The Official Barack Obama Thread (rock, single, American, effect)

[sleepy jack]

What are you talking about? He's been reversing Bush policies (in regards to abortion law, stem cell research, etc), has an exit strategy for Iraq, and is dealing with the economic crisis. What do you want him to do? Not try and inspire a sense of optimism and hope for consumers? If he doesn't do that then there's no point trying to revitalize the American economy.

[Surell]

Originally Posted by RezZ

Well I have been watching Obama spout out the same presidential bull**** rhetoric all day. It never changes, just ell the public what they want to hear. Ahhhh, enough news for today.

Maybe you watched a slow day of news?

[joyboyo53]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

What are you talking about? He's been reversing Bush policies (in regards to abortion law, stem cell research, etc), has an exit strategy for Iraq, and is dealing with the economic crisis. What do you want him to do? Not try and inspire a sense of optimism and hope for consumers? If he doesn't do that then there's no point trying to revitalize the American economy.

how about live up to the "transparency" that he promised, or refuse the swine laced legislation that will shortly be laid on his desk because he made a promise to the american people... no no we know our savior barrack couldnt possibly do a damn thing wrong now could he ethan?

we know hes got a lot on his plate, but really i too have been slightly underwhelemed. everyone he has surrounded himself with so far has turned out to be a complete failure. nancy killefer and ron kirk both owned taxes, sanjay gupta just stepped down as surgeon general, and there is vegas odds on how fast timothy geithner is gonna be out on his ass. maybe you should double check your facts about obamas foreign policy... might i suggest

Ron Paul: Obama Foreign Policy Identical To Bush

-
In reality, after the “withdrawal” of U.S. troops in 19 months, “Mr. Obama plans to leave behind a “residual force” of tens of thousands of troops to continue training Iraqi security forces, hunt down foreign terrorist cells and guard American institutions,”
-

edit - sorry i couldnt help but post this http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19884.html

[sleepy jack]

First off Hannity, he isn't my savior. Secondly the fundamental problem with that article and Ron Paul's opinion is quite simple: Obama was never the peace candidate. He's repeatedly said he'd go into Pakistan if he had to get Bin Laden there, that all options were on the table for Iran and he would expand the war in Afghanistan, which was a UN sanctioned and justified War. He only said he would draw up an escape plan for Iraq, something McCain, Bush and the Republican party said was "throwing up the white flag of surrender." America is an empire, a Democracy was forced in Iraq and it won't be a stable Democracy just a puppet government. No politician except for a few extremists want to end the American empire; that's reality. You can choose to look at Libertarian websites and fume in anger over how disagreeable that is but it's reality. America will never have a pacifist (or isolationist in the case of Ron Paul) President.

As far as that transparency he promised look at this: Recovery.gov All the money which is going to benefit American communities and infrastructure, not private banks and industry, can be tracked. That's the very definition of transparency. Most economists, bar laissez-faire nuts like Ron Paul, agree that a stimulus package is necessary. Most are saying it isn't enough money unless it's all spent in the next thirty days; which is impossible. A stimulus package is necessary.

[joyboyo53]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

First off Hannity, he isn't my savior. Secondly the fundamental problem with that article and Ron Paul's opinion is quite simple: Obama was never the peace candidate. He's repeatedly said he'd go into Pakistan if he had to get Bin Laden there, that all options were on the table for Iran and he would expand the war in Afghanistan, which was a UN sanctioned and justified War. He only said he'd have an escape plan for Iraq, something McCain and the Republican party said was "throwing up the white flag of surrender." American is an empire, a Democracy was forced in Iraq and it won't be a stable Democracy just a puppet government. No mainstream politician wants to end the American empire; that's reality.

As far as that transparency he promised look at this: Recovery.gov All the money which is going to benefit American communities and infrastructure, not private banks and industry, can be tracked. That's the very definition of transparency. Most economists, bar laissez-faire nuts like Ron Paul, agree that a stimulus package is necessary. Most are saying it isn't enough money unless it's all spent in the next thirty days; which is impossible. A stimulus package is necessary.

most are saying? most who? all the keynesian economists and their drones who believe the world will fall apart if something doesnt happen by tomorrow morning. remember 'quick the banks need $750 billion dollars no question asked.... dont bother considering the fact that i was a previous ceo of one of those banks.' who created the bubble in the first place? how about letting the market adjust itself properly instead of prolonging the recession with **** monitary policies.

