The Obama Administration thread

[Jdog0830]

From what I think there is a time and place for small goverment like how the republicans want it.
That would be when everyone has a job and that the minimum wage is set at a level where people can make a living.

But these are not the current events.







Joe

Republicans want small government?   

When it comes to programs that help people yes. There opinion is that they are lazy or some fuckin thing. Thats a big reason why they hate the health care bill. But when it comes to killing people with the biggest fuckin bombs on the planet I am sure they want us to be the biggest in the game.



Joe

OK. I understand they campaign on that type of rhetoric, and the talk radio circuit is ripe with it as well, but in practice it does not seem to be the case.  The Republican golden boy, Reagan, government and the deficit grew....but he had a Democratic congress was the excuse.  Then move on to Dubya, he had a Republican congress and the goverment and deficit still grew. Bailouts and stimilus packages included.  Always goes back the the Coke vs Pepsi thing for me.

Reagan if you asked me had a special case going on. Everyone liked him and he was more of a concervitive liberail mix.
Reagan was still spending a large amount of money on financing wars the difference is that those wars were not ours.
Lots of problems with things like that.

And at that time they were pushing past the Soviets in many areas of the millitary. This also gave us a concideral amount of a budget deficet.



Joe

[COMAMOTIVE]

From what I think there is a time and place for small goverment like how the republicans want it.
That would be when everyone has a job and that the minimum wage is set at a level where people can make a living.

But these are not the current events.







Joe

Republicans want small government?   

When it comes to programs that help people yes. There opinion is that they are lazy or some fuckin thing. Thats a big reason why they hate the health care bill. But when it comes to killing people with the biggest fuckin bombs on the planet I am sure they want us to be the biggest in the game.



Joe

OK. I understand they campaign on that type of rhetoric, and the talk radio circuit is ripe with it as well, but in practice it does not seem to be the case.  The Republican golden boy, Reagan, government and the deficit grew....but he had a Democratic congress was the excuse.  Then move on to Dubya, he had a Republican congress and the goverment and deficit still grew. Bailouts and stimilus packages included.  Always goes back the the Coke vs Pepsi thing for me.

Reagan was actually very dedicated to deficit reduction and limiting the scope of the Federal Government - much of what was passed in his era was the result of compromise. Not suggesting he didn't spend willingly on the Military,  just pointing out that it just shows how difficult it is to stop the spending, if that guy could'nt do it.

[Jdog0830]

That is true they just spend in different area's and in different ways.
I rather the side that is spending more on programs that help us at home more than fulling our war machine.
Most of the time thats the Dems. But I am aware of there increese in spending on mainly ground troups and equiptment for them. Thats part of what I think war should concentrate more on this aspect.

Once we get the homefront econ under control and at least 99% of American's have jobs thats when we can push forward in war.

And in that area why not expand homeland defence and the national guard except the NG actually is in our nation and not on a war front in foreign countrys.




Joe

[COMAMOTIVE]

That is true they just spend in different area's and in different ways.
I rather the side that is spending more on programs that help us at home more than fulling our war machine.
Most of the time thats the Dems. But I am aware of there increese in spending on mainly ground troups and equiptment for them. Thats part of what I think war should concentrate more on this aspect.

Once we get the homefront econ under control and at least 99% of American's have jobs thats when we can push forward in war.

And in that area why not expand homeland defence and the national guard except the NG actually is in our nation and not on a war front in foreign countrys.




Joe

Reagan was spending militarily partially to bankrupt the Soviet Empire and that's pretty much what happened. They really could'nt keep up. As for your comments to current day military spending, I agree with most of it. The problem, however, is when you have spending on your so called "programs to help at home" AND you have to finance not one, but two war efforts. That is a lot to ask.

[JuicySwoos]

That is true they just spend in different area's and in different ways.
I rather the side that is spending more on programs that help us at home more than fulling our war machine.
Most of the time thats the Dems. But I am aware of there increese in spending on mainly ground troups and equiptment for them. Thats part of what I think war should concentrate more on this aspect.

