President Obama

[ravenshrike]

Hey US citizens! Compared to Bush, what has the Obama administration done differently in terms of policies? Namely

 

- Foreign policy

- Domestic policy

- Economic policy

- Security policy

- Social policy

 

And what changes would Romney in turn, if become elected, bring to these policies? I would like to get a better picture from actual americans instead of reading newsweek or the economist.

His administration committed an act of war against Mexico and he's covering for them using Executive Privilege, either legally if the white house was involved(In which case he's a lying sack of **** and Eric Holder committed perjury every time he opened his mouth in congress on the matter or illegally if they weren't(regarding the use of EP) in which case either Holder(Unlikely given his history in federal government as a fixer) is an utter incompetent and Obama is covering for him out of pity or friendship; or more likely Holder has dirt on Obama and has him over a barrel.

 

He's letting Bernanke pump billions of dollars into the economy (which is why the price of gold massively spiked a few days ago) which Bernanke is doing because Romney explicitly told him his neo-Keynesian loving ass is out.

 

He's utterly ignoring the conflict between China and Japan even though our forcible limiting of japan's military morally obligates the US to defend it and the islands in question were explicitly given to Japan through the same agreements that limited their military.

 

 

 

@ calax - Actually, that was the Log Cabin republicans who did that. In fact, Obama had his Justice department argue against it at the initial trial. The ONLY reason that Obama pushed for the repeal legislation was so that he didn't look like a ****ing tool to his own base if the judiciary ruled against him in appellate court. Which they in fact did but by then the legislative repeal had been passed.

Edited September 24, 2012 by ravenshrike

[Calax]

Raven... no. Just... no. not a single thing you've said has a gem of truth to it except, maybe, the China/Japan conflict, but even that is mostly being dealt with by them, and the Chinese wouldn't do anything that drastic because America would retaliate by killing trade, which would cause China's economy to collapse on itself.

 

As to the Don't Ask Don't Tell. The repeal happened while the Log Cabin-ers were in the courts, and the repeal is part of the entire basis for the democratic platform. It should also be pointed out that the Log Cabin supported McCain who had outright stated that he thought Don't Ask Don't Tell was a perfectly good thing and should stay in place lest our military become one massive gay orgy (ok, paraphrasing). Just because something else was happening parallel to what Obama was doing doesn't mean that something else gets the credit for what Obama did.

 

See also: The killing of Osama Bin Laden NOT being because of the torture of enemy combatants, and the bush policies surrounding that.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Fundie Christians have a very loud voice, but they are still a very small, uneducated, and ridiculous group.

 

As uneducated as the unemployed welfare recipients who leach off of taxpayer money?

 

Yes, and, in some cases, they are one-in-the-same.

[Hurlshort]

The one thing I know is don't trust the media. Both liberal and conservative sides are after ratings first and foremost. The radio is the worst, they really seem to just make up garbage regularly.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Hurlshot

[Calax]

Side note, apparently the guy from the Lybian embassy who played EvE online was a CIA AGENT because he went on the game rather than calling anyone.

 

According to glenn beck

[ravenshrike]

Raven... no. Just... no. not a single thing you've said has a gem of truth to it except, maybe, the China/Japan conflict, but even that is mostly being dealt with by them, and the Chinese wouldn't do anything that drastic because America would retaliate by killing trade, which would cause China's economy to collapse on itself.

 

As to the Don't Ask Don't Tell. The repeal happened while the Log Cabin-ers were in the courts, and the repeal is part of the entire basis for the democratic platform. It should also be pointed out that the Log Cabin supported McCain who had outright stated that he thought Don't Ask Don't Tell was a perfectly good thing and should stay in place lest our military become one massive gay orgy (ok, paraphrasing). Just because something else was happening parallel to what Obama was doing doesn't mean that something else gets the credit for what Obama did.

 

See also: The killing of Osama Bin Laden NOT being because of the torture of enemy combatants, and the bush policies surrounding that.

Please explain then, since nothing I've said has a grain of truth to it, exactly how I'm wrong. I'll start with an easy one. How is Obama's claim of EP legitimate if the White House was not involved in F&F. Which Obama EXPLICITLY stated to be the case and Holder backed him under oath IN CONGRESS.

 

 

And actually, the legislative repeal happened well after the initial trial while it was in the middle of the APPELLATE courts. As for the LCR backing McCain, that's because they think other issues like not adding 6 trillion to the debt in 4 years are more important than DADT.

