11/3/10

So how do you guys think Obama is going to respond to last night?

Comments (84)

Best Response
11/4/10

This is a ridiculous and juvenile conversation on so many levels. I feel it is foolish to wade in, but I'm a little disturbed by the rhetoric and ideas some of you are using and espousing.

Firstly, anyone who states that you "hate" Obama shows the mental maturity of a two-year-old who says that they "hate" their parents when they make them take a bath. "Hate" is a personal, visceral feeling that would strongly suggest you'd punch the man in the face before you'd shake his hand, which I doubt is the case. Some of you undoubtedly strongly disagree with the President's policies; some of you are probably even intelligent enough to understand why you do. None of you hate him, and if you do, then you're clearly not someone who is capable of having an intelligent and reasonable discussion. Along those lines, claiming that the President is "a closet Muslim posing as a Christian (which speaks to his lack of character)" is quite simply ignorant, racist, and facetious. It is, believe it or not, possible to strongly disagree with someone's ideas and not hate that person.

Secondly, the point that the Great Depression was ended by World War II is not nearly as straight-forward as most of you imply; that is a very contentious point and it is silly to pretend otherwise for the sake of political expediency, especially when such an argument isn't even useful for your position. Even if it were true WWII ended the Great Depression, if you took the time to understand your own argument, you would see that the logical conclusion of such would be that massive government expenditure brought the Great Depression to an end. This is elementary Keynesianism, and would be a massive point in favour of the stimulus spending which I have no doubt most of you abhor (unless, of course, you think the Great Depression was a brilliant example of Schumpterian creative destruction, and wish it could have continued a few more years so we'd really see results).

Thirdly, repeated comments about your money being spend on "crackheads" are puerile and irrelevant; welfare spending has hardly been touched by Obama, and the extension of unemployment insurance (which is primarily a state-level programme) is a reasonable response to a stubborn problem of the long-term unemployed, most of whom, I suspect, are not in fact crackheads.

Fourthly, blasting Obama for bailouts that were extensions of policies he inherited from the Republican administration is facetious; you can certainly disagree with those bailouts, but changing government policy on such a massive issue in January 2009 would have been almost impossible and would have caused a much deeper recession.

Fifthly, no one is "attempting to rob (you) at gunpoint in order to further his agenda." Not extending tax cuts that never made sense in the first place is not the same as putting a gun to your head and taking your money. Passing a bill to address health-care, an issue that all of us should be able to agree needed to be dealt with, is not putting a gun to your head and taking your money.

There's probably a lot more points in the 50 or so prior comments, but I can't remember them all, and frankly am not upset about that.

I will agree with most of you that Obama has been a pretty bad President so far. I don't think this is at all related to his stance on issues, though, as I frankly don't think he has a stance on issues. I blame this on an academic background that doesn't place much emphasis on leadership, a lack of political experience and instinct, and advisors who have not served him well at all. The healthcare bill is a clear example of this; Obama never once clearly stated what he was for - he basically left it to Congress to spend a year arguing and give him something to sign. If Obama had put forward a healthcare bill, I would probably disagree with what went into it, but what came out of Congress was in no way a bill the President had put forward. I don't know his advisors, but I'd think that his lack of vision on this was a clear result of his desire to avoid defeat (can't think of an appropriate sports analogy). There was a piece in the New Yorker a few weeks ago that spoke to this basic problem with his administration: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/1010...

So, yes, I think Obama is a bad President; I don't think he is up for the job, or ever was. The Democrats appointed him in 2006 because he is charismatic, a minority, and electable. There was never any thought given to actual ideas, experience, or ability. And that is the exact same strategy the Republican leadership employed for the last two years to win back the House; for all of the rhetoric, they have no actual plans, John Boehner's pretending that the Senate and President don't exist aside. It would be nice to see someone focus on governing for a change, because the idea that politics is about "winning" is, frankly, quite sad.

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

11/3/10

Ignore it as best he can. Unlike Clinton, I think he is delusional between reality and his beliefs. He was convince himself that he is doing the right thing and that special interest groups are stopping his every move. I just can't wait until we take healthcare from him.

"Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, for knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."

11/3/10

Standard response: press conference with sleeves rolled up (still don't understand the sleeves thing).

11/3/10

why all the hate for obama on these boards? i have found that WSO is far far far mroe conservative than the ppl i have worked with/know in ibd

In reply to nycIBD
11/3/10
afalcon10:

why all the hate for obama on these boards? i have found that WSO is far far far mroe conservative than the ppl i have worked with/know in ibd

The majority of us are, or come from, the demographic of people who he's attempting to rob at gunpoint in order to further his agenda. If you sit on your ass and don't go to work, you deserve to be uneducated (undereducated), dirty, poor, hungry, etc. For some reason, a large number of people in this country feel they are entitled to what the rest of us earn simply because they exist. Obama happens to be the champion for their cause and that pisses us tax payers off.

Outside of his economic incompetence, I don't think he has any allegiance to this country, is over-educated, inexperienced and a closet Muslim posing as a Christian (which speaks to his lack of character). He comes across as pompous and egotistical and he doesn't seem to be capable of "manning up" and taking responsibility for his actions/responsibilities.

It might be worth pointing out the difference between fiscal and social conservative, so the people you know in IBD may come across more "liberal" but it could be from a social standpoint. Consider also, that Obama is so far left that many in his own party have tried to distance themselves from him.

What's there to like about the guy?

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

  • vanillathunder12
  •  11/3/10
In reply to cphbravo96
11/3/10
cphbravo96:
afalcon10:

why all the hate for obama on these boards? i have found that WSO is far far far mroe conservative than the ppl i have worked with/know in ibd

The majority of us are, or come from, the demographic of people who he's attempting to rob at gunpoint in order to further his agenda. If you sit on your ass and don't go to work, you deserve to be uneducated (undereducated), dirty, poor, hungry, etc. For some reason, a large number of people in this country feel they are entitled to what the rest of us earn simply because they exist. Obama happens to be the champion for their cause and that pisses us tax payers off.

Outside of his economic incompetence, I don't think he has any allegiance to this country, is over-educated, inexperienced and a closet Muslim posing as a Christian (which speaks to his lack of character). He comes across as pompous and egotistical and he doesn't seem to be capable of "manning up" and taking responsibility for his actions/responsibilities.

It might be worth pointing out the difference between fiscal and social conservative, so the people you know in IBD may come across more "liberal" but it could be from a social standpoint. Consider also, that Obama is so far left that many in his own party have tried to distance themselves from him.

What's there to like about the guy?

Regards

SB - beautiful post.

To add to this:

I am not a fan of Obama.

My main problems with Obama is when he makes stupid moves like approving bailouts for companies and banks. That is completely going against basic economic laws: Through failure we see growth. Failing institutions do not deserve to be saved. Period.

Also, just other small things like adding a tanning bed tax to the health care bill. I mean, really? A tax on tanning beds? It seems so pointless, there are bigger problems and issues to address than tanning beds. He tried really hard to present some sort of competence to his laughable bill and slaps in literature saying that tanning bed taxes will not only be included but also are a part of tier 1 for items to go into affect.

You're born, you take shit. You get out in the world, you take more shit. You climb a little higher, you take less shit. Till one day you're up in the rarefied atmosphere and you've forgotten what shit even looks like. Welcome to the layer cake, son.

In reply to cphbravo96
11/3/10
cphbravo96:

The majority of us are, or come from, the demographic of people who he's attempting to rob at gunpoint in order to further his agenda. If you sit on your ass and don't go to work, you deserve to be uneducated (undereducated), dirty, poor, hungry, etc. For some reason, a large number of people in this country feel they are entitled to what the rest of us earn simply because they exist. Obama happens to be the champion for their cause and that pisses us tax payers off.

+1. But of course people are far more tempered and politically moderate when you talk to their faces in a work environment rather than an anonymous internet forum.

- Capt K -
"Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps even your beliefs about what you enjoy. If you want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, bait the hook with prestige." - Paul Graham

11/3/10

I wouldn't say he's hated here. I don't hate the guy.

In reply to Buyside CFA
11/3/10
Buyside <a href=https://www.e-junkie.com/ecom/gb.php?ii=1145861&am... rel=nofollow>CFA</a>:

I wouldn't say he's hated here. I don't hate the guy.

I don't understand why people say this all the time.

"I disagree with all of his policies. I think he's arrogant, cocky, and egotistical. I think he's out of touch with America. I think he's an elitist. BUT I don't hate the guy as a person."

This is pretty much the same line from every conservative commentator, talk show host and radio host. The guy is an awful president, and it showed last night. It will also show once he goes on TV and says something like this:

"OK look, last night the American people once again showed that they are fed up with Washington as usual. They want a change from what has been going on for the last ten years, etc.......The Republicans (or my "enemies" scared the American people into voting for them..."

No Barack, people hate YOU. We should be able to say we hate him, just like people say they hate Mel Gibson.

11/3/10

It's a function of what he does with our money. The fact that he has touted this healthcare bill as his "tombstone" is disgusting.

For example, say you receive a bonus of 100k - you worked 100 hours a week for 4 years to get to this point, and damnit you deserve the satisfaction of enjoying it. Well actually a homeless asshole on welfare is going to use a portion of "this bonus" to purchase booze, scratch tickets and drugs. Why the hell ever work if that's the case.