Once we get the homefront econ under control and at least 99% of American's have jobs thats when we can push forward in war.

And in that area why not expand homeland defence and the national guard except the NG actually is in our nation and not on a war front in foreign countrys.




Joe

Reagan was spending militarily partially to bankrupt the Soviet Empire and that's pretty much what happened. They really could'nt keep up. As for your comments to current day military spending, I agree with most of it. The problem, however, is when you have spending on your so called "programs to help at home" AND you have to finance not one, but two war efforts. That is a lot to ask.

Ahh yes...and that brings up the notion of what should be the main role of the federal goverment.  That is the issue that divides many.  Some believe, myself included, the main role of the federal goverment is to protect its citizens and protect their freedoms and rights. Then the question is how to protect them and what protection is most important. "The right to life, liberty and pursuit of hapiness".  People will differ on what that means.  The right to life? Does it simply the federal government should only protect you from murder, enemy invaders, etc? In that case a huge defense budget could be justified.  Or does it mean health care as well? Then universal health care could be argued as well.  The pursuit of hapiness?  Does that just mean the freedom to do so?  Or does that mean the federal government needs to help the pursuit through goverment programs, education, etc?


I am nerd...I think political theory is interesting.

[Smoking Guns]

http://www.wimp.com/budgetcuts/

[freedom78]

http://www.wimp.com/budgetcuts/

In a country with 300 million people, no 100 mil isn't a big number.  It's 33 cents per person.  I think this guy was just an idiot to begin with if he thought that we'd solve our budget issues 100 mil at a time. 

On the other hand, I do like the visualization of the problem. 

On the third hand (yeah, that's right...I come from a long line of carnival freaks!), "mainly social security..." was amusing, in that he named an entitlement program instead of our defense, which is about as much as the 30 next highest spenders combined. 

Then again, Obama doesn't want to cut that either.  One of my bones to pick with the Democratic party.

[D]

So we are in the midst of the huge oil spill crisis and Obama is chillin with the Duke Blue Devils... kinda sends the wrong image IMO.

[C0ma]

So we are in the midst of the huge oil spill crisis and Obama is chillin with the Duke Blue Devils... kinda sends the wrong image IMO.

He had to squeeze that in before the vacation that is going to cause him to be the first President in recent memory to skip the Memorial Day ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetary (he will give a Memorial Day Address while in Chicago, but not the same)... I'd like to hear that explained away like when he skipped out on Cop Week last year.

[D]

So we are in the midst of the huge oil spill crisis and Obama is chillin with the Duke Blue Devils... kinda sends the wrong image IMO.

He had to squeeze that in before the vacation that is going to cause him to be the first President in recent memory to skip the Memorial Day ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetary (he will give a Memorial Day Address while in Chicago, but not the same)... I'd like to hear that explained away like when he skipped out on Cop Week last year.

i was at cop week last year cause of my dad being killed in the line of duty and it completely pissed me off and still does knowing the Pittsburgh Steelers were more important than all of those murdered police officers.

still baffles me how people can somehow defend that shit.

[freedom78]

You guys are hilarious.  Suppose you gotta jump on something. 

[tim_m]

Each of the last four republican presidents weren't at Arlington National Cemetary at least once. Stop making such a big deal about this. in 2002 George W. Bush was in Normandy. His father George H.W. Bush spent 3 of his 4 years in Kennebunkport and once in Italy. Reagan missed 4 of 8 years and LBJ was in Gettysburg in 1963. And for the record he is going to the gulf today to survey the damage for the second time this month. Stop acting like he isn't fully engaged with what's going on.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Not being at Arlington is a political story that does not mean much in reality. He sent Biden.

But he has No handle on the Gulf Oil spill. Was not Obama's fault, but the aftermath has been handled terribly.

[C0ma]

Each of the last four republican presidents weren't at Arlington National Cemetary at least once. Stop making such a big deal about this. in 2002 George W. Bush was in Normandy. His father George H.W. Bush spent 3 of his 4 years in Kennebunkport and once in Italy. Reagan missed 4 of 8 years and LBJ was in Gettysburg in 1963. And for the record he is going to the gulf today to survey the damage for the second time this month. Stop acting like he isn't fully engaged with what's going on.