 

 

 

Side note, apparently the guy from the Lybian embassy who played EvE online was a CIA AGENT because he went on the game rather than calling anyone.

 

According to glenn beck

 

Do you know the reason his brain came up with that one? Because he couldn't believe that the people at Foggy Bottom could be so ****ing stupid and irresponsible as to allow what happened in Benghazi to happen. Unfortunately for Mr. Beck, he is very, very wrong.

Edited September 24, 2012 by ravenshrike

[Meshugger]

Thanks for the rest of the answers, everyone! It seems like there's only one common trend, and that is that no one is really cheerful for Obama, neither is anyone really pro-Romney either. Is the election destined to become a snooze-fest?

[Calax]

Raven... no. Just... no. not a single thing you've said has a gem of truth to it except, maybe, the China/Japan conflict, but even that is mostly being dealt with by them, and the Chinese wouldn't do anything that drastic because America would retaliate by killing trade, which would cause China's economy to collapse on itself.

 

As to the Don't Ask Don't Tell. The repeal happened while the Log Cabin-ers were in the courts, and the repeal is part of the entire basis for the democratic platform. It should also be pointed out that the Log Cabin supported McCain who had outright stated that he thought Don't Ask Don't Tell was a perfectly good thing and should stay in place lest our military become one massive gay orgy (ok, paraphrasing). Just because something else was happening parallel to what Obama was doing doesn't mean that something else gets the credit for what Obama did.

 

See also: The killing of Osama Bin Laden NOT being because of the torture of enemy combatants, and the bush policies surrounding that.

Please explain then, since nothing I've said has a grain of truth to it, exactly how I'm wrong. I'll start with an easy one. How is Obama's claim of EP legitimate if the White House was not involved in F&F. Which Obama EXPLICITLY stated to be the case and Holder backed him under oath IN CONGRESS.

 

 

And actually, the legislative repeal happened well after the initial trial while it was in the middle of the APPELLATE courts. As for the LCR backing McCain, that's because they think other issues like not adding 6 trillion to the debt in 4 years are more important than DADT.

F&F was operated by the ATF, not by the Attorny General, or with the direct authorization of Obama. It was just one of five seperate operations carried out by the ATF in conjunction with the US attorneys in AZ.

 

And Obama was just following precedent set, for good or bad, by his predecessor in terms of Executive Privaledge... namely

The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch.

 

If Obama's use of executive privileged is invalid, so is the Uses by George Bush.

 

As to the 6 Trillion in debt, how can you necessairly blame that on Obama himself? He's trying to generate revenue for the federal government via taxes, which are the primary form of governmental revenue generation, but is consistantly blocked by republicans because they signed a piece of paper made up by a 6th grader. Everything that has been put foreward by his political opponents has been to CUT taxes, and cut back social spending, which means that people start loosing things that they need to survive because "CAPITALISM!"

 

Also he inherited two VERY expensive wars, that hadn't even been thought of to be paid for by the previous administration, a fundamentally broken economy, and a political landscape so split that he can't even try to compromise because to his opponents "Compromise" is another word for "Give us what we want no matter what".

 

It should also be pointed out that when GW hisself became President, he had the strongest Economy in recent history, and a massive surplus that would have paid the national debt in 20 years.

[ravenshrike]

Raven... no. Just... no. not a single thing you've said has a gem of truth to it except, maybe, the China/Japan conflict, but even that is mostly being dealt with by them, and the Chinese wouldn't do anything that drastic because America would retaliate by killing trade, which would cause China's economy to collapse on itself.

 

As to the Don't Ask Don't Tell. The repeal happened while the Log Cabin-ers were in the courts, and the repeal is part of the entire basis for the democratic platform. It should also be pointed out that the Log Cabin supported McCain who had outright stated that he thought Don't Ask Don't Tell was a perfectly good thing and should stay in place lest our military become one massive gay orgy (ok, paraphrasing). Just because something else was happening parallel to what Obama was doing doesn't mean that something else gets the credit for what Obama did.

 

See also: The killing of Osama Bin Laden NOT being because of the torture of enemy combatants, and the bush policies surrounding that.

Please explain then, since nothing I've said has a grain of truth to it, exactly how I'm wrong. I'll start with an easy one. How is Obama's claim of EP legitimate if the White House was not involved in F&F. Which Obama EXPLICITLY stated to be the case and Holder backed him under oath IN CONGRESS.

 

 

And actually, the legislative repeal happened well after the initial trial while it was in the middle of the APPELLATE courts. As for the LCR backing McCain, that's because they think other issues like not adding 6 trillion to the debt in 4 years are more important than DADT.