While I am stauchly republican in economic terms, I am a liberal for most other matters. If I impregnate a beautiful young lady, DAMNIT I WANT AN ABORTION!!! Could only imagine my bonus going towards child support and the homeless. THATS LIKE TRIPLE TAXATION!

11/3/10

Well, I personally like Obama a lot. I am in the same industry as you guys and if I have to pay an extra few dollars for my fellow Americans from my own pocket, I don't mind that.

In reply to SuitedWolf
11/3/10
SuitedWolf:

Well, I personally like Obama a lot. I am in the same industry as you guys and if I have to pay an extra few dollars for my fellow Americans from my own pocket, I don't mind that.

Good- then donate your money to charity and causes, but don't force me to have to pay for some crackhead's fucked up life.

In reply to jonnyseed
11/3/10
jonnyseed:
SuitedWolf:

Well, I personally like Obama a lot. I am in the same industry as you guys and if I have to pay an extra few dollars for my fellow Americans from my own pocket, I don't mind that.

Good- then donate your money to charity and causes, but don't force me to have to pay for some crackhead's fucked up life.

Not everyone is a crackhead sir. A lot of Americans are in non-crackhead professions such as teaching, nursing, fire-fighting etc. The slightly higher taxes we pay benefits the whole society and not the crackheads alone. Obviously the system is not perfect, some crackheads do take advantage, but in the long run the pros outweigh the cons.

In reply to SuitedWolf
11/3/10
SuitedWolf:

Well, I personally like Obama a lot. I am in the same industry as you guys and if I have to pay an extra few dollars for my fellow Americans from my own pocket, I don't mind that.

This is such an easy talking point to make at a cocktail party, but dont pretend if it wasnt for this healthcare bill, our tax burden would be zero percent. Should we also pass a car insurance bill that will expand car ins. coverage to those that dont have it? Should we finance this by adding another payroll tax? Healthcare insurance is just that - insurance. Government is already huge, why are we making it bigger with more benefits and taxes?

I dont like Obama at all. Both parties are terrible though from both an economic and social perspective. I dislike the democrats because they seem to even manage to outspend the republicans and also have the extra layer of trying to increase taxes. Of course a lot of people here like the idea of economic conservatism, but the republicans haven't done anything significant to drastically shrink or eliminate entitlement payments, end the wars, or cut government.

In reply to SuitedWolf
11/3/10
SuitedWolf:
jonnyseed:
SuitedWolf:

Well, I personally like Obama a lot. I am in the same industry as you guys and if I have to pay an extra few dollars for my fellow Americans from my own pocket, I don't mind that.

Good- then donate your money to charity and causes, but don't force me to have to pay for some crackhead's fucked up life.

Not everyone is a crackhead sir. A lot of Americans are in non-crackhead professions such as teaching, nursing, fire-fighting etc. The slightly higher taxes we pay benefits the whole society and not the crackheads alone. Obviously the system is not perfect, some crackheads do take advantage, but in the long run the pros outweigh the cons.

Obviously I wasn't being completely serious. Please enlighten us how higher taxes benefits society as a whole. Saying that everyone gets rainbows and lollipops doesn't count.

In reply to Nefarious-
11/3/10
Nefarious-:

SB - beautiful post.

To add to this:

I am not a fan of Obama.

My main problems with Obama is when he makes stupid moves like approving bailouts for companies and banks. That is completely going against basic economic laws: Through failure we see growth. Failing institutions do not deserve to be saved. Period.

You do know that most of the financial institutions failed in 2008, right? You should probably look up when Obama was sworn in.

11/3/10

ditto SuitedWolf. It always makes me wonder what peoples backgrounds are here...family income, universities, academic records, etc. since I feel like 75% of the people don't really represent even 50% of typical Americans in terms of education, age, etc.

In reply to audaciou02
11/3/10
audaciou02:

ditto SuitedWolf. It always makes me wonder what peoples backgrounds are here...family income, universities, academic records, etc. since I feel like 75% of the people don't really represent even 50% of typical Americans in terms of education, age, etc.

You do realize you're on a Wall Street forum right? Of course this isn't a cross section of average American society.

- Capt K -
"Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps even your beliefs about what you enjoy. If you want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, bait the hook with prestige." - Paul Graham

In reply to Krug
11/3/10
Krug:

It's a function of what he does with our money. The fact that he has touted this healthcare bill as his "tombstone" is disgusting.

For example, say you receive a bonus of 100k - you worked 100 hours a week for 4 years to get to this point, and damnit you deserve the satisfaction of enjoying it. Well actually a homeless asshole on welfare is going to use a portion of "this bonus" to purchase booze, scratch tickets and drugs. Why the hell ever work if that's the case.

While I am stauchly republican in economic terms, I am a liberal for most other matters. If I impregnate a beautiful young lady, DAMNIT I WANT AN ABORTION!!! Could only imagine my bonus going towards child support and the homeless. THATS LIKE TRIPLE TAXATION!

Don't worry, we are getting that under control...
http://www.minyanville.com/dailyfeed/california-we...

Could you also clarify whether you are aborting the kid or the beautiful young lady, lol?

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to cphbravo96
11/3/10
cphbravo96:
afalcon10:

why all the hate for obama on these boards? i have found that WSO is far far far mroe conservative than the ppl i have worked with/know in ibd

The majority of us are, or come from, the demographic of people who he's attempting to rob at gunpoint in order to further his agenda. If you sit on your ass and don't go to work, you deserve to be uneducated (undereducated), dirty, poor, hungry, etc. For some reason, a large number of people in this country feel they are entitled to what the rest of us earn simply because they exist. Obama happens to be the champion for their cause and that pisses us tax payers off.

Outside of his economic incompetence, I don't think he has any allegiance to this country, is over-educated, inexperienced and a closet Muslim posing as a Christian (which speaks to his lack of character). He comes across as pompous and egotistical and he doesn't seem to be capable of "manning up" and taking responsibility for his actions/responsibilities.

It might be worth pointing out the difference between fiscal and social conservative, so the people you know in IBD may come across more "liberal" but it could be from a social standpoint. Consider also, that Obama is so far left that many in his own party have tried to distance themselves from him.

What's there to like about the guy?

Regards

Beautifully simplistic, sadly only grazing the surface of the issue. The large scale problem is modern liberalism: a slow death for which Obama is just the current poster child. He's really no different from Clinton, he just didn't walk into a perfect situation which would allow for the obfuscation of his incompetence.

In reply to SuitedWolf
11/3/10
SuitedWolf:

Well, I personally like Obama a lot. I am in the same industry as you guys and if I have to pay an extra few dollars for my fellow Americans from my own pocket, I don't mind that.

If only that was the case. It seems a lot of our tax dollars are paying for services used by people that here illegally, thus, NOT your fellow Americans. Just food for thought.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to hiit
11/3/10
hiit:
Nefarious-:

SB - beautiful post.

To add to this:

I am not a fan of Obama.

My main problems with Obama is when he makes stupid moves like approving bailouts for companies and banks. That is completely going against basic economic laws: Through failure we see growth. Failing institutions do not deserve to be saved. Period.

You do know that most of the financial institutions failed in 2008, right? You should probably look up when Obama was sworn in.

So what you're saying is he is responsible for throwing good money after bad? Thank you for clarifying.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to CaptK
11/3/10
CaptK:
cphbravo96:

The majority of us are, or come from, the demographic of people who he's attempting to rob at gunpoint in order to further his agenda. If you sit on your ass and don't go to work, you deserve to be uneducated (undereducated), dirty, poor, hungry, etc. For some reason, a large number of people in this country feel they are entitled to what the rest of us earn simply because they exist. Obama happens to be the champion for their cause and that pisses us tax payers off.

+1. But of course people are far more tempered and politically moderate when you talk to their faces in a work environment rather than an anonymous internet forum.

Yeah, that includes me, so of the time, lol. If someone brings up a topic I usually choose the side I am really on and then just say something along the lines, "...but, we'll see. At least we are trying to figure it out." even though I know that isn't the case.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

11/3/10

Exactly and I also realize I work on Wall Street and I make a ton of money, but I can't honestly say that it was due to everything I did on my own. Life is majorly based on chance and while I hate govnt oversight, ridiculous amounts of spending and want it to come under control, I also realize that not everyone isn't as lucky as I am and need assistance whether it be in education grant programs to research programs for NIH and universities.

And btw, let's not forget about all the spending pre-Obama and the deficit he inherited beforehand. I'm sick of both sides, but acting as if Obama is a pure socialist who wants to help fund crackheads' lifestyles is strong use of hyperbole.

In reply to cphbravo96
11/3/10
cphbravo96:
hiit:
Nefarious-:

SB - beautiful post.

To add to this:

I am not a fan of Obama.

My main problems with Obama is when he makes stupid moves like approving bailouts for companies and banks. That is completely going against basic economic laws: Through failure we see growth. Failing institutions do not deserve to be saved. Period.

You do know that most of the financial institutions failed in 2008, right? You should probably look up when Obama was sworn in.

So what you're saying is he is responsible for throwing good money after bad? Thank you for clarifying.

Regards

You know exactly what I meant. Most of the bailout legislation was passed in 2008 - months before he was even sworn in.

