The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I'm not sure if you're referring to my argument

No, not specifically.

Sorry if the thread gets cluttered with posts making arguements you disagree with. Perhaps I could throw in the occassional Bush admin lied about WMD for your sake. Because that certainly has only been stated once in this thread.

Lighten up, man.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

No, not specifically.

Lighten up, man.

I wasn't trying to be an ass...just a tad snarky as I thought it was being misinterpreted.

No offense was meant by it though.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think that gets to the real issue. Costs have been rising at colleges and universities for a number of reasons, including a general desire to offer more programs, increased maintainence of new and upgraded facilities and increased staffing costs. Access to loans has allowed the pain of college tuition to be spread out and therefore less obvious. Students loans have a noble purpose and they have done a lot of good for a lot of people, but just as with anything in life there are also negatives.

Oh I agree...our universities on average probably could be a bit more specialized than they are and likely create efficiencies by doing so.

I was just making the point that France (and other European countries) have a fundamentally different system and overall burden to contend with than we do. They may have better strategies for how their Uni's are structured for more targeted education as well.

But I don't think we should discount the effect credit always has on such things...because the net effect of credit is that it adds demand where demand would not have existed otherwise. And naturally, when you increase demand you increase costs. Some might argue that credit is an equal opportunity inflater and should keep with CPI inflation, but I'd disagree when it comes to major purchase items like College tuition, cars, and houses. Because the people who can afford to absorb the "holding" costs of the credit or assets themselves, are of course the wealthy. So the cycle of further wealth concentration continues.

[JPhillips]

I'm not sure it exacerbates income inequality, but I definitely think it has played a major role in cost inflation. For most schools tuition increases have no effect on enrollment, not all of that is directly attributable to easy loan access, but the ability to "charge it" certainly has played a role in students/parents being far less concerned about costs.

[sterlingice]

I went to a health care town hall last night. It was kindof interesting and there was a broad mix of people from a lot of college aged people with Obama signs to middle aged protesters with orange "Guns save lives" stickers to older folks just wanting questions answered about health care. We only had 1 person thrown out that I remember- in my side of the room, I "quietly" yelled something to the nearby folks to the effect of "The ranting man has a point! I just have no idea what it is since he wasn't picked to ask a question and has no microphone" to the delight and chagrin of some of the people around me, depending on their political persuasion and ability to take a joke.

Warner walks fine line on health care | Richmond Times-Dispatch

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I wasn't trying to be an ass...just a tad snarky as I thought it was being misinterpreted.

Oh, same here, so no worries.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I went to a health care town hall last night. It was kindof interesting and there was a broad mix of people from a lot of college aged people with Obama signs to middle aged protesters with orange "Guns save lives" stickers to older folks just wanting questions answered about health care. We only had 1 person thrown out that I remember- in my side of the room, I "quietly" yelled something to the nearby folks to the effect of "The ranting man has a point! I just have no idea what it is since he wasn't picked to ask a question and has no microphone" to the delight and chagrin of some of the people around me, depending on their political persuasion and ability to take a joke.

Warner walks fine line on health care | Richmond Times-Dispatch

SI

I'm just happy no one tried to eat you.

[ace1914]

Can someone explain to me the outrage of Obama's stay in school speech?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Can someone explain to me the outrage of Obama's stay in school speech?

No, not really. I had a conversation with a conservative friend the other day and asked: what would your reaction have been if in 2007 President Bush gave a speech to students and a bunch of liberals said they were going to keep their kids home. He got my point, but was still dismissive.

I think there is a lot of overblown concern that the speech is going to be partisan in nature, and I don't think it will be. That being said, I did have a bit of a problem with the Dept. of Education's suggestions for classroom/homework followup, particularly the original "Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president." I'd like to think that line came from numbskulls in the bureaucracy, not policy makers in the White House.

Regardless, my kid will be going to school that day. I may, however, ask for equal time to respond to the president depending on what he has to say.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Can someone explain to me the outrage of Obama's stay in school speech?

