Obama economic idiocy blog
I am going to post here every thing I hear about obamas idiototic economic policies.
You guys remember that thing called Obamacare right? Remember how it was supposed to cost ~940 billion over 10 years? Remember how we had to "pass it to see what's in it"? Well the CBO has now projected it will cost 1.76 trillion over 8 years. Rounding error right?
Everyone knows Obama is business friendly I mean he wouldn't be doing anything to slow growth with this economy right? Well in his 3 years in office his admin has passed over 10000 regulations. These regulations only cost a laughably small 500 billion a year in economic output.
Feel free to join the pissing match at your own peril.
Obama is a Progressive, and Progressives believe that unelected, unaccountable “experts” can make better economic decisions than “We the People”, expressing our preferences via free markets. They also seem to believe that regulation upon regulation can be piled upon the private sector at no cost to jobs or economic growth.
BAD REGULATION caused the Financial Crisis, NOT DEREGULATION. Obama just doesn't know the difference. If he is reelected, we're all fucked.
This is so wrong, it depresses me.
My post was about the financial crisis and it's causes and you are getting way too aggressive with your assumptions and tone.
I'd rather vote for a moderate like Obama than a far right Republican who cow tows to religious nutcases with bronze age belief systems. Obama is not perfect by any stretch of the word, but he's been a moderate President. Are there things i don't care for? Yes. But, that doesn't mean I'm going to support one of the Republican nominees (excluding Paul who simply will not get the nomination, unfortunately). Let's take a look at the other Republican options:
--Romney: A successful businessman who has no core values. He will say and do anything to appeal to the audience he's up front of. I imagine he'd end up being much like Obama, only he postures himself as much more hawkish than the President. I find that incredibly unappealing.
--Santorum: A religious zealot and big big big spender while he was in the Senate. I don't see how he could appeal to any free thinking rational person. Also, he would absolutely seek to impose his morals on the country. Considering his morals come from his nonsensical belief system, he can eat a dick.
--Newt Gingrich: A hypocrite of historic proportions. Believes that he can guarantee $2.50 a gallon gas despite such guarantees being total non-sense. Has openly stated that he would not have any Muslims in his cabinet (or atheists, for that matter). The list of shit wrong with this dickhead is unfathomably long.
For the record, I like Ron Paul. Not all of his positions, but at least he's consistent and honest in his views.
Why would I support any of these clowns?
[quote=TheKing
Why would I support any of these clowns?[/quote] I really don't like Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum. I would also like Ron Paul to be president, but gave up on that months ago. Like you said, Romney would be more like Obama as he is more moderate than the others, but he has proven to be an economic and business genius. Since congress is more conservative, he can actually get things done and get rid of Obamacare and some of the unnecessary regulations Obama initiated. Also, lower taxes coupled with lower spending? What don't you like about that?
Romney has gone out of his way to appease religious lunatics and has promised social policies which I cannot possibly support. I am not comfortable with the idea of voting for Romney simply because of a hunch that he'll be a moderate. I'm not sure that he can be a moderate given the current congress and the way he's pushed his positions to the right. This guy has tried to completely erase his moderate past.
Obamacare is reviled, but it is based upon (former) Republican ideas. The mandate idea came from the Heritage Foundation. I don't want to vote someone in who only promises to repeal it, I want to hear concrete ideas and specifics on what they'd replace it with. Not the typical "free market solutions" chants, but specific policy ideas.
As for Dodd-Frank, I don't care for it, but I don't want to simply repeal it and replace it with nothing. I want Glass Steagall (at the minimum) to be put back into place. The only GOPer who had any ideas on financial reform was John Huntsman. He's a pretty conservative guy with good ideas, I'd probably vote for him over Obama. But, guess what, he didn't do enough to appeal to the far right retards that think Obama is a Kenyon-born Muslim, so he lost his shot.
The GOP needs to nominate an asshole like Santorum and get blown out in the fall. It needs to if it is going to cleanse itself of all the garbage in the party.
I don't doubt that they underestimated the cost. But the CBO is not a nonpartisan office, despite what their description is. They counter the OMB (office of management and budget) that is also partisan, but in favor of the president. So I'd say that the 940 billion is low and the 1.76 trillion is high.