In reply to audaciou02
11/3/10
audaciou02:

Exactly and I also realize I work on Wall Street and I make a ton of money, but I can't honestly say that it was due to everything I did on my own. Life is majorly based on chance and while I hate govnt oversight, ridiculous amounts of spending and want it to come under control, I also realize that not everyone isn't as lucky as I am and need assistance whether it be in education grant programs to research programs for NIH and universities.

And btw, let's not forget about all the spending pre-Obama and the deficit he inherited beforehand. I'm sick of both sides, but acting as if Obama is a pure socialist who wants to help fund crackheads' lifestyles is strong use of hyperbole.

I wasn't just speaking specifically about Obama on that statement, moreso the federal government in general, and obviously he is the best representative of them.

Was anyone able to catch any of his press conference today?

11/3/10

Government is not perfect and not all the taxes you pay end up serving YOU alone. That is the point of democracy where policies help the general public as much as they can. Taxes don't only end up in healthcare or social security, they end up in a million other things that keep this country running and progressing to a greater society. When you open the tap in the morning, water comes out, when you flip the switch, you always have electricity, when you drive from point A to B, you have at your disposal clean and reliable roads and bridges. These unforeseen benefits are not only a result of you paying your bills, but also you paying to the government that later invests in these utilities and projects.

I realize that this is a "Wall Street" forum and people in this industry are expected to make higher salaries than most Americans. But not everyone here is from a privileged background; I myself went to a public school, like many of you who are trying to break-in to this world of finance, and this was possible through government loans and bursaries paid through the taxes we all pay.

I am here today not on my effort alone, but through the support of the country and the various programs it has to help and sponsor those who want to do well in their lives. If I have reached my "dream job" and am making a good salary, I would like to give back to the nation in the form of taxes so that those who are underprivileged can achieve their dreams as well.

Look, at the end of the month, paying a portion of your salary to the government is an awful pill to swallow. But, knowing the fact that we are amongst the highest paid people in the country, we should be the last ones to complain.

11/3/10

Johnnyseed:

What the fuck is wrong with you? I'm not a republican. I didn't vote yesterday. I'm not impressed with the current republican party or the tea party. I don't think Obama is an awful president. Why are you criticizing me? What did I say?

You're have a persecution complex. Goddamn - get some help.

In reply to SuitedWolf
11/3/10
SuitedWolf:

Government is not perfect and not all the taxes you pay end up serving YOU alone. That is the point of democracy where policies help the general public as much as they can. Taxes don't only end up in healthcare or social security, they end up in a million other things that keep this country running and progressing to a greater society. When you open the tap in the morning, water comes out, when you flip the switch, you always have electricity, when you drive from point A to B, you have at your disposal clean and reliable roads and bridges. These unforeseen benefits are not only a result of you paying your bills, but also you paying to the government that later invests in these utilities and projects.

Look, at the end of the month, paying a portion of your salary to the government is an awful pill to swallow. But, knowing the fact that we are amongst the highest paid people in the country, we should be the last ones to complain.

I didnt know the point of a democracy was to help the general public as much as possible. I am reminded of the old saying "a democracy is 2 wolves and a chicken voting on what is for dinner". I will drop this anyways, i assume you did take a civic class at some point.

Taxes or even better yet "charges" already exist in water and electricity you mentioned in the form of USAGE. A deregulated power industry has to make a profit, and you pay for usage. Same with water. We could do the same for highways by a usage charge for the miles and specific roads you use nationally. The point is there are other options than the massive taxes and government that exists today. If you feel the need to pay for other people's usage or insurance then why not eliminate all taxes and you can donate what your tax would have been to charity. You can still have that free will with much less government.

11/3/10

Let's just hope that the Republicans actually get it right this time around. I'm sick of Republicans acting like Democrats Lite.

In reply to jimbo_slice
11/3/10
jimbo_slice:

Let's just hope that the Republicans actually get it right this time around. I'm sick of Republicans acting like Democrats Lite.

Like that's going to happen. The overwhelming majority of Congressmen are enslaved by special interests who's main goal is to get tax cuts and bailouts, not balance the budget.

What I'm a little surprised by on this board is how partisan people are despite the fact that the Republican party has utterly and completely failed to stand by its "small government" motto. I can no longer remotely identify myself with either party because so many party leaders on both sides seem to suffer from brain trauma. George W. Bush, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters (I'm leaving Obama out of this because I have no idea what his policies are) have all stood by some of the most idiotic ideas and policies I have ever heard. From the Bush administration's neoconservatism to Obama's rancid populism that poorly hides his servile ties to Wall Street, the current crop of politicians is appalling and I'm certainly not going to be sticking my neck out for them.

In reply to LBT
11/3/10
LBT:
SuitedWolf:

Government is not perfect and not all the taxes you pay end up serving YOU alone. That is the point of democracy where policies help the general public as much as they can. Taxes don't only end up in healthcare or social security, they end up in a million other things that keep this country running and progressing to a greater society. When you open the tap in the morning, water comes out, when you flip the switch, you always have electricity, when you drive from point A to B, you have at your disposal clean and reliable roads and bridges. These unforeseen benefits are not only a result of you paying your bills, but also you paying to the government that later invests in these utilities and projects.

Look, at the end of the month, paying a portion of your salary to the government is an awful pill to swallow. But, knowing the fact that we are amongst the highest paid people in the country, we should be the last ones to complain.

I didnt know the point of a democracy was to help the general public as much as possible. I am reminded of the old saying "a democracy is 2 wolves and a chicken voting on what is for dinner". I will drop this anyways, i assume you did take a civic class at some point.

Taxes or even better yet "charges" already exist in water and electricity you mentioned in the form of USAGE. A deregulated power industry has to make a profit, and you pay for usage. Same with water. We could do the same for highways by a usage charge for the miles and specific roads you use nationally. The point is there are other options than the massive taxes and government that exists today. If you feel the need to pay for other people's usage or insurance then why not eliminate all taxes and you can donate what your tax would have been to charity. You can still have that free will with much less government.

Exactly. Most people don't complain about pay taxes "period"...they complain about the thought of bearing the burden of a tax increase to "help build roads or keep the teachers/police/etc employed...but the earners/tax payers look around and see very capable people sitting on their ass and literally doing nothing. They don't contribute to society by the way of employment and they have a negative impact because they collect money from the government to support themselves and their kids because they don't want to work.

The point of a democracy is not to help the people as much as it can. The government should be responsible for a range of services (defense, infrastructure, etc) not creating, or furthering, people's dependence on social programs. You have a good attitude about helping people out and so do many people in this forum, but it should be our choice when and who we help and with the amount of our choosing. That's what churches and shelters and charities and non-profits are for. The government should not be in the business of redistributing wealth in an effort to make things "fair" or "equal" because the fact of the matter is the playing filed is exceptionally level. Studies show that Republicans give away far more of their income to charities than Democrats do and for some reason the left is always pushing for more social programs and higher taxes to "help" these people out. Folks who advocate that these people just need some assistance to get back on their feet are nothing short of delusional. When I hear people say that, I know that they have not actually witnessed the lazy, welfare mentality that 90%+ of welfare recipients possess. Sure, there are some people working hard trying to do better for themselves and for their children, but the vast majority aren't. They live in an environment in which is is socially acceptable not to work and just collect welfare, all while birthing multiple kids with multiple fathers, who are incarcerated, were incarcerated, will be incarcerated and likely have no means to support the children they should legally be responsible for. I have witnessed things like that and have close family members who have mad bad decisions time and time again, despite repeatably getting help from family members, members of the church, government funded social programs and they have no intention of changing. That's many people don't understand, especially those on the left...and rightfully so, because it seems totally unreasonable that someone would continually, commit crimes and live a life in and out of jail, away from their kids, especially if they had a better option...the mentality is, create more options, which cost money. People like my brother are wired differently. I obey the laws because I would be absolutely miserable in jail...he, on the other hand, doesn't mind being in jail because it is easy...you just sit around all day and eat...literally. Being on the outside, in his mind, is hard work because if you don't work you don't eat, but if you have to go to work that means you have to be sober, which means he can't be out the night before getting drunk or high. I have so little sympathy for people like that now because I realize it is more of a choice than the left and the government would like to make it appear. The proof is in the pudding. If you look, I'm certain you can find a person from a much more difficult background than yourself who has achieved some level of above average success...and that, in my mind, makes the whole "born into bad circumstances" a mute issue.

The bottom line is the government is disgustingly inefficient and that is plenty of justification to not want to give anymore of my money away to them. Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone that they have not first taking away from someone else.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

11/3/10

ditto Goodbread. I'm sick of both sides and neither is exactly serving the american public, just trying to placate and gain power. Democratic party couldn't even get anything done these past 2 years with a unified front, and Republicans pretty much destroyed the country the past 8 years as a unified front.

I have respect for Obama and I believe the economic situation could have been a lot worse. I feel especially lucky that I have my job, so I can't fault him. I'm just unsure of his economic policies and hopefully he'll come to his senses and try to understand what the public wants in the very near term instead of telling us what we should want...

11/3/10

Obama's biggest mistake was probably to pick up where the previous administration left off as far as the economy. Timmy is like Hank Paulson III (can't say Jr. Jr.) and Bernanke has always been Greenspan's boy. Had Obama's entourage been a little more knowledgeable on economic matters, some mistakes could have been avoided (Ritholtz wrote on the subject this morning: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/11/the-tragedy-o...).

