Pages

11/3/10

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

Comments (84)

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

11/4/10

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.

  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • LinkeIn
  • Twitter
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

Pages

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