And just FYI, the last Republican President hit our economy with a $3 trillion war while cutting taxes. See here for more info on that.
So you make a statement, and then back it up with a vague fact that MIGHT support your claim. "10000 regulations" could mean anything, to be honest. Sure, it's no secret that he's passed many regulations on business, but to imply that they all hurt our economy (and then toss in a random number to act like you know what you're talking about) is bullshit.
I'm not an Obama cocksucker, but I'm tired of reading bullshit, dogmatic partisan beliefs all over this site. Respect your President and vote for a different one in the next election. This is what's wrong with this country, that everyone feels their opinion is of the utmost validity. No one ever steps back and says "oh, hey, that's kind of a good point. Let's look at that and see where we can work with it", or even "I hate his opinion, but he got elected and I'll deal with it for four years". It's all "IM RIGHT AND EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG, FUCK THE [insert political party here]".
It's so fucking childish.
Garbage = people with moral systems that do not fit into the liberal, NYC mindset.
Gotta love the mutual respect going on. But hey, keep voting for Obama because 4 more years of Hope and Change are going to make a difference.
People can have moral systems that differ from my own, that's 100% fine. However, if someone wants to pass laws based upon their ancient and baseless religions, then I will have to take issue with that. They can believe whatever they want, but passing laws based on biblical worldviews is a problem.
Your moral relativism is astonishing and on par with the most liberal people I know.
+1 Institutionalised religion is a fucking nuisance. Never admit idiocy in the form of religion into serious matters such as politics and economics. Like that idiot in congress, i think, who said not to fight global warming because the bible said that the earth would not be destroyed by man, so global warming is nothing to fear.
Not saying global warming is true or whatnot, though I believe it is, I'm saying that when you let religion be involved in important decisions, when a comet is heading for earth a similar idiot will say:
"Don't worry about it, the apocalypse doesn't come in the form of a comet, the bible says. Also, Jesus hasn't returned yet, so we're good."
People just have no clue about politics and strategy. You need to be more radical to get the nomination and then become more mainstream in the general election.
Sorry if Democracy sucks because people who have a different view point support different things.
And, to be clear, it is total fucking garbage if someone doesn't want gays to get married because it's "against the bible" or some such non-sense. And it is fucking garbage if someone doesn't want schools to teach evolution because it "goes against the bible." Some things are true, regardless of what people want to believe.
Moral relativism in such cases is poisonous to our society.
i LOVE obamacare. repeal/destroy/overthrow the social security and unemployment benefit first before touching obamacare.
Thanks.
Moral relativism? It is called tolerance.
Gays can get married. They can have a ceremony. They can go to a church that will have them. They can have a legal document signed giving them power of attorney, legal rights to property, etc.
Gays forming unions between two people is a non issue.
I love how moral relativism is now demonized. We live in a Democracy where the will of the people is listened to. If the will of the people don't want government approved gay unions then who cares? Why does it matter if the bible says so or if rational thought says so or if basic hatred says so.
Human beings have an innate desire to control and dominate their fellow man. Whether we do it economically, militarily or morally, we want to control.
I don't support liberal causes because it is the weak attempting to use government to control the strong. Look at Europe. The strong we destroyed by the stronger and the weak took over, setting up legal and governmental barriers to maintain power.
Until one day when they don't...
ANT -
The "tolerance" argument is bunk. If someone wants to deny gay people the right to get married because of their religious beliefs, that is bigotry. It does not matter if it is based upon their religion, it is still bigotry. There is no tolerance for bigotry. I'm sick and tired of people hiding behind their cherry picked religious beliefs to turn other people into second class citizens.
If a group of religious zealots try to stop the teaching of evolution in science classes and / or try to teach creationism in science classes, then I do not have to tolerate that. I don't care what they believe behind closed doors, but they cannot push their baseless belief systems on the rest of us. Science class is a place for facts and scientific theories based upon scientific evidence.
The issue with both of these cases is that one has to assume that all views are equally valid and worthy of merit. That sort of relativism is garbage and poisons our society. Not all views are of equal validity. In the two cases I described above, the pervasive view of the religious right is not deserving of respect because there is no factual or practical basis for what they want. There is no practical argument grounded in facts against gay marriage and there is no factual argument against the teaching of evolution / for the teaching of creationism in a science class.