I can't imagine the Republicans getting rid of that economic team, so in essence we're screwed.

In reply to GoodBread
11/3/10
GoodBread:

Like that's going to happen. The overwhelming majority of Congressmen are enslaved by special interests who's main goal is to get tax cuts and bailouts, not balance the budget.

What I'm a little surprised by on this board is how partisan people are despite the fact that the Republican party has utterly and completely failed to stand by its "small government" motto. I can no longer remotely identify myself with either party because so many party leaders on both sides seem to suffer from brain trauma. George W. Bush, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters (I'm leaving Obama out of this because I have no idea what his policies are) have all stood by some of the most idiotic ideas and policies I have ever heard. From the Bush administration's neoconservatism to Obama's rancid populism that poorly hides his servile ties to Wall Street, the current crop of politicians is appalling and I'm certainly not going to be sticking my neck out for them.

Unfortunately, I have to agree also. Both parties pretty much suck.

In reply to audaciou02
11/3/10
audaciou02:

...I have respect for Obama and I believe the economic situation could have been a lot worse. I feel especially lucky that I have my job, so I can't fault him...

That's the problem, greater than 10% of the people in this country (probably far greater if you factor in people 'hiding' in school and early retirement and underemployed) are out of work, so while you are okay with what he has done, many people are justifiably dissatisfied.

Although it's a long shot, I am really hoping the shift with have a positive impact going forward. Hopefully the Republicans can actually get some stuff done. Doesn't seem likely, but maybe, just maybe, lol.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

11/3/10

I was hoping the shift to the democrats in 06 and 08 would get something accomplished. I don't think I'll get excited about politics until we get someone (presumable from a third party) who really believes in the power of free markets but isn't a blind corporatist. Also, I really wish social issues (gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action...) took a backseat in political debate.Not that these are unimportant, but they're hardly the biggest thing we're dealing with. Something like gay marriage could be solved instantly by privatizing the institution of marriage for instance.

In reply to Buyside CFA
11/3/10
Buyside <a href=https://www.e-junkie.com/ecom/gb.php?ii=1145861&am... rel=nofollow>CFA</a>:

Johnnyseed:

What the fuck is wrong with you? I'm not a republican. I didn't vote yesterday. I'm not impressed with the current republican party or the tea party. I don't think Obama is an awful president. Why are you criticizing me? What did I say?

You're have a persecution complex. Goddamn - get some help.

Haha, sorry man. I just sort of took the quote "I don't hate the guy and ran with it. I assumed that you were a republican. Basically what I was saying is that most conservatives will go on a 15 minute rant on how much Obama sucks, and then end with "I mean, I don't hate the guy or anything." It annoys me.

11/3/10

We are most likey paying for Grand Parent Health Care and Retirement & Planned/Unplanned wars, not crackheads health care. See the budget break down:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/b...

My issue with these politicians is they talk a good talk but will never touch the 60 - 70% of the budget (DOD, SS, Medicare, etc) that is really driving the deficits, instead they promote cuts to the EPA.

In reply to Buyside CFA
11/3/10
Buyside <a href=https://www.e-junkie.com/ecom/gb.php?ii=1145861&am... rel=nofollow>CFA</a>:

Standard response: press conference with sleeves rolled up (still don't understand the sleeves thing).

The sleeves thing shows he is a working man, not afraid to get in there and do some work. Or else its an hold habit he picked up on the trading floor.

looking for that pick-me-up to power through an all-nighter?
11/3/10

Obama is the front runner for worst President ever. Those who voted for him or believe in his policies or idealogy have been failed by both common sense and any formal education they may have received.

He was elected by hope and false promises in a popularity contest not unlike your student government elections in middle school. He was elected because he convinced enough people to feel guilty about their wealth and convinced others that they deserved a piece of that which others had earned. When you break this down to simple analogies like " imagine if you had to give me 30% of your pay check every friday because you make more money than me." Folks will say, "no that is not how it works," but open your eyes and drink it in because that is exactly how it works. Obama feels he can spend my money better than I can spend my money.

His programs, policies and overall ideology is socialist by definition, it's just a fact, and he along with progressive liberals have eroded the principals which made this country great. I can deal with a tax hike here and there but Obama has removed the value principle called "personal accountability" from American society. No one is liable for their actions however I am responsible for funding their lack of responsibility and bad decisions.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money..."
Margaret Thatcher

In reply to Rain_Maker
11/3/10
Rain_Maker:

Obama is the front runner for worst President ever. Those who voted for him or believe in his policies or idealogy have been failed by both common sense and any formal education they may have received.

He was elected by hope and false promises in a popularity contest not unlike your student government elections in middle school. He was elected because he convinced enough people to feel guilty about their wealth and convinced others that they deserved a piece of that which others had earned. When you break this down to simple analogies like " imagine if you had to give me 30% of your pay check every friday because you make more money than me." Folks will say, "no that is not how it works," but open your eyes and drink it in because that is exactly how it works. Obama feels he can spend my money better than I can spend my money.

His programs, policies and overall ideology is socialist by definition, it's just a fact, and he along with progressive liberals have eroded the principals which made this country great. I can deal with a tax hike here and there but Obama has removed the value principle called "personal accountability" from American society. No one is liable for their actions however I am responsible for funding their lack of responsibility and bad decisions.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money..."
Margaret Thatcher

Exactly.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

  • vanillathunder12
  •  11/3/10

Are you kidding? Look at George W. Bush. He fucked up much more than Obama (there is no way Obama will top him). In 100 years he will still be top five of the worst presidents. While my least favorite president of all time is Andrew Jackson (he seemed like a great guy to party with but a horrible one to run the country), Obama is far from the worst president ever.

My favorite president was Franklin Roosevelt. Only president to serve more than two terms, pulled us out from the Great Depression and listened to his economists over the general population's setiment. Fireside chats were genius. Not to mention killing all those Nazis.

In reply to vanillathunder12
11/3/10
vanillathunder12:

Are you kidding? Look at George W. Bush. He fucked up much more than Obama (there is no way Obama will top him). In 100 years he will still be top five of the worst presidents. While my least favorite president of all time is Andrew Jackson (he seemed like a great guy to party with but a horrible one to run the country), Obama is far from the worst president ever.

My favorite president was Franklin Roosevelt. Only president to serve more than two terms, pulled us out from the Great Depression and listened to his economists over the general population's setiment. Fireside chats were genius. Not to mention killing all those Nazis.

My favorite president is Martin Van Buren (I'm a leading member of the Van Buren Boys).

11/3/10

Oh one more thing.....In addition to being in way over his head, Obama has created an entitlement state (ie. more people in the wagon than there are pulling it). And in doing so he has guaranteed votes and support for both himself and his marxist policies from those to whom he "gives stuff." Nobody who relies on the government for everything they have will likely give that up....

"Stupid is as stupid does..."
Forest Gump

In reply to vanillathunder12
11/3/10
vanillathunder12:

My favorite president was Franklin Roosevelt. Only president to serve more than two terms, pulled us out from the Great Depression and listened to his economists over the general population's setiment. Fireside chats were genius. Not to mention killing all those Nazis.

Pretty sure WW2 pulled us out of the GD, but do like the guy nonetheless.

In reply to vanillathunder12
11/3/10
vanillathunder12:

Are you kidding? Look at George W. Bush. He fucked up much more than Obama (there is no way Obama will top him). In 100 years he will still be top five of the worst presidents. While my least favorite president of all time is Andrew Jackson (he seemed like a great guy to party with but a horrible one to run the country), Obama is far from the worst president ever.

My favorite president was Franklin Roosevelt. Only president to serve more than two terms, pulled us out from the Great Depression and listened to his economists over the general population's setiment. Fireside chats were genius. Not to mention killing all those Nazis.

I think history will view Bush in a much better light than the politics of today. You know Truman was considered a shitty president when he left office, but history has been good to him and today he is considered decent.

What are you smoking FDR, did not do shit about the recession. WWII got us out of the recession, FDR's policies prolonged the recession and his programs helped create an entitlement state. I am not saying all his programs were bad, but the effect they had on the American mindset has ramifications felt today. The only thing that FDR did that was note worthy was recognizing the Hitler for the threat that he was and mobilizing America years before we entered the war.

Andrew Jackson has his strengths and his weaknesses, but the man fucking invaded Florida with 20 guys...and for that you have to give him props.

"Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, for knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."

In reply to vanillathunder12
11/3/10
vanillathunder12:

Are you kidding? Look at George W. Bush. He fucked up much more than Obama (there is no way Obama will top him). In 100 years he will still be top five of the worst presidents. While my least favorite president of all time is Andrew Jackson (he seemed like a great guy to party with but a horrible one to run the country), Obama is far from the worst president ever.

My favorite president was Franklin Roosevelt. Only president to serve more than two terms, pulled us out from the Great Depression and listened to his economists over the general population's setiment. Fireside chats were genius. Not to mention killing all those Nazis.