transparency? so where exactly is all the money in the fed going and coming from? listen chris matthews, once you get done reading your daily dose of huffingtonpost and che guevara's biography, try and argue the relevancy of taking money we dont have to pay for busdrivers who purchase $800k homes in califonia and suprisingly cant make the payments (you saw it on cnn, i couldnt make that **** up). ponzi scheme much? people need to learn to be responsible for their own actions (and investments!), relying on the government for everything is gonna get you about as far as russia or venezuela.

now before you go calling me another neonazi conservative radiohost, understand that i supported obamas campaign over mccains (i didnt vote for either of them). i am glad he is the one of the two in office. i hope you learn to look at situations objectively ethan, it will give you a renewed sense of freedom in life. instead of blindly backing any democratic ideal, youd be better off using your better judgement... i know you have one. when you label yourself as a democrat or republican all it really means is that your close minded. it says nothing about what you actually believe in, only what you wont believe in... the truth

[sleepy jack]

It was the Bush Administration (mostly Henry Paulson) and Wall Street executives urging Congress to pass the bill quickly; not Keynesian economists. Keynesian economists wouldn't have supported handing a blank check over to Wall Street they would've demanded government regulation, something Paulson didn't want and was adamant on not having. If there had been regulation the banks would have been forced to start lending and getting rid of the bad debt and we wouldn't be in a mess nearly as bad a one were in now.

I however never supported any form of bail out. The industries either should've gone into chapter eleven...which would have been very damaging to the economy but ultimately for the best considering what happened. What would have been better and preferable to me though if is they'd undergone temporary nationalization, until they were economically viable again. I also would've like to see a Glass-Steagall type act put back in place after these companies had been reorganized and the debt issues solved. If that act had never been repealed in the first place the financial industry wouldn't have crashed the way it did.

http://www.4ibew.com/2009/02/04/econ...ge-needed-now/
Economists Agree Time Is of the Essence for Stimulus - washingtonpost.com

Also our market place is far closer to Keynes than the Austrian School. So trashing Keynesian economists and praising Ron Paul is a bit silly...seeing as one of those groups is operating within the actual economic structure as opposed to a Libertarian fantasy land. I wouldn't want to live in a country where they experimented with the Austrian school economics. If we' done that all economic activity would come to an absolute halt. A lassiez-faire economic system isn't the solution. Adam Smith's unseen hand doesn't exist as manufacturers were able to rig the market place and monopolies were created. Smith himself even warned about this but offered no solution. These kind of economic systems drift towards bigness and fewness and class systems become an inheritance. So basically you have the poor kids going to poor schools (if their parents can afford since a system like this privatizes everything including schools) and the rich kids going off to the best schools in the country meaning they inherit not only their parents extreme amount of monopolized wealth, but also the government because they're the smart and rich ones and they're able to get elected. Extremist capitalism ultimately leads to an Oligarchy and there's no way to defeat that except without some sort of Marxist revolution which would lead to another imperfect extreme political philosophy: Communism.

It's also worth noting, while there are many many many individuals to blame for the bubble - Clinton and Bush's administration, the Congress throughout the 90s and 2000s and Barney Frank's complacency - the man at the forefront of it all, Alan Greenspan, was a Randist who spent his years as Chairman of the Federal Reserve deregulating and getting government out of the way...which is exactly what Ron Paul is proposing.

If you want to know where the money is going visit here Recovery.gov and read about the package or listen to some of Obama's speech on it. It isn't a secret. As for where it's coming from that's also not a secret. There are four kinds of bonds (treasury bonds, treasury notes, treasury bills and treasury inflation protected securities.) These are all traded on secondary markets. Which basically means whoever the United States sells the debt to first will move it around for short term gain then sell it to a country already making money off US debt (countries like China, Japan or the United Kingdom.)

What the hope is with this stimulus package is, by putting and saving millions of American jobs, more money will continue to go into the market (this coupled with the tax cuts and tax increases on the rich shifting the burden back onto the wealthiest Americans) and the American economy will continue to prosper and then the debts can then be turned around and paid off. This isn't some secret under the table dealing with China or anything, it's a fairly straightforward system that is beneficial to both parties. We get the short term economic gain (in other words stimulus) to put us on a road to prosperity and in the long run the countries which lent to us get paid off and then some. The bonds are beneficial to the countries as well, China regulates their currency with treasury securities.

I haven't heard the bus driver story but if it's anything like I imagine it is then yes, he is too blame for simple stupidity but so are the banks (I imagine this money for the house was lent to him? If they didn't this kind of situation is still applicable to the amount of people struggling with mortgage payments.) It's not like the banks sat back and said "hey this is stupid, you'll never be able to pay for this house" instead they offered all their fucked up subprimesuperloans and told these people they could afford these things. To your average, uneducated and ignorant American, this sounds great. The American Disease breeds this sort of mindset that we all need a house and we all need this sort of lifestyle that we can't afford, particularly with the extreme wealth difference in this country.