F&F was operated by the ATF, not by the Attorny General, or with the direct authorization of Obama. It was just one of five seperate operations carried out by the ATF in conjunction with the US attorneys in AZ.

 

And Obama was just following precedent set, for good or bad, by his predecessor in terms of Executive Privaledge... namely

The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch.

 

If Obama's use of executive privileged is invalid, so is the Uses by George Bush.

 

As to the 6 Trillion in debt, how can you necessairly blame that on Obama himself? He's trying to generate revenue for the federal government via taxes, which are the primary form of governmental revenue generation, but is consistantly blocked by republicans because they signed a piece of paper made up by a 6th grader. Everything that has been put foreward by his political opponents has been to CUT taxes, and cut back social spending, which means that people start loosing things that they need to survive because "CAPITALISM!"

 

Also he inherited two VERY expensive wars, that hadn't even been thought of to be paid for by the previous administration, a fundamentally broken economy, and a political landscape so split that he can't even try to compromise because to his opponents "Compromise" is another word for "Give us what we want no matter what".

 

It should also be pointed out that when GW hisself became President, he had the strongest Economy in recent history, and a massive surplus that would have paid the national debt in 20 years.

Jesus Titty****ing Christ. EVERY SINGLE ONE of Bush's EP claims involved white house communications in email, phone calls, and discussions. Possibly immoral of him to use EP for such, well, touching that argument is almost certainly a losing proposition. However none of his EP claims could be argued as INVALID as a matter of law. Care to guess what office isn't part of the White House? That would be the Justice Department. Of which Eric Holder is the head. So you now have a binary solution set. Either Obama was lying through his ****ing teeth when he said that he and the White House cabinet knew NOTHING about Fast and Furious in which case his claim of EP is valid and Eric Holder is guilty of perjury for claiming under oath before Congress that neither he or the White House had any knowledge of F&F operations; or his claim of EP is INVALID because there was no White House involvement and Obama as well as all the white house lawyers are completely ****ing incompetent. Well, there's also the Holder blackmailing Obama explanation.

 

As for your tax argument, anyone who has actually studied US tax patterns would know that the most you can consistently wring out of the economy no matter the purported tax rate is around 20% of GDP. And that's when you aren't artificially increasing GDP through massive government make work. Guess what the difference between current tax revenue as percent of GDP and that 20% number wouldn't cover? The 1.4 trillion deficits Obama has been pushing year in and year out while in office.

 

As for your expensive wars, while it's true that they were never in the Defense budget, they were accounted for in every year's total after the fact. It's not like the debt just appeared in Obama's 2009 budget numbers adding to his deficit totals. But just for ****s and giggles, let's remove the cost of the wars to date entirely from Obama's plate at around 1.3 trillion. You're still looking almost 5 trillion in debt added on Obama's watch so far.

 

As for the mythical Clinton surplus, well, that was always as real as a rainbow ****ting unicorn. First of all, there was never any actual surplus. It was projected surplus. And secondly, it was projected using numbers compiled prior to the dotcom crash. Pets.com anyone?

Edited September 24, 2012 by ravenshrike

[Malcador]

Side note, apparently the guy from the Lybian embassy who played EvE online was a CIA AGENT because he went on the game rather than calling anyone.

 

According to glenn beck

 

The name of the country is LIBYA. Geez. Also why does anyone listen to that former crackhead anyway ?

[Calax]

Side note, apparently the guy from the Lybian embassy who played EvE online was a CIA AGENT because he went on the game rather than calling anyone.

 

According to glenn beck

 

The name of the country is LIBYA. Geez. Also why does anyone listen to that former crackhead anyway ?

 

Because those who find Rush Limbaugh to be to centerist need somebody to fill their deluded heads.

 

As to captain insano above you...

 

Holder is still an advisor to the president, and while he might not be within the spirit of what you think that the Bush policy stated, he is certainly within the words of that.

 

On the taxes, in the 2010 tax season, the US collected 24% of the GDP as taxes. The only two nations that had lower collections vs the GDP were Chile, and Mexico.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/business/economy/slipping-behind-because-of-an-aversion-to-taxes.html

 

Under Clinton, who had a VERY strong economy, weather you want to admit it or not, we were taxed at about 30%. Under the Bush and Obama administrations, we've raised the amount of spending we do, due to war and other issues, while DROPPING the amount of income our government takes in. The Eurozone, which is doing fairly well right now, has tax rates that are significantly higher than us, even though their gdp and military spending are far lower. As an example, my roommate is norwegian, her father is a EXTREMELY well paid lawyer (as in he'd be a 1% in america) and he's taxed at 60% of his income, because when you get right down to the nitty gritty, people don't need 100 million dollars a year to survive. All that money will do is sit in a corner and accumulate so that some idiot can spend it all after daddy is done.

