What good has Obama done for the U.S.A.?

[EasyEJL]

I actually thought in NJ and most northern states that there really is no rasicsm, here in NC, well that speaks for itself, rasicsm is NC, everywhere u go its present.
And when i say Rasicsm i mean on both parts. Blacks towards whites, white towards blacks.

Nah, you are wrong, there is no less racism in the northeast, they just hide it better. It was something I noticed that was funny having grown up in NJ till I was 21 then moving to Florida. There wasn't any less racism in NJ, just it was quieter, more hidden, more subtly expressed. It wasn't "we're not hiring him cause he's black" its "he doesn't seem to have the same qualifications as other applicants". There was always something, but you could tell it was just racism painted nicely.

dude i see racism towards white people here in northern nj..... im from morris county where were u at

Just wait, in 30 years white people will be the minority and you'll be safe to be racist towards hispanics.

 

[Conagher]

dude i see racism towards white people here in northern nj..... im from morris county w
here were u at

It definitely cuts both ways.I never had a problem with black people until about 6 years ago.We had a large influx of the refugees from Katrina,and I have to say these people are nothing but trash.
Anyway,I voted for Obama.I bought into the whole hope and change mantra.Needless to say,I am very disappointed.Always had a lot of respect for McCain until he started pandering during the last election.Also could not stand Sarah Palin.

 

[seccsi]

I'm sorry but you are sooooooo far off the mark here. He was elected because he was black. Period. A white man with the same upbringing, education and experience as he had would never have made it through the primaries.

And none of my criticisms of him are based on skin color, i'm about as non-racist as it gets. His poilicies and ideals are crazy, as well as the people he associated with and considers his mentors.

He was elected because people thought he could fix the economy more than John McCain. Period flat. When the economy tanked you knew Obama was going to win. People trusted him more than McCain on the economy, and the other issues disappeared. I really don't know how you can say he was elected solely because he was black. I just don't know what you're basing that on. He carried almost all the black vote naturally, but he also probably had a lot of people not vote for him because of his race. And the amount of voting blacks (though increased in the last election) is still pretty low. I just think it's disingenuous to say he only won because he was black. He was extremely popular and well liked I'd say despite his race, not because of it. It's not like he was the first black candidate.

 

[EasyEJL]

He was elected because people thought he could fix the economy more than John McCain. Period flat. When the economy tanked you knew Obama was going to win. People trusted him more than McCain on the economy, and the other issues disappeared. I really don't know how you can say he was elected solely because he was black. I just don't know what you're basing that on. He carried almost all the black vote naturally, but he also probably had a lot of people not vote for him because of his race. And the amount of voting blacks (though increased in the last election) is still pretty low. I just think it's disingenuous to say he only won because he was black. He was extremely popular and well liked I'd say despite his race, not because of it. It's not like he was the first black candidate.

reread what I wrote. The democrat was going to win, regardless of who or what it was. The mainstream democrat dominated media did a great job of "4 more years" painting on McCain (comically thats what they got with Obama anyhow). He only won in the primaries because he was black, a white man with the same qualifications (none) and experience (none) and track record (none) would never have beaten Hillary in the primaries.

 

[seccsi]

I dunno, he's created more debt than any other president. He used the money we took on in debt to buy banks, buy General Motors and other assorted socialist/communist things which congress isn't authorized to do. He's changing the definition of rights - in the constitution + bill of rights if you read it the rights are rights against government intrusion in. Now with Obama more has been done to define rights as things the government owes you. He's also been the most adept at making statements that make himself sound like he is compromising and working with republicans while the whole time knowing the democrats in congress won't vote for it and he can pull some minor excuse out of his ass as to what they changed.

And the very very very worst thing is that he will not veto the whole "super congress" nonsense that is being added into the bills for the debt ceiling. It suddenly throws out our constitution entirely, makes the rank and file of congress useless, and puts all the power into 12 mens hands.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/25/super-congress-debt_n_909018.html?1311626737

The he created more debt argument is a little misleading as most all of our modern presidents have created more debt than their predecessors. It isn't as if Bush 2 and Reagan didn't create a massive amount of debt either. Inflation, interest rates, etc have all naturally risen. This isn't to defend Obama's fiscal practices because I have hated most of them, but the he has more debt argument is not really strong.

And you need to do some research on the initial bailouts. The GM bailouts were much smaller than the tarp bailouts under Bush 2. And it WAS Bush 2 (and Hank Paulson his treasury secretary) who pushed for those bailouts. Congress initially rejected them, the stock market tanked, and Bush/Paulson said we have to pass this now. Bush/Paulson were pushing for those bailouts from the beginning.