The top 5% controls over 90% of the wealth and they're reaping all the benefits of the overall GDP. Ralph Nader has said we have a Welfare system for the rich and we do. Most people didn't listen to Nader, and to a lesser extent John Kerry though. We're in two wars right now and we're still operating under Bush tax cuts? This is a problem, especially when these tax cuts are for the wealth and corporations meaning they can afford to continue to hyperinflate the bubble and convince your average citizen to take out all these home equity loans and pay for things with credit cards. These people don't pay attention to the national debt clock and to them they thought they were getting richer, despite the fact the middle class was slowly slipping below the poverty line (which is something that is very disconcerting. A country can't lose it's middle class, Aristotle realized this first as being vital to a nation's well being and everyone from Adam Smith to Karl Marx agrees, though Marx would've stressed complete income equality as a solution but the point is a middle class is vital.) This is what happens when you create an economic bubble though, everyone has a wealth effect and doesn't realize it until the bubble ops that it was only an effect. It is going to take drastic policy shifts, and money, to get out of this this post-bubble-explosion economy were in. The solution isn't just letting things go though; we don't need another Robber Barons era in America.

I called you Hannity because of your constant insistence that I consider Obama to be some sort of Messiah; I don't. I didn't support him in the primaries until it came down to a race between Clinton and him. What's funny about this whole thing is you're attacking me for being a close-minded Democrat and getting off an independent high horse yet I'm not a Democrat. Since you're talking about political objectivity though I have some advice for you as well. Maybe you should take a look at your own posts and realize the ironies in it. Blind allegiance to a third party philosophy isn't any better than blind allegiance to one of the major two parties. Look at your own sources; a Libertarian website and Ron Paul. They're both uncompromising ideological and with an agenda, not exactly objective is it?

To clear this up, on fiscal matters I agree with the Democratic party more than I agree with the Republican party. However I'm in favor of a Social Democracy but I'm realistic enough to realize that won't ever happen. I'm not completely opposed to the idea of a free market, as long as it's very heavily regulated to avoid corruption and to protect citizens. In general though I feel the free market is unfair. Socially I'd consider myself a Libertarian, but I would be in favor of outlawing the production certain drugs (not the harmless ones, I'm talking heroin. I'm against it on principle the same way I'm against prescription pills that do nothing but take years off your life or ruin your body.) If I had to really describe myself though, bar the term blank-term independent, I'd say I was a Pragmatic Leftist.

[johne]

@sleepy jack

[joyboyo53]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

It was the Bush Administration (mostly Henry Paulson) and Wall Street executives urging Congress to pass the bill quickly; not Keynesian economists. Keynesian economists wouldn't have supported handing a blank check over to Wall Street they would've demanded government regulation, something Paulson didn't want and was adamant on not having. If there had been regulation the banks would have been forced to start lending and getting rid of the bad debt and we wouldn't be in a mess nearly as bad a one were in now.

thats interesting, because i am pretty sure henry paulson is invested heavily into the idea of keynesian economics. how else do you propose paying for such a bill? we already have an agenda with the rougly 3 trillion dollars federal budget, where do you think that money comes from? obviously he has an alterior motive, and doesnt want the banks to have regulation with the money, but dont act like it isnt a keynesian at work.

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

I however never supported any form of bail out. The industries either should've gone into chapter eleven...which would have been very damaging to the economy but ultimately for the best considering what happened. What would have been better and preferable to me though if is they'd undergone temporary nationalization, until they were economically viable again. I also would've like to see a Glass-Steagall type act put back in place after these companies had been reorganized and the debt issues solved. If that act had never been repealed in the first place the financial industry wouldn't have crashed the way it did.

Also our market place is far closer to Keynes than the Austrian School. So trashing Keynesian economists and praising Ron Paul is a bit silly...seeing as one of those groups is operating within the actual economic structure as opposed to a Libertarian fantasy land. I wouldn't want to live in a country where they experimented with the Austrian school economics. If we' done that all economic activity would come to an absolute halt. A lassiez-faire economic system isn't the solution. Adam Smith's unseen hand doesn't exist as manufacturers were able to rig the market place and monopolies were created. Smith himself even warned about this but offered no solution. These kind of economic systems drift towards bigness and fewness and class systems become an inheritance. So basically you have the poor kids going to poor schools (if their parents can afford since a system like this privatizes everything including schools) and the rich kids going off to the best schools in the country meaning they inherit not only their parents extreme amount of monopolized wealth, but also the government because they're the smart and rich ones and they're able to get elected. Extremist capitalism ultimately leads to an Oligarchy and there's no way to defeat that except without some sort of Marxist revolution which would lead to another imperfect extreme political philosophy: Communism.