So you are the decider of which morality is more valid? I also didn't realize marriage was a natural right.
Gays can live together. They can legally bind themselves. They simply cannot get economic benefit from the government.
How is that bigotry?
Why is it bigotry to deny economic benefit to two men or two women, but it is fine to deny economic benefit to me, someone who is single, rents, or makes too much money?
Get real.
The lack of an absolute morality means all morals are valid. I see no difference.
Think the bigotry comes from the offering the benefit to hetero couples but not same-sex couples, creating inherent inequality.
Not exactly an expert in what economic benefits are achieved from the civil union, but I think a fair amount of them don't apply for singles (e.g. survival benefits of spouses, inheritance of property, etc).
So let me understand this. It is bigotry simply because of economic benefit since we have established that no one is forbidding two people of any sort from living together, legally joining, having a ceremony, taking each others name, etc.
So it is the government and people deciding which group of people to provide this benefit to.
Kind of like how the government provides a benefit to people who have children and not to those who don't (either by choice or medically).
Kind of like how the government provides a benefit to those who own homes (regardless of by choice or credit/income).
Any way you slice it, gay marriage is about as bigoted as me not getting a green tax credit because I didn't by a Chevy Volt, even though I am more green than someone who drives an electric.
Let me get that life vest because the river of tears is getting deep.
Ant -
Your argument is essentially "separate but equal" but with more words and straw men. It's ok to admit defeat on gay marriage. There is no practical argument against it. You'd be better off saying that government should not be involved in marriage at all and NO couples should get benefits, as opposed to arguing that only straight couples should. That's where the bigotry comes in.
As for me being the morality master. What a bullshit argument on your part. I did not say that I am the arbiter of morality. What I argue for is reason and fact based arguments for laws and value systems as opposed to bigotry and stupidity hiding under the guise of cherry picked rules from antiquated bronze age books filled with contradictions and falsehoods. If someone wants to ban gay marriage or teach creationism in science classes, then they need to make fact based arguments, not faith based arguments. Leave faith at home, in temples, and in your personal life.
How is this hard.
Where was I talking about equal?
All I am saying is governmental economic bias is not bigotry.
The government decided which group to support economically all the time. I don't cry bigot because married people with kids have it better off than I do.
Most of the people who believe in evolution simply put their faith in a man with a white coat and glasses. People don't know jack shit, whether it is science or puff the magic dragon. Who gives a shit.
And reason and facts? Oh please. I can show facts and provide a reasonable argument for just about everything and anything.
Why does their need to even be an argument. The majority say no and that is how it is.
Might makes right, done.
You're right, your argument is actually worse than separate but equal, because you're saying separate but not quite equal. You're saying that straight married couples get benefits but gay married couples do not with no practical, fact based reasoning for this. It is strictly based upon people's bigoted religious views.
You said: "The government decided which group to support economically all the time. I don't cry bigot because married people with kids have it better off than I do."
--This is not equivalent. If you were married with children, you would have the same benefits. You are a straight man and have the option of doing this. Gay people can't possibly get the same benefits because gay marriage is not considered equal to straight marriage. Again, this is due to bigotry and has no practical basis.
You said: "Most of the people who believe in evolution simply put their faith in a man with a white coat and glasses."
--There is scientific evidence for evolution. There is none for puff the magic dragon. Hence, evolution should be taught in science classes, not puff the magic dragon (creationism.) Save creationism for a religious studies class (or for home and church).
The form of relativism you are practicing here is an intellectual cop out.
If the majority came out and passed a law saying that Jews can't get married, would that be ok? Or what if a law passed by majority rule that said that Italian-Americans can't get married. Or people from New Jersey.
Yes, it would be perfectly fine. The law would not say these groups cannot live together, go to lawyers and become legally bound. It would only say the government is not going to provide economic benefit for these people.
You are not entitled to anything from the government. If the government chooses to give one party something and not someone else, that doesn't mean there is bigotry.
Gays CAN get married. They simply cannot receive economic benefit from the government for their marriage. And there are plenty of economic reasons for this I suppose.