A) Yeah Bush really worked us over, remember when he lowered interest rates to levels which encouraged speculative lending and borrowing, oops that was Alan Greenspan. Remember when Bush made all those policies that required mortgages be made available to low income individuals who couldn't afford them, oops nope that was Carter and Clinton. Remember his conflict of interest in relaxing lending standards for major mortgage lenders Fannie and Freddie, oops sorry that as the authority on all things financial your boy Barney Frank. I do remember when Bush bombed the shit out of Al Qaeda and the Taliban after muslim extremists killed a bunch of my countrymen on Wall Street, yup that was Bush!

B) Study up on your history Vanilla. It can be argued that FDR's policies prolonged the depression and in fact it was only WWII that helped drag us out. The New Deal didn't restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office. Total hours worked per adult, including government employees, were 18% below their 1929 level between 1930-32, but were 23% lower on average during the New Deal (1933-39). Private hours worked were even lower after FDR took office, averaging 27% below their 1929 level, compared to 18% lower between in 1930-32. (WSJ)

Bush was no mensa student I won't argue that, but he was a patriot an an unabashed defender of America which is a lot more than you can say for Obama.

In reply to Rain_Maker
11/3/10
Rain_Maker:
vanillathunder12:

Are you kidding? Look at George W. Bush. He fucked up much more than Obama (there is no way Obama will top him). In 100 years he will still be top five of the worst presidents. While my least favorite president of all time is Andrew Jackson (he seemed like a great guy to party with but a horrible one to run the country), Obama is far from the worst president ever.

My favorite president was Franklin Roosevelt. Only president to serve more than two terms, pulled us out from the Great Depression and listened to his economists over the general population's setiment. Fireside chats were genius. Not to mention killing all those Nazis.

A) Yeah Bush really worked us over, remember when he lowered interest rates to levels which encouraged speculative lending and borrowing, oops that was Alan Greenspan. Remember when Bush made all those policies that required mortgages be made available to low income individuals who couldn't afford them, oops nope that was Carter and Clinton. Remember his conflict of interest in relaxing lending standards for major mortgage lenders Fannie and Freddie, oops sorry that as the authority on all things financial your boy Barney Frank. I do remember when Bush bombed the shit out of Al Qaeda and the Taliban after muslim extremists killed a bunch of my countrymen on Wall Street, yup that was Bush!

B) Study up on your history Vanilla. It can be argued that FDR's policies prolonged the depression and in fact it was only WWII that helped drag us out. The New Deal didn't restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office. Total hours worked per adult, including government employees, were 18% below their 1929 level between 1930-32, but were 23% lower on average during the New Deal (1933-39). Private hours worked were even lower after FDR took office, averaging 27% below their 1929 level, compared to 18% lower between in 1930-32. (WSJ)

Bush was no mensa student I won't argue that, but he was a patriot an an unabashed defender of America which is a lot more than you can say for Obama.

I feel like I've found my brother from another mother. Glad you don't subscribe to some folk's revisionist history.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

11/3/10

Haha thanks bro....I like to operate in the realm of facts and reality.

In reply to jonnyseed
11/4/10
jonnyseed:
vanillathunder12:

Are you kidding? Look at George W. Bush. He fucked up much more than Obama (there is no way Obama will top him). In 100 years he will still be top five of the worst presidents. While my least favorite president of all time is Andrew Jackson (he seemed like a great guy to party with but a horrible one to run the country), Obama is far from the worst president ever.

My favorite president was Franklin Roosevelt. Only president to serve more than two terms, pulled us out from the Great Depression and listened to his economists over the general population's setiment. Fireside chats were genius. Not to mention killing all those Nazis.

My favorite president is Martin Van Buren (I'm a leading member of the Van Buren Boys).

ERRONEOUS!!!! Erroneous on all accounts! You're just entering the hazing period, you're not allowed to claim that yet! Now, go prep my ball powder. They're getting swampy.

In reply to Race
11/4/10
Race:

We are most likey paying for Grand Parent Health Care and Retirement & Planned/Unplanned wars, not crackheads health care. See the budget break down:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/b...

My issue with these politicians is they talk a good talk but will never touch the 60 - 70% of the budget (DOD, SS, Medicare, etc) that is really driving the deficits, instead they promote cuts to the EPA.

Someone gets it. It's fun to bitch about checks to crackheads (righties) or the war on drugs (lefties), but those are just drops in the bucket. It sucks because Dems can not vote for a defense cut because they will get torn to shreds by "weak on defense" commercials during election season while Reps can not vote to cut the big entitlements without facing "you stopped Grandma's checks" commercials.

11/4/10

Fix my roads, protect me with a strong military, and secure my borders thats all I need you for. I got the rest.

In reply to Rain_Maker
11/4/10
Rain_Maker:

Fix my roads, protect me with a strong military, and secure my borders thats all I need you for. I got the rest.

Too bad politicians, especially the republicans, are too scared to say that. They defend the constitution and the limited government, yet they won't limit social security (raise retirement age for example), or reduce medicare and medicade. Remember when there was a vote to extend unemployment to 100 weeks (I may be off there), most republicans stood behind that. Jim Bunning tried to stop it, and you saw how much shit he got for that.

11/4/10

Agreed, today's republicans are about as tough as 8th grade marching band. There are very few, if any, who will say what needs to be said let alone do what needs to be done to put this nation on the right track. The unemployment thing is absurd, regardless of who supported it the idea that it was ever proposed in the first place is ludicrous. You can can now kick it in your parents basement fully covered by healthcare until you are 26 years old and simultaneously collect unemployment for 2 years. Nothing says motivation like that....

11/4/10

I don't think I could have said it any better drexel.

11/4/10

I love that it is never the policies or the ideology that is flat out wrong but rather it is always leadership, or advisors, or lack of political experience.....I mean could it be, god forbid, that the majority of America just doesn't agree with Obama's far left ideologies? Your response is so terribly PC, trying to be critical without being too harsh,but PC mentality is what is killing America, nobody can call a spade a spade anymore. The reality is a huge number of people voted for Obama just because he was black, yeah i said it. It's just the facts. Go on youtube and type in Obama voters and see what you get.... People had no idea of what they were voting for, they just voted for him based on the entirely wrong criteria. The same thing was evident when you asked women why they wanted to vote for Hillary Clinton. They would say "well she is a woman and I want to support her." Hello? That is not a reason. That's the equivalent of me voting for a bald guy because I am bald. Obama ran on "Hope" and "Change" but correct me if I am wrong those are not policies or plans. You might as well run on smiles.

The policies are just bad and marxist and the "thinking" portion of the population is just now realizing they were duped. You could solve these problems if you just put a list of policies and candidate's beliefs on two whiteboards and asked people to vote on that alone. It would help remove biases and preconceived notions and improve governance a whole hell of a lot.

By the way I would definitely punch him in the face.

11/4/10

Hate is a commonly used word to describe strong dislike. Obama is completely detached from the rest of society. This is what happens when hope and hype get elected.

11/4/10

These arguments are going in circles. People voted for Obama because he was black, and people are pushing for people like O'Donnell and Palin because what? They're bright, strong and thoughtful leaders? Wrong.

You're trying to generalize an entire group on why they voted for the current President and itdoesn't strengthen your argument. I'm actually from Texas and met many a people white / black who voted for Bush because he was a man's man and not because they actually knew his policies. I've even met gay men who would vote for Bush TODAY because he was a "real American". Don't ask me if it's racist, because it doesn't really matter but it does tell you a bit how people do vote.

Do they represent 100% of the country? No, but obviously you try to engage them in a discussion about policies and it usually fall apart. It happens on both sides. People want less government, but they want pornography restricted, gay rights abolished, weed made illegal, etc. etc.

And who cares if he's PC? His arguments are legitimate and the main points about Keynesian bailouts and unemployment were largely ignored.

11/4/10

When I said "The Democrats appointed him in 2006 because he is charismatic, a minority, and electable," that was an acknowledgement that the Democratic leadership backed him, and people voted for him, in part because of his skin colour; no one denies this, but I for one do not care why people voted for him - it has no relevance to job performance. People voted for Arnold Schwarzenneger because he was a movie star, but that doesn't seem to have interfered with his ability to do a passable job as governor.

My central point is that Obama does not have any policies; he acts as if the role of the President is to find a consensus. You can castigate him as a socialist, but that is to ignore the truth. This Presidency has been in many ways a continuation of the previous. On foreign policy, Barack Obama may be less confrontational, but his approach to Afghanistan has been largely a repeat of Bush policies in Iraq; his anti-terrorism strategy has hardly changed; his approach to China is largely a continuation. The only substantive difference you might be able to point to would be on Israel, but failing to blindly support the Israeli government is not socialist.

On economics, his team is largely composed of hold-overs from the previous administration, and returnees from Clinton. His policies as they relate to banks (such as he has any) are largely a continuation of the previous administration's. The banking reform bill was much less harsh than it could have been, and was in any case not written by the administration. If you consider extending unemployment insurance to be socialism, than you need to spend more time learning what socialism is.

On healthcare, the main issue with which this administration is linked, the socialist argument fails on two points. Firstly, if they had wanted a socialist healthcare system, they would have created a government run system, rather than banning such a system on the state level in favour of what is mostly a continuation of the status quo. Secondly, even if you think it is a socialist bill, it was not an administration bill; one thing you can definitely blame this administration for is not having a clear vision on healthcare reform, their signature issue.