i praise ron paul as an individual, not as a idealist. i dont think that getting rid of the fed is a feasible idea based on how large our economy is, it would be a mess with too much on the line. regardless, it appears all economic activity has come to a halt, austrian economics or not. you pretend that government is any better about keeping monopolies from existing. you make it out to be with the lassiez-faire system the country would be this awful place where the poor have nothing and the rich have everything. scroll down to the part of your post where you say '5% of the current population owns 90% of the wealth'... sound familiar? maybe you havent been to an inner city public school but if you think that they have some kind of equality going on, your crazy.

[joyboyo53]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

It's also worth noting, while there are many many many individuals to blame for the bubble - Clinton and Bush's administration, the Congress throughout the 90s and 2000s and Barney Frank's complacency - the man at the forefront of it all, Alan Greenspan, was a Randist who spent his years as Chairman of the Federal Reserve deregulating and getting government out of the way...which is exactly what Ron Paul is proposing.

ya, 100% regulation is the way to go. talk about a way to bring economic activity to a halt.

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

If you want to know where the money is going visit here Recovery.gov and read about the package or listen to some of Obama's speech on it. It isn't a secret. As for where it's coming from that's also not a secret. There are four kinds of bonds (treasury bonds, treasury notes, treasury bills and treasury inflation protected securities.) These are all traded on secondary markets. Which basically means whoever the United States sells the debt to first will move it around for short term gain then sell it to a country already making money off US debt (countries like China, Japan or the United Kingdom.)

What the hope is with this stimulus package is, by putting and saving millions of American jobs, more money will continue to go into the market (this coupled with the tax cuts and tax increases on the rich shifting the burden back onto the wealthiest Americans) and the American economy will continue to prosper and then the debts can then be turned around and paid off. This isn't some secret under the table dealing with China or anything, it's a fairly straightforward system that is beneficial to both parties. We get the short term economic gain (in other words stimulus) to put us on a road to prosperity and in the long run the countries which lent to us get paid off and then some. The bonds are beneficial to the countries as well, China regulates their currency with treasury securities.

ideally it sounds great. you borrow money and make some more with it, then pay it back and keep the profits. the only problem is it never is paid back. maybe you didnt notice that we had a 3 trillion dollar debt (now around 11 trillion) before this... thats after the bull market of the 90s. you see we never actually intend to pay our debt off, we just always keep borrowing. its easy to pretend like america will be the best investment forever, but its just not the case. so either in our lifetime, or our childrens, if china/brazil/whoever becomes a better investment in the long run.... goodbye usa. you see essentially we have chopped up and sold off our country. imagine what would happen to the economy right now if china and japan decided it was gonna move their assets to russia or the UK. the country would crumble.

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

I haven't heard the bus driver story but if it's anything like I imagine it is then yes, he is too blame for simple stupidity but so are the banks (I imagine this money for the house was lent to him? If they didn't this kind of situation is still applicable to the amount of people struggling with mortgage payments.) It's not like the banks sat back and said "hey this is stupid, you'll never be able to pay for this house" instead they offered all their fucked up subprimesuperloans and told these people they could afford these things. To your average, uneducated and ignorant American, this sounds great. The American Disease breeds this sort of mindset that we all need a house and we all need this sort of lifestyle that we can't afford, particularly with the extreme wealth difference in this country.

the banks are not really responsible. it is essentially the same as saying that you decided to skip the manual on your new power tool, and when you cut your finger off its the companies fault. just because you dont understand something or didnt take the time to, doesnt make it the other persons fault. the bank didnt put a gun to their head and make them sign their name on the bottom that says they are responsible. im not gonna say the banks were being good samaritans, but they arnt really responsible for homeowners who cant pay their mortgages. BUYER BEWARE.

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

The top 5% controls over 90% of the wealth and they're reaping all the benefits of the overall GDP. Ralph Nader has said we have a Welfare system for the rich and we do. Most people didn't listen to Nader, and to a lesser extent John Kerry though. We're in two wars right now and we're still operating under Bush tax cuts? This is a problem, especially when these tax cuts are for the wealth and corporations meaning they can afford to continue to hyperinflate the bubble and convince your average citizen to take out all these home equity loans and pay for things with credit cards. These people don't pay attention to the national debt clock and to them they thought they were getting richer, despite the fact the middle class was slowly slipping below the poverty line (which is something that is very disconcerting. A country can't lose it's middle class, Aristotle realized this first as being vital to a nation's well being and everyone from Adam Smith to Karl Marx agrees, though Marx would've stressed complete income equality as a solution but the point is a middle class is vital.) This is what happens when you create an economic bubble though, everyone has a wealth effect and doesn't realize it until the bubble ops that it was only an effect. It is going to take drastic policy shifts, and money, to get out of this this post-bubble-explosion economy were in. The solution isn't just letting things go though; we don't need another Robber Barons era in America.