Best I can tell, it's being seen as a likely avenue for partisanship as opposed to statesmanship and there's no shortage of people who would take exception to having a mandated audience for that.

My wife & I were actually discussing this earlier today & noted that we haven't heard anything for our son's (private) school about it one way or the other. Our assumption is that it won't be mandatory viewing since it hasn't been mentioned & they know that it would be controversial at the very least, and ticking off the paying customers isn't something they're really keen on if it can be avoided.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Can someone explain to me the outrage of Obama's stay in school speech?

If my aunt who forwards me emails is any indication, there are people who will criticize everything that Obama does b/c he does it. The difference seems to be that with 827 twenty-four hour news stations now and this being a very slow news time, it becomes an event when these people get a microphone.

If Bush had done this in 2005, the DailyKos folks would have had the same reaction--talking about indocrination and the like.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

If my aunt who forwards me emails is any indication, there are people who will criticize everything that Obama does b/c he does it. The difference seems to be that with 827 twenty-four hour news stations now and this being a very slow news time, it becomes an event when these people get a microphone.

If Bush had done this in 2005, the DailyKos folks would have had the same reaction--talking about indocrination and the like.

Bush Sr. actually did the same thing back on the eve of the election way back in the early 90's.

[lungs]

So how is Obama urging kids to work hard and stay in school part of his socialist agenda?

Wouldn't he be telling kids to be lazy and skip school because the government will take care of you?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Best I can tell, it's being seen as a likely avenue for partisanship as opposed to statesmanship and there's no shortage of people who would take exception to having a mandated audience for that.

My wife & I were actually discussing this earlier today & noted that we haven't heard anything for our son's (private) school about it one way or the other. Our assumption is that it won't be mandatory viewing since it hasn't been mentioned & they know that it would be controversial at the very least, and ticking off the paying customers isn't something they're really keen on if it can be avoided.

is this something you're for or against?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

is this something you're for or against?

Doesn't sound like it - reading his post.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

No, not really. I had a conversation with a conservative friend the other day and asked: what would your reaction have been if in 2007 President Bush gave a speech to students and a bunch of liberals said they were going to keep their kids home. He got my point, but was still dismissive.

I think there is a lot of overblown concern that the speech is going to be partisan in nature, and I don't think it will be. That being said, I did have a bit of a problem with the Dept. of Education's suggestions for classroom/homework followup, particularly the original "Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president." I'd like to think that line came from numbskulls in the bureaucracy, not policy makers in the White House.

Regardless, my kid will be going to school that day. I may, however, ask for equal time to respond to the president depending on what he has to say.

That was terrible wording and it's already been changed.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by lungs

So how is Obama urging kids to work hard and stay in school part of his socialist agenda?

Wouldn't he be telling kids to be lazy and skip school because the government will take care of you?

(Insert picture of Obama smoking a joint in college)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

is this something you're for or against?

I would strongly oppose giving him a mandatory audience without prior review of the content.

That's what some schools around Atlanta are planning to do as I understand it: tape the program, review it, and give the schools an opportunity to determine how or if it fits into their curriculum.

I thought Neal McCluskey at the Cato Institute really summed up the concerns pretty well "In general, I don't think there's a problem if the president uses the bully pulpit to tell kids to work hard, study hard and things like that. But there are some troubling hints in this, both educationally and politically,"

As Cam alluded to up the thread a bit, the DOE suggested lesson plans are pretty slanted stuff & seem to be the source of a good bit of the concerns.

In short, in the absence of any of the hoopla we've already seen, I didn't/don't trust him one fraction of an inch not to turn it into an indoctrination speech for Obamacare or anything else on his agenda. In light of the hoopla, I now expect it to be a generic Hulk Hogan "drink your milk, take your vitamins" speech, relatively meaningless but benign.