As I previously said, my biggest issue with Obama is he has continued the freedoms we lost under GWB and hasn't changed a lot of the things he said he would upon getting elected. I never thought he'd be a fiscal conservative, as he never ran to be one. But I did think he would give us back some social liberties. That just hasn't been the case and has been my biggest beef with him.

 

[seccsi]

reread what I wrote. The democrat was going to win, regardless of who or what it was. The mainstream democrat dominated media did a great job of "4 more years" painting on McCain (comically thats what they got with Obama anyhow). He only won in the primaries because he was black, a white man with the same qualifications (none) and experience (none) and track record (none) would never have beaten Hillary in the primaries.

I'm not sure. A Democrat was going to win yes regardless completely agree. Hilary had plenty of detractors (and she was a woman which just like a black person some people didn't want a woman), but I still don't think Obama carried it solely because he was black. I think if Obama was white and ran the same campaign he would have beaten Hilary, but neither of us can be correct so I'll leave this argument now

 

[seccsi]

To clarify Easy on the debt thing I'll just say this: It's EXTREMELY likely that any Republican (or Democrat) elected under the same circumstances as Obama would have created the most debt in history. Both sides would have tried some type of stimulus (like Bush 2 did), both sides would have continued at least the Afghanistan war, and I think both sides would have done the auto bailouts. And this is why I hate both sides. Now I might give you Obama would spend more than say if we elected McCain at this point, but I'd say it's pretty likely generic Republican would have done a lot of the same things Obama has done so far. (Minus healthcare)

 

[EasyEJL]

To clarify Easy on the debt thing I'll just say this: It's EXTREMELY likely that any Republican (or Democrat) elected under the same circumstances as Obama would have created the most debt in history. Both sides would have tried some type of stimulus (like Bush 2 did), both sides would have continued at least the Afghanistan war, and I think both sides would have done the auto bailouts. And this is why I hate both sides. Now I might give you Obama would spend more than say if we elected McCain at this point, but I'd say it's pretty likely generic Republican would have done a lot of the same things Obama has done so far. (Minus healthcare)

You are probably right, but the "minus healthcare" is huge. Its another entitlement that will break our government. The only way the cost doesn't go up too terribly even in the most recent report (out today) will be met is if congress allows the 30% cut in payments to doctors to actually happen. Its been supposed to be happening every year, and every year congress votes to delay the cuts. You can't treat 15% extra people for the same cost you as currently treat people for. The math isn't there, there is no economy of scale as the US government is the most wasteful spender with least control and concern over where money goes. So he created a new mess like social security, medicare, etc that will just help in bankrupting the country even sooner.

 

[seccsi]

You are probably right, but the "minus healthcare" is huge. Its another entitlement that will break our government. The only way the cost doesn't go up too terribly even in the most recent report (out today) will be met is if congress allows the 30% cut in payments to doctors to actually happen. Its been supposed to be happening every year, and every year congress votes to delay the cuts. You can't treat 15% extra people for the same cost you as currently treat people for. The math isn't there, there is no economy of scale as the US government is the most wasteful spender with least control and concern over where money goes. So he created a new mess like social security, medicare, etc that will just help in bankrupting the country even sooner.

Agree to an extent. A lot of what was in the healthcare bill was stuff Republicans had initially wanted (and then opposed because of who it was coming from). So I'm not even 100% sold that a Republican President wouldn't have passed something similar to the healthcare bill. If you really followed the process closely a lot of what was in the healthcare bill (not everything) was ideas previously wanted by Republicans.

Both sides are such snakes and will say anything to get elected. They are the same beast, just acting as if they are so different because they know that's what gets them in office and keeps them in

 

[ax1]

Im still waiting for the man to produce a authentic birth certificate instead of this multiilayered counterfeit you can download directly from the whitehouse and split up using a basic photoshop program.

 

[Conagher]

Im still waiting for the man to produce a authentic birth certificate instead of this multiilayered counterfeit you can download directly from the whitehouse and split up using a basic photoshop program.

It is odd that he did not produce a birth certificate until Trump started talking about fronting million dollar investigations into the matter.

 

[ax1]

It is odd that he did not produce a birth certificate until Trump started talking about fronting million dollar investigations into the matter.

Trump conspired with pro Obama NBC to bring the issue up in order to squash what mainstream considers "conspiracy theorists" which is a easy way to discredit people and dodging the issues and facts. Trump is a phony, he acted like he will have all these pro's look at it to confirm it yet the document is blatantly a in house creation. Obama released it and thats it, story over lets move on, there is no reason to question anything including the fact you can split it into multiple layers.

I wont even get into the other flaws and forgeries with the document at the very moment, unless people start pushing me to do so.