I wasn't aware of George HW Bush's time spent in ME... but I can see why W. would be in Normandy or LBJ in Gettysburg (look up the origins of 'decoration day'). Between those 2 sites how many American Servicemen gave their lives? Exactly how many gave their lives on the South Side of Chicago?

The Cop Week thing does boil my blood though. I am a huge sports fan, but lets cool it with these pointless visits to the White House. A Cop making 40K a year is killed in the line of duty and a border line rapist who make millions a year playing a game wins the Super Bowl, and the POTUS decides to host a football team instead of attending a function for real heros that was scheduled a year in advance.

[tim_m]

Not being at Arlington is a political story that does not mean much in reality. He sent Biden.

But he has No handle on the Gulf Oil spill. Was not Obama's fault, but the aftermath has been handled terribly.

How so? What more would you like him to do? He can only do so much. Ultimately it has to be BP that stops the leak and cleans it up.

[TheWalkinDude]

Not being at Arlington is a political story that does not mean much in reality. He sent Biden.

But he has No handle on the Gulf Oil spill. Was not Obama's fault, but the aftermath has been handled terribly.

How so? What more would you like him to do? He can only do so much. Ultimately it has to be BP that stops the leak and cleans it up.

Yet people screamed for Bush's head after Katrina, even though the state and local governments failed to act.  Bush waited what, 3 days before personally arriving at the scene.  Obama waited 9 days to even address it.  In either case, neither man is responsible for the event, yet Kanye West and the left ridiculed Bush to no end.  I expect them to apply the same standard to the current President.

[tim_m]

Each of the last four republican presidents weren't at Arlington National Cemetary at least once. Stop making such a big deal about this. in 2002 George W. Bush was in Normandy. His father George H.W. Bush spent 3 of his 4 years in Kennebunkport and once in Italy. Reagan missed 4 of 8 years and LBJ was in Gettysburg in 1963. And for the record he is going to the gulf today to survey the damage for the second time this month. Stop acting like he isn't fully engaged with what's going on.

I wasn't aware of George HW Bush's time spent in ME... but I can see why W. would be in Normandy or LBJ in Gettysburg (look up the origins of 'decoration day'). Between those 2 sites how many American Servicemen gave their lives? Exactly how many gave their lives on the South Side of Chicago?

The Cop Week thing does boil my blood though. I am a huge sports fan, but lets cool it with these pointless visits to the White House. A Cop making 40K a year is killed in the line of duty and a border line rapist who make millions a year playing a game wins the Super Bowl, and the POTUS decides to host a football team instead of attending a function for real heros that was scheduled a year in advance.

I can see why he was in Normandy too and why LBJ was in Gettysburg. I was just proving that he was not the first to not go to Arlington, VA many presidents before him have not and sent the VP or someone else.  Well it was a national cemetary he was at in Elswood. No one actually gave their lives at Arlington, Va. I know it has special signifigance but its not like he didn't go to a national cemetary where fallen heroes are interred.

[Smoking Guns]

Guys, this Oil thing is going to make Katrina look like a normal spring drizzle by the time it is over.  Its total horseshit.  We can put people on the moon but can't stop the leak.  Hmmm, not buying that.  They (BP) are trying to save their investment, they could have damaged tap enough to shut this down, but we all know they are trying to salvage it.  BP has lied since the get go on the oil situation.  The military doest need to take over.  Its to the point they are bringing in James Cameron to think tank to figure out how to stop this.  We built the damn Atom Bomb, surely we can stop a leak in the groud.  This is joke.  I was in Destin, FL for what could be the last clean Memorial Day there for decades to come.  This is a major deal.  Snapper season starts this week I think and the oil is getting closer and closer.  I think people would like to see more of a sense of urgency from the president on this..