you said it yourself... we are far closer to a keynesian economy, one that likes to make sure that national debt clock keeps running and we somehow ended up with 5% of the population owning 90% of the wealth. i agree this is terrible, i agree the rich should be taxed at a much higher tax rate, i agree without a middle class a country is lost. however, throwing a bunch of borrowed money at failed companies, and expanding the government and their power is NOT the answer. government money ends up feeding the same people who own 90% of the wealth. government is just as corrupt as private business, they just kiss more babys while doing it.

[joyboyo53]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

I called you Hannity because of your constant insistence that I consider Obama to be some sort of Messiah; I don't. I didn't support him in the primaries until it came down to a race between Clinton and him. What's funny about this whole thing is you're attacking me for being a close-minded Democrat and getting off an independent high horse yet I'm not a Democrat. Since you're talking about political objectivity though I have some advice for you as well. Maybe you should take a look at your own posts and realize the ironies in it. Blind allegiance to a third party philosophy isn't any better than blind allegiance to one of the major two parties. Look at your own sources; a Libertarian website and Ron Paul. They're both uncompromising ideological and with an agenda, not exactly objective is it?

i dont believe in a third party, and i didnt vote for ron paul. my views do happen to be closer to that of a libetarian than any other party, but it doesnt mean i consider myself one. i believe the rich should be taxed more heavily, i believe some regulation is a good thing, i believe the UN is a good thing, not exactly very libertarian views. what i do strongly believe if the philosiphy of self responsiblity. i dont think it should be the government (the peoples) responsiblity to pay for mortgages people took that they couldnt afford, i dont think because octomom has 16 kids and no job my tax dollars should be used to pay for her irresponsible decisions, i dont believe that its my responsiblity to pay health care for people who suck down soda pops and cheeseburgers all day. if these people excercised a little self responsiblity, they wouldnt have the above said problems, but who needs to be responsble when we can just rely on the government to whipe our asses? the reason i posted that article, was because it related directly to the "promise" of obama pulling out of iraq. his promise is one on paper, whereas it mentions he wants to leave behind tens of thousands. its just another lie. not because i surf libetarian media sites (i honestly dont even know of one), i mostly read cnn, bbc, and wherever digg takes me.

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

To clear this up, on fiscal matters I agree with the Democratic party more than I agree with the Republican party. However I'm in favor of a Social Democracy but I'm realistic enough to realize that won't ever happen. I'm not completely opposed to the idea of a free market, as long as it's very heavily regulated to avoid corruption and to protect citizens. In general though I feel the free market is unfair. Socially I'd consider myself a libertarian, but I would be in favor of outlawing the production certain drugs (not the harmless ones, I'm talking heroin. I'm against it on principle the same way I'm against prescription pills that do nothing but take years off your life or ruin your body.) If I had to really describe myself though, bar the term blank-term independent, I'd say I was a Pragmatic Leftist.

corruption is inherrent period. its easy to point to the free market capitalist who find loopholes in the rules book, but the government is no different (they just change the rules to benefit who they see fit).

how is the free market unfair? there is literally throngs of people who come from foreign countries with a few dollars and a t-shirt and make millions here. the free market is what drove america from a colonial state to the world super power in less than 300 years. i guess you could argue that communism\socialism is fair... however if you have ever met anyone from a communist or socialist country, they tend to disagree. you see i work almost exclusively with international clients and coworkers (china, russia, romania, azurbaijan, venezuela, etc) and so you can imagine this becomes a topic of discussion. they tell me about growing up and how they are told not to worry about anything because 'the state will provide' for them. it creates a system of dependancy where they have no reason to strive for excellence because there is no reward, and if you believe those countries exist with less corruption than the free market then you are in denial.

Political corruption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a libetarian socially is very similar to that of a democrat. although they may disapprove of being called "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" essentially they are. so in essence you are a democrat, but i will give you the benefit of the doubt pragmatic leftist... you know yourself better than i.



edit - sorry for the triple post but it wouldnt all fit in one post it was too long. seriously ethan i enjoy debating with you, but if you want me to respond again please focus on fewer topics, its a combination of not enough time and not enough will. i also want you to know i dont completly disagree with everything you say, and although i may come off a bit rude\harsh it really is just what comes out of people (at least me) when they banter.