 

[seccsi]

I'll bite. Admittedly ax this is another one of those conspiracy theory type things that I don't ever care to do a lot of research into, but this seems to go through things pretty clearly...and I love the site BTW

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

 

[ax1]

I'll bite. Admittedly ax this is another one of those conspiracy theory type things that I don't ever care to do a lot of research into, but this seems to go through things pretty clearly...and I love the site BTW

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Why do you think that downloading directly from the white house Obama's Birth certificate and finding out the document from the 60's and finding out its easily split into multiple layers a conspiracy theory? Doesn't that raise questions to its legitimacy?

The link you provided doesn't even touch on this initial issue. There are many other issues with the birth certificate I havent even touched on that your link doesnt cover.

 

[ax1]

Here is a very detailed demonstration on how you can download the birth certificate directly from the whitehouse and prove its a forged photo-shopped document.

 

[seccsi]

Ax: You can also find detailed youtube explanations going against what you posted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcWQw2AAIho

I'll be honest I haven't watched this nor have I watched yours. It just isn't interesting to me nor something I really care about. For about everything conspiracy type theory anyone finds you can find other stuff arguing the opposite. I don't have the time/energy to look into it all. I really don't care. The birth certificate story (right or wrong) has largely been put to bed and me spending hours looking into it isn't going to change that.

I know I've said it before, but discussing conspiracy theory type things isn't really my cup of tea. I'm more interested in you updating your damn Anabeta log my friend. I want to see what this high dosage is doing for you

 

[ax1]

Ax: You can also find detailed youtube explanations going against what you posted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcWQw2AAIho

I'll be honest I haven't watched this nor have I watched yours. It just isn't interesting to me nor something I really care about. For about everything conspiracy type theory anyone finds you can find other stuff arguing the opposite. I don't have the time/energy to look into it all. I really don't care. The birth certificate story (right or wrong) has largely been put to bed and me spending hours looking into it isn't going to change that.

That video you provided does not provide any relevent information in regards to Obama's fraudulent birth certificate. I dont get into conspiracy theories, I really dislike them. Downloading his birth certificate directly from the white house and finding it to be in multiple layers and counterfeited is not a conspiracy theory. It only takes a few minutes to download the birth certificate and take apart yourself, not hours.

The issue has not been put to rest in any way other than what the corporate mainstream media chooses to do or not do. The release of the birth certificate has only fueled the issues.

If you dont care why do you keep responding and countering, there must be some curiosity deep inside you, right? I think your actually a open minded person to even touch on this stuff.

 

[ax1]

I know I've said it before, but discussing conspiracy theory type things isn't really my cup of tea. I'm more interested in you updating your damn Anabeta log my friend. I want to see what this high dosage is doing for you

Thats a good idea, I have a few findings to report

 

[seccsi]

That video you provided does not provide any relevent information in regards to Obama's fraudulent birth certificate. I dont get into conspiracy theories, I really dislike them. Downloading his birth certificate directly from the white house and finding it to be in multiple layers and counterfeited is not a conspiracy theory. It only takes a few minutes to download the birth certificate and take apart yourself, not hours.

The issue has not been put to rest in any way other than what the corporate mainstream media chooses to do or not do. The release of the birth certificate has only fueled the issues.

If you dont care why do you keep responding and countering, there must be some curiosity deep inside you, right? I think your actually a open minded person to even touch on this stuff.

Well it's not that I don't care at all it's merely that I don't feel the desire to invest the time into truly getting to the bottom of it. I'm kinda crazy about some things...if I was going to really get into trying to figure out if Obama's birth certificate was real or not I'd have to dig at everything. I'd have to watch your link and then watch all the counter links and so on and so forth. And that's just not something I really care to do.

Thank you for saying I'm open minded, I've always strived to be.

 

[ax1]

Well it's not that I don't care at all it's merely that I don't feel the desire to invest the time into truly getting to the bottom of it. I'm kinda crazy about some things...if I was going to really get into trying to figure out if Obama's birth certificate was real or not I'd have to dig at everything. I'd have to watch your link and then watch all the counter links and so on and so forth. And that's just not something I really care to do.

Thank you for saying I'm open minded, I've always strived to be.

Its alot of work, I do spend 3-4 hours a day researching stuff at certain times, not all the time though but on average 30-60 minutes daily.

To be honest, If he was a great president and even born in Iraq I wouldnt even care, lol Whats ultimately important is the domestic/foreign policy, who they work for and how they are serving the American people.

 

[mich29]

Killing Bin Laden is not a valid response b/c the president did not commit this act himself - it simply occurred during his presidency.

I don't really keep up with politics but Obama makes me laugh. I recall him saying earlier on during his presidency where he said the depression had been over. LOL idk what country he thought he was presiding over but nothing seems to have improved economically or am I delusional. All Obama does when he speaks anywhere is get into his philosophical rants about how people shouldn't have to choose between prescriptions and putting food on the table, blah, blah, blah.