[flere-imsaho]

Oh, it's benign until you realize those vitamins are secretly Obama-indoctrination-conduits. Who will be laughing then?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Oh, it's benign until you realize those vitamins are secretly Obama-indoctrination-conduits. Who will be laughing then?

You say that as though anyone who isn't already an Obamaphile would be dumb enough to take any pills he gave them or even recommended.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I would strongly oppose giving him a mandatory audience without prior review of the content.

That's what some schools around Atlanta are planning to do as I understand it: tape the program, review it, and give the schools an opportunity to determine how or if it fits into their curriculum.

I thought Neal McCluskey at the Cato Institute really summed up the concerns pretty well "In general, I don't think there's a problem if the president uses the bully pulpit to tell kids to work hard, study hard and things like that. But there are some troubling hints in this, both educationally and politically,"

As Cam alluded to up the thread a bit, the DOE suggested lesson plans are pretty slanted stuff & seem to be the source of a good bit of the concerns.

In short, in the absence of any of the hoopla we've already seen, I didn't/don't trust him one fraction of an inch not to turn it into an indoctrination speech for Obamacare or anything else on his agenda. In light of the hoopla, I now expect it to be a generic Hulk Hogan "drink your milk, take your vitamins" speech, relatively meaningless but benign.

How about when Bush Sr. did it back in what was it...'91 on the eve of the election? I presume since we're being consistent you would have wanted that to be similarly non-partisan and would have called for similar strictures? Or was that okay because you agreed with his politics?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In short, in the absence of any of the hoopla we've already seen, I didn't/don't trust him one fraction of an inch not to turn it into an indoctrination speech for Obamacare or anything else on his agenda. In light of the hoopla, I now expect it to be a generic Hulk Hogan "drink your milk, take your vitamins" speech, relatively meaningless but benign.

that's a pretty convienent view to have - makes it nice and safe so you don't ever have to worry about being wrong.

[molson]

Since this is the first time we've had a "cool" president, I think it's great for him do this kind of stuff.

But, ya, if W. tried to pull this off, we'd have tons of outrage and probably a Daily Show prime time special.

(I don't think George Bush in '91 is really a relevant comparison. This stuff didn't matter then, it wouldn't have mattered for Reagan, or Carter, or anyone else. Only in the last decade or so is everyone so obsessed with team politics and finding every possible opening to score points in that ongoing game).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Since this is the first time we've had a "cool" president, I think it's great for him do this kind of stuff.

But, ya, if W. tried to pull this off, we'd have tons of outrage and probably a Daily Show prime time special.

(I don't think George Bush in '91 is really a relevant comparison. This stuff didn't matter then, it wouldn't have mattered for Reagan, or Carter, or anyone else. Only in the last decade or so is everyone so obsessed with team politics and finding every possible opening to score points in that ongoing game).

Please see Atwater, Lee

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

that's a pretty convienent view to have - makes it nice and safe so you don't ever have to worry about being wrong.

Hey, I'm giving him credit for at least being smart enough not to do exactly what critics expect him to do (now that he's been called on it in advance), that's about as generous as I'm going to be able to get.

Well maybe "smart" isn't exactly the word, but I'd say his political survival instincts are at least good enough to avoid that mistake.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Please see Atwater, Lee

2009 is way different than 1991, you can't really compare, no matter the individual examples.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Please see Atwater, Lee

Molson did say "everyone so obsessed", not "political strategists so obsessed". I think Molson's also right about a different atmosphere in the early 1990's than what exists today. As Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University told the AP, "There was no virulent hatred of George H.W. Bush. Sometime between Bork and impeachment ... it became progressively less civil."

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You say that as though anyone who isn't already an Obamaphile would be dumb enough to take any pills he gave them or even recommended.

CURSES!!! FOILED!!!

Originally Posted by molson

But, ya, if W. tried to pull this off, we'd have tons of outrage and probably a Daily Show prime time special.