 

All that money that was "borrowed" to pump into our economy? We got it at a NEGATIVE interest rate. I'm sorry, but I still don't see how Obama is magically to blame for the debt, and by extension, the market crash in 2008, which started all this crap, when he can't even raise the revenue he needs to make the government run properly.

[ravenshrike]

The Eurozone, which is doing fairly well right now,

This is the point at which I quite literally fell out of my chair laughing. The fact that you think the Eurozone is doing fairly well is evidence that any conversation between us will go nowhere. As such, continuing to argue with you over anything related to economics is futile.

[Calax]

I was ignoring the greek issue

[ravenshrike]

I was ignoring the greek issue

Except it's not just the Greek issue. It's the Greek, Spanish, Irish, Portuguese, and Italian issue. Greece is merely the first domino to fall and there is a damned good chance that if it takes anyone with it the Euro collapses entirely. Even without that eventuality, the interlocking debt means that a run on one or two key banks will act as removing the keystone on an arch.

[PsychoYoshi]

Thanks for the rest of the answers, everyone! It seems like there's only one common trend, and that is that no one is really cheerful for Obama, neither is anyone really pro-Romney either. Is the election destined to become a snooze-fest?

 

Generally, yes. Most Americans are starting to wake up and realize that the two-party duopoly is completely counterproductive to pretty much everyones' goals other than corporate and government bureaucratic interests.

 

Unfortunately, most are still buying into the media's lie that this latest election is the Most Important Election Ever™ and the Wrong Side™ (whichever major party they like less) will screw up America more and make it more difficult for the Better Side™ to "fix" things.

 

The hurdle is persuading everyone to make the next logical step and refusing to continue to sustain the status quo.

[Calax]

I was ignoring the greek issue

Except it's not just the Greek issue. It's the Greek, Spanish, Irish, Portuguese, and Italian issue. Greece is merely the first domino to fall and there is a damned good chance that if it takes anyone with it the Euro collapses entirely. Even without that eventuality, the interlocking debt means that a run on one or two key banks will act as removing the keystone on an arch.

Still doesn't invalidate what I said about american tax rates.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Part of the reason the revenues are so low is because of the moronic temporary payroll tax cut that Obama pushed. They love their Social Security, just don't want to pay for it. Also, using a bankrupt country with a shrinking economy as a model for us, the guy who wrote your article has some balls.

[GuybrushWilco]

It does look like Obama is heading for a victory right now. He has been consistently polling ahead of Romney in every swing state, except for North Carolina. Even if the margins have been fairly slim, the fact that those slim margins have been in Obama's favor in nearly every swing state for a long time now, means it is most likely not a fluke. Also, Michigan was one of the major swing states until only a little less than a week ago, when it moved up to safe Obama. This means that come November 4th, Obama only needs to maintain all of his solid states, and win just a few of the swing states, whereas Romney has to somehow win almost every swing state in order to become president, which is highly unlikely. Of course we still have not gotten to the debates, which begin next month, but Obama has more charisma on camera, which will likely help him there.

 

Someone mentioned Obama ignoring the recent flare up between Japan and China, and I would say that it is partially true, but not completely fair. The US is obligated to protect Japan if its territory is military attacked by another country, which is not what has happened here (at least not yet). The US is not obligated to mediate disputes like this, although our military obligations mean that is probably in our interests that things proceed peacefully. Anyway, there is a lot of patriotic fervor over the issue on both sides, and so it would easy for anything he says to be taken and used by people who are being overly emotional, so it is actually a good idea to keep play this low key, and not make any bombastic statements in favor of Japan, as it could actually backfire in a big way. As for foreign policy, Obama has actually had a much different foreign policy than Bush, with his ending of our presence in Iraq, he has just been moving very slowly. Our national debt levels however, have increased very fast under his administration, which is a topic that he will need to address.

[Rostere]

Part of the reason the revenues are so low is because of the moronic temporary payroll tax cut that Obama pushed. They love their Social Security, just don't want to pay for it. Also, using a bankrupt country with a shrinking economy as a model for us, the guy who wrote your article has some balls.

 

Yes, to me it's looks like you need to raise taxes.