Believe me, I know lots of people on the far left; I grew up in the only state that has a socialist Senator. Barack Obama is not on the far-left of American opinion, and he is not a socialist.

Finally, I'd like to apologise that this post is not sufficiently offensive, but I would hope it is still understandable.

In reply to drexelalum11
11/4/10
drexelalum11:

...Along those lines, claiming that the President is "a closet Muslim posing as a Christian (which speaks to his lack of character)" is quite simply ignorant, racist, and facetious.

What I said is in no way, shape or form racist. His lack of character is implied by his own questionable conduct. I didn't say being a Muslim shows a lack of character, his is perceived lies about not being one. He belongs (or belonged) to a church which is lead by someone I might define as racist, who swears and preaches questionable things about the United States of America and who gives awards to representatives of the Nation of Islam who has made comments that could be viewed as antisemitic, racist and/or homophobic...and frankly, that never happened in my church growing up. Obama refers to Wright as a "mentor" in the beginning, but as more damaging audio and video clips emerge, Obama suddenly doesn't know the guy too well and must have missed this sermon or that sermon because, conveniently, he doesn't recall hearing that...despite being in the front row. Obama is lost. He thinks he is some might god with unending power. He wants to sit at a table and broker peace between a culture who says vile, hate fueled things about the other one and claims that the Holocaust is merely a conspiracy theory? The list goes on and on and on.

drexelalum11:

Thirdly, repeated comments about your money being spend on "crackheads" are puerile and irrelevant; welfare spending has hardly been touched by Obama, and the extension of unemployment insurance (which is primarily a state-level programme) is a reasonable response to a stubborn problem of the long-term unemployed, most of whom, I suspect, are not in fact crackheads.

You are desperately missing the point. It's not that Obama is send more money directly to "crackheads" it's that he wants to take more from the people who wake up everyday and earn it, just to pay for programs that we may, or may not agree with, and that could be better funded if less money was going into a system that disincentives work (read: welfare). Stop punishing us hard working tax payers to support people who are "disadvantage" whom don't care enough to help themselves.

drexelalum11:

Fifthly, no one is "attempting to rob (you) at gunpoint in order to further his agenda." Not extending tax cuts that never made sense in the first place is not the same as putting a gun to your head and taking your money. Passing a bill to address health-care, an issue that all of us should be able to agree needed to be dealt with, is not putting a gun to your head and taking your money.

And yes, somebody (the government) taking money from me, against my will, to fund programs and such that I don't approve of is analogous to robbing someone at gunpoint...or "prison-point" if that makes you feel better. I think most people agree that there needs to be health care reform, but passing a secret bill which not only changes the landscape of health care going forward, but, coincidentally, increases the government's power at the same is flat out wrong. We need reform, not a socialist program ran by an entity that couldn't balance a budget to save their life (or in the government's case, someone else's life). Speaking of the secret health care bill, that is just another example of how Obama blatantly lied...again, speaking to his lack of character and integrity.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

11/4/10

Good post Drexel. While I may not agree with you on some things, your arguments make sense.
It's too bad people don't take the time to really look into an issue. Seems like most politicians just want to throw a few buzzwords around that mostly have no relevance. Can't blame them, it seems to be working so far.

In reply to drexelalum11
11/4/10
drexelalum11:

...Believe me, I know lots of people on the far left; I grew up in the only state that has a socialist Senator. Barack Obama is not on the far-left of American opinion, and he is not a socialist...

It appears approval ratings and the actions of the members of his own party speak to the contrary.

I also don't think the 'he's just going along with everyone else, so it's not really HIS fault' argument is one based in rationale. He is the POTUS...it is his job to do right by the American people. If the platform you campaigned on is that the people before you were shitting the bed, changed the damn sheets and show us how its done...don't just keep kick rocks down the road and acting like your hands are tied.

As spineless as I think he is, I don't think he is some puppet getting his strings pulled and that he has no control over what he does. Ultimately he put his pen(s) to paper and the blame will fall on him...in the end, he's responsible.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

11/4/10

Obama is completely active in all of these decisions. The guy was involved with some pretty shady groups back in Chicago and his words and deeds have put him rather left of things.

Lets face it. The Dem's could have nominated a pineapple for president and it would have won. The people didn't vote for Obama as much as they voted against GWB. Obama has jack shit experience, a weak track record and a shady past. The guy got elected because of his holographic teleprompter and parroting HOPE HOPE HOPE.

As far as I am concerned, his is an abysmal president. He well over promised and over hyped himself and now that reality is setting in people are angry.

Under promise, over deliver. Smart people follow that.

11/4/10

Drexel, could you be any more stereotypically liberal?

11/4/10

I was wondering who would be immature enough to start the namecalling...

In reply to cphbravo96
11/4/10
cphbravo96:
drexelalum11:

...Along those lines, claiming that the President is "a closet Muslim posing as a Christian (which speaks to his lack of character)" is quite simply ignorant, racist, and facetious.

What I said is in no way, shape or form racist. His lack of character is implied by his own questionable conduct. I didn't say being a Muslim shows a lack of character, his is perceived lies about not being one. He belongs (or belonged) to a church which is lead by someone I might define as racist, who swears and preaches questionable things about the United States of America and who gives awards to representatives of the Nation of Islam who has made comments that could be viewed as antisemitic, racist and/or homophobic...and frankly, that never happened in my church growing up. Obama refers to Wright as a "mentor" in the beginning, but as more damaging audio and video clips emerge, Obama suddenly doesn't know the guy too well and must have missed this sermon or that sermon because, conveniently, he doesn't recall hearing that...despite being in the front row. Obama is lost. He thinks he is some might god with unending power. He wants to sit at a table and broker peace between a culture who says vile, hate fueled things about the other one and claims that the Holocaust is merely a conspiracy theory? The list goes on and on and on.

Implying that being Muslim shows a lack of character is clearly racist. Arguing that Jeremiah Wright is a disgrace is a fair point. Jerry Falwell is also a national disgrace, but that doesn't seem to have interfered with your admiration of President Reagan.

I presume your final point relates to either Iran or Palestine. If it is the former, I fail to see how not engaging Iran would be productive, but do believe more open hostility could be genuinely harmful to our interests; if you are advocating war with Iran, I would like to think that we might have learned something from two endless wars in the Middle East, but that would clearly be too optimistic (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic... and http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/1...). If it is the latter, I'd point out that Israel is the safest it has been in a long time, the Palestinian government is surprisingly functional, and the Israeli government is fully capable of looking after its own interests, and if it somehow fails in that regard, the Jewish lobby remains quite strong. However, I will agree that Obama's meddling in this is counter-productive, selfish, naive, and is likely to blow up in his face, and people will probably die as a result.

cphbravo96:
drexelalum11:

Thirdly, repeated comments about your money being spend on "crackheads" are puerile and irrelevant; welfare spending has hardly been touched by Obama, and the extension of unemployment insurance (which is primarily a state-level programme) is a reasonable response to a stubborn problem of the long-term unemployed, most of whom, I suspect, are not in fact crackheads.

You are desperately missing the point. It's not that Obama is send more money directly to "crackheads" it's that he wants to take more from the people who wake up everyday and earn it, just to pay for programs that we may, or may not agree with, and that could be better funded if less money was going into a system that disincentives work (read: welfare). Stop punishing us hard working tax payers to support people who are "disadvantage" whom don't care enough to help themselves.

Firstly, I failed to notice much anger over welfare when Bush was President; I do not believe you can pick and choose which Presidents to blame for legacy programmes. Secondly, I hardly think welfare is an issue that is on the far left of American opinion. Thirdly, I have not noticed Obama pushing any programmes that benefit those "whom (sic) don't care enough to help themselves," unless, again, you are referring to a healthcare bill that realistically has little to no effect on this supposed demographic, most of whom would already have been covered by medicare.

cphbravo96:
drexelalum11:

Fifthly, no one is "attempting to rob (you) at gunpoint in order to further his agenda." Not extending tax cuts that never made sense in the first place is not the same as putting a gun to your head and taking your money. Passing a bill to address health-care, an issue that all of us should be able to agree needed to be dealt with, is not putting a gun to your head and taking your money.

And yes, somebody (the government) taking money from me, against my will, to fund programs and such that I don't approve of is analogous to robbing someone at gunpoint...or "prison-point" if that makes you feel better. I think most people agree that there needs to be health care reform, but passing a secret bill which not only changes the landscape of health care going forward, but, coincidentally, increases the government's power at the same is flat out wrong. We need reform, not a socialist program ran by an entity that couldn't balance a budget to save their life (or in the government's case, someone else's life). Speaking of the secret health care bill, that is just another example of how Obama blatantly lied...again, speaking to his lack of character and integrity.

Regards

I would probably like to respond to this point, but not having access to secret government bills, I will take your word that it is a "socialist program" about which "Obama blatantly lied."

In reply to jonnyseed
11/4/10
jonnyseed:

Drexel, could you be any more stereotypically liberal?

If I really tried, I'm sure I could be.

audaciou02:

I was wondering who would be immature enough to start the namecalling...

I'm not really sure that I consider someone saying I'm a liberal "namecalling." It may not be true, but I think I'm no more insulted by it than if I called someone a "conservative" - they're political apellations, that may be convenient for the purposes of demagoguery, but also happen to have dictionary definitions; in this case, "showing or characterized by broad-mindedness."