That's because if W did it we'd all be complaining about the horrific grammatical example he was setting for our kids.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Pelosi saying in her strongest comments yet that if there is no public option in a bill, it's not going through the House.

Nancy Pelosi: No public option, no bill - Alex Isenstadt - POLITICO.com

This is quickly becoming a power battle in the Democrat Party. Pelosi/Reid/Obama are more worried about individually having their legacy stamp on the passage of a bill than actually getting together and even putting a bill together. It's brutal.

[DaddyTorgo]

Good. Way to go Nancy!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Molson did say "everyone so obsessed", not "political strategists so obsessed". I think Molson's also right about a different atmosphere in the early 1990's than what exists today. As Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University told the AP, "There was no virulent hatred of George H.W. Bush. Sometime between Bork and impeachment ... it became progressively less civil."

I think it's more likely that Bush1 was the exception. There certainly has been a easily documented hatred for most president's since FDR. In general I don't think "things used to be better" is a good explanation. Where I do see a difference is in cable news and internet. I think the information gets distributed much quicker and to a much more focused group, but I don't think the message has changed much.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

CURSES!!! FOILED!!!

That's because if W did it we'd all be complaining about the horrific grammatical example he was setting for our kids.

The SNL skit certainly writes itself.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This is quickly becoming....

The more things change the more they...well they dont.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

The more things change the more they...well they dont.

Can't disagree with you. That was actually the point of my comment. It summarizes the Obama administration in a nutshell thus far. There's little change, especially when the Democrats are busy getting in their own way currently.

[Flasch186]

Its quickly becoming...

when you predict something it doesnt come true. Care to revisit the Iran thread? the Bowling faux anger? the campaign thread? the palin love? the list is endless.

probably not. The reason your credibility is so crappy and people dont pay attention to your stances as opposed to say Arles or Gstelmack is because you do not pay attention to opposing points of view and simply bang your drum no matter if evidence points to the contrary OR even more clear cut, when an outcome is the opposite of your prediction. You just plug on, blinders on, and continue to drop spin bombs from a MIG. Take a moment address the things youre wrong on and then maybe people will listen to when youre right (or headed that way).

If you are thinking that I do that too, like Molson's perception of me....just look back. Shit im wrong all the frickin time but I admit to it. Sometimes Im right, or think I am but you are never ever wrong and that is why you are yelling into a coffee can.

I do realize that this post is for me psychologically and will have no effect on you (like me ill advised mailbox letters that I was wrong in assuming the outcome of...dead wrong)

[RainMaker]

He doesn't pay attention because his points of view are cut and pasted from whatever the right-wing site of the day is. You're trying to argue with another site, not MBBF.

[panerd]

The other night on TV I saw someone raise the question to a Republican "So do you want President Obama to fail?" which of course he danced around and looked like a complete jackass in his response. This question seems to be getting asked more and more and is supposed to signify that people against the president’s horrible policies are “Anti-American”. Is it just me or it this the same sort of bullshit the Republican machine used to ask to people opposed to the war in Iraq... "So you are against the troops? You are against America?"

Here is my answer as someone who strongly believes the government is out of control and the guy with the credit card doesn't understand the effects of out of control spending. YES, I hope Obama fails on many fronts...

1) I hope his health care reform fails and he learns there is a consequence to spending money our country doesn't have to try to fix problems that were created by spending money our country didn't have.

2) I hope the war in Afghanistan fails. Because I want our soldiers to die? No, the exact opposite, I am tired of American soldiers dying to try to hang onto America's empire.

3) In fact I hope all of his super liberal agenda fails. Much like I hoped any of Bush's super conservative agendas failed, I don't want government to continue to expand and expand and expand and both parties need a reality check on what their purpose is.

Notice I don't hope that he fails on foreign relations, I would love for him to "win" and give states their rights back for issues like guns and gay marriage and marijuana and gambling, I hope that he wins issues like keeping kids in schools and think this latest nonsense about people pulling their kids from school to avoud hearing our President speak is our polarized country at it's worst.