 

[ravenshrike]

Part of the reason the revenues are so low is because of the moronic temporary payroll tax cut that Obama pushed. They love their Social Security, just don't want to pay for it. Also, using a bankrupt country with a shrinking economy as a model for us, the guy who wrote your article has some balls.

 

Yes, to me it's looks like you need to raise taxes.

 

Ah projection charts. Always fun. What did Obama's projection chart of the economy with or without his intervention look like again? Not to mention that I have yet to see a single chart claiming tax cuts as lost revenue show any possible effect that lower taxes have on the economy, especially in the middle of an economic downturn.

 

Oh wait, your little color chart comes from the CBPP, an organization that both the NYT and Time magazine have characterized as left wing. Neo-Keynesian idiocy combined with social justice theories.

[PsychoYoshi]

The group that has the most to lose from the Bush cuts expiring are the group that already bears the highest relative overall tax burden--the upper middle class and the lower upper class who have high salaries, but need to work to maintain their status. Most of the super-rich won't be severely affected because most of their wealth comes from capital gains and other investments, not salaried income.

 

An alternate course of action would be to leave rates where they are, give or take a couple percentage points, but getting rid of most of the deductions that allow people to game the system, maybe preserving charitable giving. Another possibility would be to nuke it from orbit (it's the only way to be sure) and replace the system with something like the FairTax.

 

Cuts also need to accompany tax reform; other than the high tax rates, Europe's welfare states have only worked as long as they have because thanks to America, they need to spend comparatively little on their defensive budgets. Other than entitlements, the US needs to trim its defensive budget by about half, make more of the world responsible for policing its own regions, and get rid of agencies like DHS that exist to harrass its own citizens more than harrass terrorists.

 

The Big Three entitlements: Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare, also need a complete overhaul because the system as it's currently set up is a giant wealth vortex from the young to the old. Social Security at least is at least debatably moreorless revenue-neutral (assuming that we don't have politicians raiding it to "pay down" the debt--see Clinton's fake economic "miracle") and Medicaid is relatively small as far as federal programs go, but Medicare is a behemoth.

[Rostere]

Cuts also need to accompany tax reform; other than the high tax rates, Europe's welfare states have only worked as long as they have because thanks to America, they need to spend comparatively little on their defensive budgets.

 

This is the worst bull I've ever heard. I'm referring to the part about spending comparatively little on defence. Sweden used to have an entire internal arms industry, with among other things a nuclear programme which was terminated in 1968. I'm sure Scandinavia was protected from the USSR by the threat of American nuclear arms, however, that does not equal having a low defence budget.

[ravenshrike]

Cuts also need to accompany tax reform; other than the high tax rates, Europe's welfare states have only worked as long as they have because thanks to America, they need to spend comparatively little on their defensive budgets.

 

This is the worst bull I've ever heard. I'm referring to the part about spending comparatively little on defence. Sweden used to have an entire internal arms industry, with among other things a nuclear programme which was terminated in 1968. I'm sure Scandinavia was protected from the USSR by the threat of American nuclear arms, however, that does not equal having a low defence budget.

Sweden was always defended by Finland in the modern area anyway. Let's face it, the Finns are ****ing badass. The last time the Swedes were badass, Gustav Adolf Rex Sueciae was on the throne.

[Rostere]

Cuts also need to accompany tax reform; other than the high tax rates, Europe's welfare states have only worked as long as they have because thanks to America, they need to spend comparatively little on their defensive budgets.

 

This is the worst bull I've ever heard. I'm referring to the part about spending comparatively little on defence. Sweden used to have an entire internal arms industry, with among other things a nuclear programme which was terminated in 1968. I'm sure Scandinavia was protected from the USSR by the threat of American nuclear arms, however, that does not equal having a low defence budget.

Sweden was always defended by Finland in the modern area anyway. Let's face it, the Finns are ****ing badass. The last time the Swedes were badass, Gustav Adolf Rex Sueciae was on the throne.

I think that Soviet plans said that entire Scandinavia should just be nuked, because it lacked strategical significance and airports in Sweden (and definitely Norway) could be used by American aircraft. So there wouldn't really be a war, just a nuclear holocaust. Honestly I can't understand all the investments into artillery and tanks, there would have been nothing left to fight for after the nukes fell.

[Gfted1]

But nukes were always a weapon of last resort, you cant use them first without everyone else nuking the hell out of you. I believe it was in the US doctrine to use nukes as a last resort if / when the Soviets overran the Fulda Gap.