In reply to jonnyseed
11/4/10
cphbravo96:

I feel like I've found my brother from another mother. Glad you don't subscribe to some folk's revisionist history.

Rain_Maker:

Haha thanks bro....I like to operate in the realm of facts and reality.

jonnyseed:

Drexel, could you be any more stereotypically liberal?

Oh the irony. We've got people arguing that a president who got our nation into trillions of dollars of debt and lost countless lives in a futile war before bailing out Wall Street through TARP as we entered the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression will be remembered more favorably than a guy who's been in office for two years and will most likely see a much improved economy over the next two years. As dissatisfied as I have been with Obama's tenure in office, claiming George W. Bush's presidency was better is the definition of revisionist history and can not be supported by facts.

I think Obama is far to the left of the Democratic party in rhetoric. In practice he's just a pawn for special interests. But in no way is he a socialist/marxist/maoist whatever you want to call it. If you want to see what those ideologies are really like you have to venture out of the country. Some of these comments remind me of the most mindless drivel endlessly spewed by Fox News.

Ever since the National Review and Barry Goldwater hijacked the Republican party, this country has become divided among the most mind-numbing partisan lines. Whatever happened to people like Teddy Roosevelt? Our political system's race to mediocrity is steadily accelerating and I don't see anybody stepping up to the plate to fix that.

11/4/10

Futile war is a highly arguable statement. You might think so, but I do not.

The bail out is not the huge failure that everyone said it would be.

How did Bush lead us into this recession? Imagine a president trying to slow the economy down and putting a halt on people owning the "American Dream". Would have been a populist uprising. We got us into this mess, plain and simple.

Obama ran on promises and pipe dreams. I think it is only fair that people are now angry. They should really be angry with themselves for falling for the lies and rhetoric.

In reply to TNA
11/4/10
Anthony .:

Obama ran on promises and pipe dreams. I think it is only fair that people are now angry. They should really be angry with themselves for falling for the lies and rhetoric.

Hilarious video about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3_95F5e-Ac

In reply to drexelalum11
11/4/10
drexelalum11:
cphbravo96:
drexelalum11:

...Along those lines, claiming that the President is "a closet Muslim posing as a Christian (which speaks to his lack of character)" is quite simply ignorant, racist, and facetious.

What I said is in no way, shape or form racist. His lack of character is implied by his own questionable conduct. I didn't say being a Muslim shows a lack of character, his is perceived lies about not being one. He belongs (or belonged) to a church which is lead by someone I might define as racist, who swears and preaches questionable things about the United States of America and who gives awards to representatives of the Nation of Islam who has made comments that could be viewed as antisemitic, racist and/or homophobic...and frankly, that never happened in my church growing up. Obama refers to Wright as a "mentor" in the beginning, but as more damaging audio and video clips emerge, Obama suddenly doesn't know the guy too well and must have missed this sermon or that sermon because, conveniently, he doesn't recall hearing that...despite being in the front row. Obama is lost. He thinks he is some might god with unending power. He wants to sit at a table and broker peace between a culture who says vile, hate fueled things about the other one and claims that the Holocaust is merely a conspiracy theory? The list goes on and on and on.

Implying that being Muslim shows a lack of character is clearly racist. Arguing that Jeremiah Wright is a disgrace is a fair point. Jerry Falwell is also a national disgrace, but that doesn't seem to have interfered with your admiration of President Reagan.

I presume your final point relates to either Iran or Palestine. If it is the former, I fail to see how not engaging Iran would be productive, but do believe more open hostility could be genuinely harmful to our interests; if you are advocating war with Iran, I would like to think that we might have learned something from two endless wars in the Middle East, but that would clearly be too optimistic (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic... and http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/1...). If it is the latter, I'd point out that Israel is the safest it has been in a long time, the Palestinian government is surprisingly functional, and the Israeli government is fully capable of looking after its own interests, and if it somehow fails in that regard, the Jewish lobby remains quite strong. However, I will agree that Obama's meddling in this is counter-productive, selfish, naive, and is likely to blow up in his face, and people will probably die as a result.

cphbravo96:
drexelalum11:

Thirdly, repeated comments about your money being spend on "crackheads" are puerile and irrelevant; welfare spending has hardly been touched by Obama, and the extension of unemployment insurance (which is primarily a state-level programme) is a reasonable response to a stubborn problem of the long-term unemployed, most of whom, I suspect, are not in fact crackheads.

You are desperately missing the point. It's not that Obama is send more money directly to "crackheads" it's that he wants to take more from the people who wake up everyday and earn it, just to pay for programs that we may, or may not agree with, and that could be better funded if less money was going into a system that disincentives work (read: welfare). Stop punishing us hard working tax payers to support people who are "disadvantage" whom don't care enough to help themselves.

Firstly, I failed to notice much anger over welfare when Bush was President; I do not believe you can pick and choose which Presidents to blame for legacy programmes. Secondly, I hardly think welfare is an issue that is on the far left of American opinion. Thirdly, I have not noticed Obama pushing any programmes that benefit those "whom (sic) don't care enough to help themselves," unless, again, you are referring to a healthcare bill that realistically has little to no effect on this supposed demographic, most of whom would already have been covered by medicare.

cphbravo96:
drexelalum11:

Fifthly, no one is "attempting to rob (you) at gunpoint in order to further his agenda." Not extending tax cuts that never made sense in the first place is not the same as putting a gun to your head and taking your money. Passing a bill to address health-care, an issue that all of us should be able to agree needed to be dealt with, is not putting a gun to your head and taking your money.

And yes, somebody (the government) taking money from me, against my will, to fund programs and such that I don't approve of is analogous to robbing someone at gunpoint...or "prison-point" if that makes you feel better. I think most people agree that there needs to be health care reform, but passing a secret bill which not only changes the landscape of health care going forward, but, coincidentally, increases the government's power at the same is flat out wrong. We need reform, not a socialist program ran by an entity that couldn't balance a budget to save their life (or in the government's case, someone else's life). Speaking of the secret health care bill, that is just another example of how Obama blatantly lied...again, speaking to his lack of character and integrity.

Regards

I would probably like to respond to this point, but not having access to secret government bills, I will take your word that it is a "socialist program" about which "Obama blatantly lied."

Please take your brain out of liberal auto pilot.

I never said there was anything wrong with being a Muslim...you just implied I did...so I clarified, that I was NOT implying that being a Muslim somehow represented a lack of character...you were unable to read/comprehend that, I don't know what else I can do. As far as Reagan is concerned, I didn't realize he was the relevant topic in the thread entitled "Obama's Response?".

My point about the issues in the middle east is simple. He is trying to negotiate with crazy people...which in my book, is not truly a possibility. The people hate us and hate Israel and deny a documented historical event occurred in an effort to further their agenda. Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said the answer is "more open hostility", however, I don't think there is anything anyone can do and I certainly don't think sitting down at a table with the nut jobs and validating their arguments/points of view is a healthy thing to do.

It's rather interesting that you are so opinionated on subjects that don't, and probably won't ever, affect you.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

11/4/10

Obama supporters would curl up and die if they couldn't bring up Bush or Regan every other sentence.

Lets completely forget that the Dem's controlled Congress for the second half of the last Bush term. Lets also forget that Dems signed and voted for Iraq and Afghanistan.

In reply to cphbravo96
11/5/10
cphbravo96:
drexelalum11:
cphbravo96:
drexelalum11:

...Along those lines, claiming that the President is "a closet Muslim posing as a Christian (which speaks to his lack of character)" is quite simply ignorant, racist, and facetious.

What I said is in no way, shape or form racist. His lack of character is implied by his own questionable conduct. I didn't say being a Muslim shows a lack of character, his is perceived lies about not being one. He belongs (or belonged) to a church which is lead by someone I might define as racist, who swears and preaches questionable things about the United States of America and who gives awards to representatives of the Nation of Islam who has made comments that could be viewed as antisemitic, racist and/or homophobic...and frankly, that never happened in my church growing up. Obama refers to Wright as a "mentor" in the beginning, but as more damaging audio and video clips emerge, Obama suddenly doesn't know the guy too well and must have missed this sermon or that sermon because, conveniently, he doesn't recall hearing that...despite being in the front row. Obama is lost. He thinks he is some might god with unending power. He wants to sit at a table and broker peace between a culture who says vile, hate fueled things about the other one and claims that the Holocaust is merely a conspiracy theory? The list goes on and on and on.

Implying that being Muslim shows a lack of character is clearly racist. Arguing that Jeremiah Wright is a disgrace is a fair point. Jerry Falwell is also a national disgrace, but that doesn't seem to have interfered with your admiration of President Reagan.

I presume your final point relates to either Iran or Palestine. If it is the former, I fail to see how not engaging Iran would be productive, but do believe more open hostility could be genuinely harmful to our interests; if you are advocating war with Iran, I would like to think that we might have learned something from two endless wars in the Middle East, but that would clearly be too optimistic (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic... and http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/1...). If it is the latter, I'd point out that Israel is the safest it has been in a long time, the Palestinian government is surprisingly functional, and the Israeli government is fully capable of looking after its own interests, and if it somehow fails in that regard, the Jewish lobby remains quite strong. However, I will agree that Obama's meddling in this is counter-productive, selfish, naive, and is likely to blow up in his face, and people will probably die as a result.

cphbravo96:
drexelalum11:

Thirdly, repeated comments about your money being spend on "crackheads" are puerile and irrelevant; welfare spending has hardly been touched by Obama, and the extension of unemployment insurance (which is primarily a state-level programme) is a reasonable response to a stubborn problem of the long-term unemployed, most of whom, I suspect, are not in fact crackheads.