You just hate religion and think your thinking and facts should rule other people. Just admit it. I am not even against that thinking, I am just against people who try and pretend like they aren't totalitarian nazi's.
http://www.mbda.gov/
I suppose you mean like the government favoring one ethnic group over another? Yeah, already happening.
Man, I am just dropping some hard core NEOCON truth up in this mo fo.
Obama has made no inclination to stop illegal immigration in any real capacity (same with Bush, really). Romney is highly negative on illegal immigration.
That alone is the reason to vote for Romney. Letting illiterate peasants into the US to breed and produce underperforming children is a recipe for national death and declining living standards.
Though I am quite liberal, I agree with this. In Belgium and France, there are illegal and legal immigrants from Africa, kids that saw their parents get slaughtered in front of them, that are put in ghettos with no prospects. What happens? These kids grow up and stab us white middle to upper class kids to death.
Do NOT open up borders to non-skilled immigrants unless you can "train" them or help them become a productive member of society, in equal standing with the incumbent citizen.
My father moved to Sweden as a political refugee from Greece, he was educated in agriculture. He couldn't speak a word of Swedish. The government provided him and other immigrants with free Swedish classes for a year. He learned Swedish while working and studying Stats at the Uni.
He moved on to getting his PhD in Economics and getting a position as lecturer at the Stockholm School of Economics.
I suppose should go ahead and pass a law preventing Republicans from holding office. Seems to be in the spirit of things...
ANT said - "Gays CAN get married. They simply cannot receive economic benefit from the government for their marriage. And there are plenty of economic reasons for this I suppose. "
No, despite what you "suppose," there are not any economic reasons for this. Just because you assert it, does not make it true.
Additionally, I'm not an advocate of giving advantages based upon race or ethnicity. What I am against is depriving people of equal rights because of bigoted, non-sensical reasons. How is this hard to understand.
Btw, you really are making the separate but equal argument when you say that "gays can get married, they just can't get the same gov't benefits as straight married couples." That's really not any different than saying "blacks can go to schools just like white people, they just go to separate ones!"
Anyway, there is no point in debating this further because no progress will be made. Good night, folks.
No, my point is the government is biased against a variety of people in a variety of instances, rewarding different groups economically.
This is only an argument about gays wanting an economic benefit. It is not an issue of racism or bigotry.
The only thing that makes no sense is why the government benefits marriage at all. They should get out of the game altogether.
Also, getting a deduction on your taxes is not a right and therefore is completely within reason and just to deny people for whatever reason.
"This is only an argument about gays wanting an economic benefit. It is not an issue of racism or bigotry."
Then what is the rationale for NOT giving them the same benefits as straight married couples? Again, there is no practical reason, it is based upon people's bigotry under the guise of their cherry picked religious beliefs.
"Jesus says gay is bad" and "gay sex is icky" aren't legitimate arguments against legalizing gay marriage. Either give gay married couples equal benefits or give NO married couples any benefits.
Consectetur deleniti temporibus quos porro officia rem autem. Deleniti rerum odio illum voluptas necessitatibus accusantium quas. Exercitationem repellendus alias dolorem iusto veniam quasi iusto quis. Et temporibus ad itaque. Sit fugit quia quis voluptatum.
Laudantium debitis eaque rerum ad facilis architecto. Dignissimos velit commodi quasi illo. Dicta et nesciunt doloribus quasi tempore. Magni qui alias earum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Quos molestiae et explicabo beatae quam dolorum. Et officia dolor ut ea exercitationem. Voluptatum non quas sed eligendi magnam fugit ipsum. Et rerum dolorum et ex adipisci excepturi dolor.
Praesentium debitis illo officia magni assumenda officia voluptatum. Tempore autem sequi modi sed. Eius quam debitis aliquam corrupti ipsam. Et veniam iste voluptatem et exercitationem blanditiis quia. Earum corporis quia eos occaecati sint.
Id ut eos ut illum ut consectetur dolorum. Ratione dolor illo repellendus totam. Perspiciatis dolor omnis sed laudantium. Impedit qui natus dolor. Accusantium porro modi quia quo in modi culpa. Doloribus eos earum iste et.
Nulla cupiditate harum magni blanditiis quo. Laboriosam accusamus delectus quidem rem.