Will a politican besides one the media ostracizes (like Ron Paul) come out and say this? It seems pretty hopeless but this is what the Republicans or Independents or even Democrats really need.

[Flasch186]

because the answer is "No..."

you answered it correctly in that you dialed into specific policies and decisions but said "No" to the question. That is the way to handle it IMO...

for some reason the GOP didnt get the memo on how to handle that question which is easy. Just say No and then dial into specific stuff.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'll agree that it's a very easy question.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He doesn't pay attention because his points of view are cut and pasted from whatever the right-wing site of the day is. You're trying to argue with another site, not MBBF.

You're totally wrong, but feel free to keep beating your drum hoping someone will listen.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

The other night on TV I saw someone raise the question to a Republican "So do you want President Obama to fail?" which of course he danced around and looked like a complete jackass in his response. This question seems to be getting asked more and more and is supposed to signify that people against the president’s horrible policies are “Anti-American”. Is it just me or it this the same sort of bullshit the Republican machine used to ask to people opposed to the war in Iraq... "So you are against the troops? You are against America?"

Here is my answer as someone who strongly believes the government is out of control and the guy with the credit card doesn't understand the effects of out of control spending. YES, I hope Obama fails on many fronts...

1) I hope his health care reform fails and he learns there is a consequence to spending money our country doesn't have to try to fix problems that were created by spending money our country didn't have.

2) I hope the war in Afghanistan fails. Because I want our soldiers to die? No, the exact opposite, I am tired of American soldiers dying to try to hang onto America's empire.

3) In fact I hope all of his super liberal agenda fails. Much like I hoped any of Bush's super conservative agendas failed, I don't want government to continue to expand and expand and expand and both parties need a reality check on what their purpose is.

Notice I don't hope that he fails on foreign relations, I would love for him to "win" and give states their rights back for issues like guns and gay marriage and marijuana and gambling, I hope that he wins issues like keeping kids in schools and think this latest nonsense about people pulling their kids from school to avoud hearing our President speak is our polarized country at it's worst.

Will a politican besides one the media ostracizes (like Ron Paul) come out and say this? It seems pretty hopeless but this is what the Republicans or Independents or even Democrats really need.

Good Lord. I'm floored. You and I are far more similar than I ever realized. I can't disagree with anything you've said here. I've said bits and pieces of this in various posts, but you summed it up extremely well. Well done.

[DaddyTorgo]

i don't understand from a logical standpoint how anyone can be against healthcare reform if they are fully informed about what it entails.

you mean you are actually against having the OPTION of paying less for healthcare?

If that's the case and you like throwing your money away, you can write me a check for a couple thousand dollars anytime you want. PM me and I'll send you an address.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by panerd

The other night on TV I saw someone raise the question to a Republican "So do you want President Obama to fail?" which of course he danced around and looked like a complete jackass in his response. This question seems to be getting asked more and more and is supposed to signify that people against the president’s horrible policies are “Anti-American”. Is it just me or it this the same sort of bullshit the Republican machine used to ask to people opposed to the war in Iraq... "So you are against the troops? You are against America?"

Here is my answer as someone who strongly believes the government is out of control and the guy with the credit card doesn't understand the effects of out of control spending. YES, I hope Obama fails on many fronts...

1) I hope his health care reform fails and he learns there is a consequence to spending money our country doesn't have to try to fix problems that were created by spending money our country didn't have.

2) I hope the war in Afghanistan fails. Because I want our soldiers to die? No, the exact opposite, I am tired of American soldiers dying to try to hang onto America's empire.

3) In fact I hope all of his super liberal agenda fails. Much like I hoped any of Bush's super conservative agendas failed, I don't want government to continue to expand and expand and expand and both parties need a reality check on what their purpose is.

