bigger military!
Step 5: Repeat step 2 in new and wonderful places where we haven't yet been at war.
Step 6: Repeat steps 3-4 ad infinitum.

regardless of how we got our enemies, I would like to keep breathing.  I dont wanna pay the price for the selfish and stupid acts of my government.  So if we have to keep building up our military so be it.  Whats the alternative?

The vast majority of countries have no capability to invade our country, so our risk is fairly low.  Of those who have the capability, the vast majority of that group (European states) is allied with us and the biggest threat of all is a country (China) with which we're so deeply economically entwined that any violent conflict would cripple their economy (and ours).  So, yes, there's an alternative.  Unlike most countries in the world, we have no real risk of being attacked by another country.  Our only real risk is from individuals acting alone or as part of small organizations. 

Additionally, that massive military that you believe will protect you now will also be used for more and more "selfish and stupid acts" (read: Iraq) that will certainly not endear us to the peoples of the world.  To this we'll then point and say "see...they DO hate us!" and that will be the excuse for an even larger military.  As I said, it's cyclical.  If we could have our big military and not feel a need to use it, then that would be fine.  But, if we didn't use it, then we wouldn't need it.  So, we use it and then use that use as an excuse for why we need it.  It can be infinitely justified because someone has committed violence against us, but that violence is often caused in part by our previous uses, much like our troops in Saudi Arabia make anger against us fester, much like Kim Jong Il can claim his actions are because he feels threatened by our troops in S. Korea and Japan, and so forth. 

I am not saying that without a military we would never have need for one.  But, as it stands right now, a much smaller military would be able to deal with threats below the level of a major conflict (i.e. a world war) and, considering that we have an all volunteer force now, it's hard to imagine that we couldn't create a similar one in the face of a real, major threat. 

of course then unemployment reaches 25 percent.

Not at all.  Presumably that money is shifted to something else (other government programs, meaning jobs in other areas) or there are lower taxes, meaning people have more disposable income and thus buy more stuff, meaning more production.  And, of course, it would be drastic for a major shift in military size to occur very suddenly.  A slow shift would be better.

I am not saying that without a military we would never have need for one.  But, as it stands right now, a much smaller military would be able to deal with threats below the level of a major conflict (i.e. a world war) and, considering that we have an all volunteer force now, it's hard to imagine that we couldn't create a similar one in the face of a real, major threat. 

I see what youre saying, but wouldnt a larger military be able to take care of all of the above?  The large threats and the smaller,  I would agree more imminent threats, such as individual extremists?

I suppose it would, in the same way that you could rig your house with dynamite to deal with theft, but some things are just overkill.  If the US had a military sized for national defense, it would still be one of the largest militaries in the world, not to mention the disincentive that our nuclear arsenal presents to any conventional (i.e. state) threat.  In addition, being a part of the most powerful alliance in the history of the world doesn't hurt either.  We simply do not need a military sized as ours is.  It serves no conventional purpose and, as 9/11 serves to evidence, doesn't act as a deterrent to non-conventional attacks.  As the nature of threats against us has changed, so should our military.

[D]

i dont know about that. we've had what, 2 attacks on our soil? Pearl Harbor and 9-11 in 300 plus years.

who is to say that there wouldn't have been more if not for our bigger military

plus what u aren't factoring in is, it takes training and skill to be in the military. it isn't like if we need soldiers, u can just grab people out of their homes, stick an automatic rifle in their hands and say have had it.

or hey, go fly this plane..