You are desperately missing the point. It's not that Obama is send more money directly to "crackheads" it's that he wants to take more from the people who wake up everyday and earn it, just to pay for programs that we may, or may not agree with, and that could be better funded if less money was going into a system that disincentives work (read: welfare). Stop punishing us hard working tax payers to support people who are "disadvantage" whom don't care enough to help themselves.

Firstly, I failed to notice much anger over welfare when Bush was President; I do not believe you can pick and choose which Presidents to blame for legacy programmes. Secondly, I hardly think welfare is an issue that is on the far left of American opinion. Thirdly, I have not noticed Obama pushing any programmes that benefit those "whom (sic) don't care enough to help themselves," unless, again, you are referring to a healthcare bill that realistically has little to no effect on this supposed demographic, most of whom would already have been covered by medicare.

cphbravo96:
drexelalum11:

Fifthly, no one is "attempting to rob (you) at gunpoint in order to further his agenda." Not extending tax cuts that never made sense in the first place is not the same as putting a gun to your head and taking your money. Passing a bill to address health-care, an issue that all of us should be able to agree needed to be dealt with, is not putting a gun to your head and taking your money.

And yes, somebody (the government) taking money from me, against my will, to fund programs and such that I don't approve of is analogous to robbing someone at gunpoint...or "prison-point" if that makes you feel better. I think most people agree that there needs to be health care reform, but passing a secret bill which not only changes the landscape of health care going forward, but, coincidentally, increases the government's power at the same is flat out wrong. We need reform, not a socialist program ran by an entity that couldn't balance a budget to save their life (or in the government's case, someone else's life). Speaking of the secret health care bill, that is just another example of how Obama blatantly lied...again, speaking to his lack of character and integrity.

Regards

I would probably like to respond to this point, but not having access to secret government bills, I will take your word that it is a "socialist program" about which "Obama blatantly lied."

Please take your brain out of liberal auto pilot.

I never said there was anything wrong with being a Muslim...you just implied I did...so I clarified, that I was NOT implying that being a Muslim somehow represented a lack of character...you were unable to read/comprehend that, I don't know what else I can do. As far as Reagan is concerned, I didn't realize he was the relevant topic in the thread entitled "Obama's Response?".

My point about the issues in the middle east is simple. He is trying to negotiate with crazy people...which in my book, is not truly a possibility. The people hate us and hate Israel and deny a documented historical event occurred in an effort to further their agenda. Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said the answer is "more open hostility", however, I don't think there is anything anyone can do and I certainly don't think sitting down at a table with the nut jobs and validating their arguments/points of view is a healthy thing to do.

It's rather interesting that you are so opinionated on subjects that don't, and probably won't ever, affect you.

Regards

You stated "I didn't say being a Muslim shows a lack of character, his is perceived lies about not being one." I don't know what you meant to say, but I'm fairly sure that you are saying that you believe him to be a muslim who is lying about not being one, and you feel this shows his lack of character. This simply speaks to your desire to manufacture petty reasons to dislike him, and I am not going to bother responding. The point about Jerry Falwell was not to castigate Reagan; it is that everyone has relationships they are embarrassed by, but that that does not necessarily mean that is what we should judge them on.

Your point about the Middle East may be "simple," but that just shows your ignorance. If there is one thing the Middle East is not, it is simple. If you "don't think there is anything anyone can do," than why do you think negotiating is irrational? You also didn't clarify which part of the Middle East you were referring to, because it is not a homogenous region, and the issues do not all come packaged neatly together as you'd seem to imply.

Finally, I fail to see how any of these issues won't affect me. I'm an American, I pay taxes, I vote, I will probably serve in government at some point in my life, I'm Jewish, and I visit Israel on a pretty regular basis.

11/5/10

I really don't think Obama cares about Jesus, Jewish God, Allah, Tom Cruise's witchcraft which puts out the invisible fire, Oprah Winfrey, or any other God.

In his heart, he is probably as agnostic as they come. He just happens to be a poser christian, muslim sympathizer, a jewish vote receiver, and quasi-celebrity which would imply he's a scientologist.

11/5/10

Wow I've heard more drivel out of this WSO thread than on Fox News. I will go line by line once I get out of the office. Props to drexel for making well-thought out, cited, coherent arguments. Shame on you monkeys who respond "omg liberal autopilot," as if 'liberal' is a pejorative.

Await the second coming.

In reply to drexelalum11
11/5/10
drexelalum11:

This is a ridiculous and juvenile conversation on so many levels. I feel it is foolish to wade in, but I'm a little disturbed by the rhetoric and ideas some of you are using and espousing.

Firstly, anyone who states that you "hate" Obama shows the mental maturity of a two-year-old who says that they "hate" their parents when they make them take a bath. "Hate" is a personal, visceral feeling that would strongly suggest you'd punch the man in the face before you'd shake his hand, which I doubt is the case. Some of you undoubtedly strongly disagree with the President's policies; some of you are probably even intelligent enough to understand why you do. None of you hate him, and if you do, then you're clearly not someone who is capable of having an intelligent and reasonable discussion. Along those lines, claiming that the President is "a closet Muslim posing as a Christian (which speaks to his lack of character)" is quite simply ignorant, racist, and facetious. It is, believe it or not, possible to strongly disagree with someone's ideas and not hate that person.

Secondly, the point that the Great Depression was ended by World War II is not nearly as straight-forward as most of you imply; that is a very contentious point and it is silly to pretend otherwise for the sake of political expediency, especially when such an argument isn't even useful for your position. Even if it were true WWII ended the Great Depression, if you took the time to understand your own argument, you would see that the logical conclusion of such would be that massive government expenditure brought the Great Depression to an end. This is elementary Keynesianism, and would be a massive point in favour of the stimulus spending which I have no doubt most of you abhor (unless, of course, you think the Great Depression was a brilliant example of Schumpterian creative destruction, and wish it could have continued a few more years so we'd really see results).

Thirdly, repeated comments about your money being spend on "crackheads" are puerile and irrelevant; welfare spending has hardly been touched by Obama, and the extension of unemployment insurance (which is primarily a state-level programme) is a reasonable response to a stubborn problem of the long-term unemployed, most of whom, I suspect, are not in fact crackheads.

Fourthly, blasting Obama for bailouts that were extensions of policies he inherited from the Republican administration is facetious; you can certainly disagree with those bailouts, but changing government policy on such a massive issue in January 2009 would have been almost impossible and would have caused a much deeper recession.

Fifthly, no one is "attempting to rob (you) at gunpoint in order to further his agenda." Not extending tax cuts that never made sense in the first place is not the same as putting a gun to your head and taking your money. Passing a bill to address health-care, an issue that all of us should be able to agree needed to be dealt with, is not putting a gun to your head and taking your money.

There's probably a lot more points in the 50 or so prior comments, but I can't remember them all, and frankly am not upset about that.

I will agree with most of you that Obama has been a pretty bad President so far. I don't think this is at all related to his stance on issues, though, as I frankly don't think he has a stance on issues. I blame this on an academic background that doesn't place much emphasis on leadership, a lack of political experience and instinct, and advisors who have not served him well at all. The healthcare bill is a clear example of this; Obama never once clearly stated what he was for - he basically left it to Congress to spend a year arguing and give him something to sign. If Obama had put forward a healthcare bill, I would probably disagree with what went into it, but what came out of Congress was in no way a bill the President had put forward. I don't know his advisors, but I'd think that his lack of vision on this was a clear result of his desire to avoid defeat (can't think of an appropriate sports analogy). There was a piece in the New Yorker a few weeks ago that spoke to this basic problem with his administration: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/1010...

So, yes, I think Obama is a bad President; I don't think he is up for the job, or ever was. The Democrats appointed him in 2006 because he is charismatic, a minority, and electable. There was never any thought given to actual ideas, experience, or ability. And that is the exact same strategy the Republican leadership employed for the last two years to win back the House; for all of the rhetoric, they have no actual plans, John Boehner's pretending that the Senate and President don't exist aside. It would be nice to see someone focus on governing for a change, because the idea that politics is about "winning" is, frankly, quite sad.

This is what's known as an Ether napalm bomb.

In reply to thomask
11/5/10
thomask:

Await the second coming.

I really hope you're not overpromising and underdelivering here.

11/5/10

To unlock this content for free, please login / register below.

Connecting helps us build a vibrant community. We'll never share your info without your permission. Sign up with email or if you are already a member, login here Bonus: Also get 6 free financial modeling lessons for free ($200+ value) when you register!
In reply to TNA
11/5/10
11/5/10
11/9/10
11/9/10

What's Your Opinion? Comment below:

Login or register to get credit (collect bananas).
All anonymous comments are unpublished until reviewed. No links or promotional material will be allowed. Most comments are published within 24 hours.
WallStreet Prep Master Financial Modeling