Notice I don't hope that he fails on foreign relations, I would love for him to "win" and give states their rights back for issues like guns and gay marriage and marijuana and gambling, I hope that he wins issues like keeping kids in schools and think this latest nonsense about people pulling their kids from school to avoud hearing our President speak is our polarized country at it's worst.

Will a politican besides one the media ostracizes (like Ron Paul) come out and say this? It seems pretty hopeless but this is what the Republicans or Independents or even Democrats really need.

Wow, great post sir. I disagree with #1 but 2 and 3 are dead on and the last 2 paragraphs are very well said as well.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

The other night on TV I saw someone raise the question to a Republican "So do you want President Obama to fail?" which of course he danced around and looked like a complete jackass in his response. This question seems to be getting asked more and more and is supposed to signify that people against the president’s horrible policies are “Anti-American”. Is it just me or it this the same sort of bullshit the Republican machine used to ask to people opposed to the war in Iraq... "So you are against the troops? You are against America?"

Here is my answer as someone who strongly believes the government is out of control and the guy with the credit card doesn't understand the effects of out of control spending. YES, I hope Obama fails on many fronts...

1) I hope his health care reform fails and he learns there is a consequence to spending money our country doesn't have to try to fix problems that were created by spending money our country didn't have.

2) I hope the war in Afghanistan fails. Because I want our soldiers to die? No, the exact opposite, I am tired of American soldiers dying to try to hang onto America's empire.

3) In fact I hope all of his super liberal agenda fails. Much like I hoped any of Bush's super conservative agendas failed, I don't want government to continue to expand and expand and expand and both parties need a reality check on what their purpose is.

Notice I don't hope that he fails on foreign relations, I would love for him to "win" and give states their rights back for issues like guns and gay marriage and marijuana and gambling, I hope that he wins issues like keeping kids in schools and think this latest nonsense about people pulling their kids from school to avoud hearing our President speak is our polarized country at it's worst.

Will a politican besides one the media ostracizes (like Ron Paul) come out and say this? It seems pretty hopeless but this is what the Republicans or Independents or even Democrats really need.

I will hope that policies don't get passed because I think they'll fail, but I don't think I'd ever root for our country to fail. I can't sit here and root for our economy to get worse and have more people lose jobs and livelihoods. Just seems like a morbid way to view things and a tad narcissistic.

[RainMaker]

For those who live in other countries, do the people there frequently vote against their best interests in elections? I always find it fascinating how many people in this country do and how much power special interests not only have over politicians, but constituents. I can't imagine there are other countries that are chanting corporate slogans at a political rally.

Considering how far we have fallen behind in a lot of categories (technology, health, etc), I'd be curious to see if we are the anamolly or if this is the norm.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

3.) Much stricter financial campaign limits - Again, in most Western countries, there's either low campaign spending limits (compared to the US) or everything is publically financed. Also, since in most cases, there's no "national election" in the way there is for POTUS in a lot of countries, there isn't one person or small group of persons to pay off.

If there was any single change I could make to the political system in this country, it would be this. Either extreme spending limits or publicly financed public elections so that it would be so much harder for special interests to buy in.

SI

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

If there was any single change I could make to the political system in this country, it would be this. Either extreme spending limits or publicly financed public elections so that it would be so much harder for special interests to buy in.

SI

I agree. Wouldn't this allow for other parties/people to run as well?

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

If there was any single change I could make to the political system in this country, it would be this. Either extreme spending limits or publicly financed public elections so that it would be so much harder for special interests to buy in.

SI

You need to get lobbiest out of Washington. Not sure of the best way to do it, but it needs to be done.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

You need to get lobbiest out of Washington. Not sure of the best way to do it, but it needs to be done.

One rule should be not allowing representatives to work for a lobbying firm for 10 years following their term.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

One rule should be not allowing representatives to work for a lobbying firm for 10 years following their term.

Isn't one of the issues now that the system has incentives to not register as a lobbyist so a lot of them are basically lobbyists in all but name and are not constrained by the rules?

SI