[pilferk]

Yet people screamed for Bush's head after Katrina, even though the state and local governments failed to act.  Bush waited what, 3 days before personally arriving at the scene.  Obama waited 9 days to even address it.  In either case, neither man is responsible for the event, yet Kanye West and the left ridiculed Bush to no end.  I expect them to apply the same standard to the current President.

Surely, no matter how biased your perspective, you can see the difference between a natural disaster and a man-made one.

In one case, no one is responsible for it's creation, and thus the federal government is responsible for helping it's citizens and for cleaning up.  The Fed KNOWS that, and has created agencies (like FEMA) to best respond to those types of situations.

In the other, someone is very CLEARLY responsible, and is thus responsible for helping those effected by it and for cleaning it up.  The Fed KNOWS that, and has created regulation to try to ensure that companies and individuals do so. 

I've not seen any lapses, or indications that the Fed is "going easy" on BP.

The Federal Government isn't an oil company.  They are not best equipped, nor are they best informed, nor are they best capable, of cleaning up an oil spill.  In fact, if the Federal government attempted to do so, and did it well, but at great expense to the tax payer, I fully expect the conservatives would be off their rockers because it would CLEARLY be the Federal Government trying to take over the oil industry.  It would CLEARLY be the Federal Government bilking the average tax payer by expanding government and engaging in actions outside those intended by the founders. 

This is BP's mess.  They SHOULD be held responsible for cleaning it up.  They should be ABLE to clean it up.  If not, then the government should hold their feet to the fire over that inability....and restrict ANY company that demonstrates that inability from drilling in the manner that BP was.  It sure looks like they plan to do just that.  But what they can't do...what they are not equipped to do...is actually stop the leak.  The Fed isn't versed in, nor are they invested in, that type of operation.  Do you really want them to??!!  Because my impression has always been that particular type of thing is best left to the private sector.....

Yes, the president should be informed of what's going on, and involved to the point that it makes sense.  I agree....addressing the situation 9 days after it occurred seems somewhat tardy.  But we ALSO know that BP was much more concerned with keeping the well open, and their drilling intact, and that they were less than forthcoming about the reality of the situation.  Given that....while I'm not going to give Obama a pass, I'm also not remotely going to equate this to the failure of FEMA (and Bush) in relation to Katrina.  Apples to oranges, to say the least.

[pilferk]

I think people would like to see more of a sense of urgency from the president on this..

Urgency in what respect?

What can he do, exactly?

He doesn't know how to cap the well...that's not his area of expertise.  He may have people advising him on potential actions that BP can take....but if they're already exhausting those options..then what?

It SHOULD be the area of expertise of some part of BP.  Probably more so than anyone advising the president...because it's BP's business.  If they were drilling that deep, they should have had SOME idea of how to stem a complete fuck up/break.  Looks like they didn't/don't...they had theories.   Again, that's not the (and especially THIS) president's fault.

He can say anything he wants to BP.  Obama could have a full on scream fest in their general direction.  But exactly what does that accomplish?  Is it going to make BP suddenly figure this out? No.  So what can he possibly be "urgent" about??  I think he's been as clear as day that he expects BP to muster 100% of it's resources, 24/7, until this is fixed.  I think he's made it clear he'll commit any resources BP needs to make this happen, if they think the government can help. 

If you're suggesting BP is holding out on a more dramatic (but investment damaging) solution....maybe you're right.  But there has to be PROOF of that, not idle speculation.  And I'm sure someone, somewhere, is advising the president on possible solutions/routes BP can enact.  If they suggested one that BP was not persuing, I'd suspect that solution would be "suggested" by the administration.  Because that would be super beneficial to everyone involved, and would do some wonders for generating a bit of political capital for the current president.

I suspect we're going to see some pretty strict regulation come out of this....and say goodbye to that proposal to open up more off shore drilling.  But regulation can't be retroactive, and it's not really going to help anything NOW.

So other than be a face on TV, and other than commit any resources that BP thinks they need to help the situation....exactly what else do you want to see the president (or the rest of our government resources) do?