He never reveals what he intends to do. That sure wasn't the case during his election campaign. Promises, dreams, candy, and rainbows. He gets elected and I have yet to hear of/see any positive impact he's had on America. He's more of a celebrity icon than a president to me.

he's made America wake up and smell the coffee.anyone who though obama was going to come into office and fix the mess bush left is insane.it'll take years and years and years to fix the mess.then it will take years and years to fix the mess obama has made.bottom line we as a people need to elect better persons into power from the prez all the way down the list.flush everyone out and start over with people who actually give a **** about us as a nation.this whole politics thing is a huge game and very few players in it are actually playing to actually help us as a nation its more about their interest groups,their needs,money etc.

 

[swollen87]

he's made America wake up and smell the coffee.anyone who though obama was going to come into office and fix the mess bush left is insane.it'll take years and years and years to fix the mess.then it will take years and years to fix the mess obama has made.bottom line we as a people need to elect better persons into power from the prez all the way down the list.flush everyone out and start over with people who actually give a **** about us as a nation.this whole politics thing is a huge game and very few players in it are actually playing to actually help us as a nation its more about their interest groups,their needs,money etc.

if you honestly believe bush is the one who made the mess, you havent been following politics too long



this has BEEN going on..


obama-joke

unsubd before i get mad

 

[Conagher]

he's made America wake up and smell the coffee.anyone who though obama was going to come into office and fix the mess bush left is insane.it'll take years and years and years to fix the mess.then it will take years and years to fix the mess obama has made.bottom line we as a people need to elect better persons into power from the prez all the way down the list.flush everyone out and start over with people who actually give a **** about us as a nation.this whole politics thing is a huge game and very few players in it are actually playing to actually help us as a nation its more about their interest groups,their needs,money etc.

Agreed.I am not happy with some of the decisions Obama has made,but it is absurd to blame one person for the mess we are in now.Corporate greed and political corruption has been slowly killing us for years.

 

[ax1]

Agreed.I am not happy with some of the decisions Obama has made,but it is absurd to blame one person for the mess we are in now.Corporate greed and political corruption has been slowly killing us for years.

100% true, Obama is a small piece of the puzzle, he is really just the actor on TV but the ones really influencing public policy are all behind the scenes.

 

[EasyEJL]

he's made America wake up and smell the coffee.anyone who though obama was going to come into office and fix the mess bush left is insane.it'll take years and years and years to fix the mess.then it will take years and years to fix the mess obama has made.bottom line we as a people need to elect better persons into power from the prez all the way down the list.flush everyone out and start over with people who actually give a **** about us as a nation.this whole politics thing is a huge game and very few players in it are actually playing to actually help us as a nation its more about their interest groups,their needs,money etc.

I think you have it wrong. WE'll never elect a president who will fix any of this. The way this gets fixed is through less government involvement. Failure to raise the debt ceiling is probably the best thing that could happen as it would force the government to become realistic about its spending.

The on thing that has surprised me with all of the "tax the rich" nonsense is why none of the proposals had entirely removing the cap on how much income you pay social security on. I'm not a fan of our regular progressive tax rates, but at the same time don't see why people are only paying social security on the first $160,000 or so in income either and nothing after that.

 

[seccsi]

Agreed.I am not happy with some of the decisions Obama has made,but it is absurd to blame one person for the mess we are in now.Corporate greed and political corruption has been slowly killing us for years.

This times a million. Obviously politicians are going to blame others because that is the way to stay in power, but why are Americans always looking to pin it on one guy? Congress controls the purse strings and Congress has over 500 members. It isn't as if Obama was the first person to run up a deficit and it wasn't like Bush 2 was either. Hell conservative hero Ronald Reagan raised taxes, ran up the deficit, and built up the military complex that sucks out so much of our money today. And that isn't me trying to "blame" Reagan it's just pointing out the fact that you can't just point at one person for our problems and say "there, that is the guy who did it!"

A fruitless endeavor and one that will always be untrue. Our government has never been ran by one person. Blaming one person is foolish to say the least.

 

[EasyEJL]

This times a million. Obviously politicians are going to blame others because that is the way to stay in power, but why are Americans always looking to pin it on one guy? Congress controls the purse strings and Congress has over 500 members. It isn't as if Obama was the first person to run up a deficit and it wasn't like Bush 2 was either. Hell conservative hero Ronald Reagan raised taxes, ran up the deficit, and built up the military complex that sucks out so much of our money today. And that isn't me trying to "blame" Reagan it's just pointing out the fact that you can't just point at one person for our problems and say "there, that is the guy who did it!"

A fruitless endeavor and one that will always be untrue. Our government has never been ran by one person. Blaming one person is foolish to say the least.

The problem isn't him running up the deficit by itself, its that he is running the national debt up over the GDP (which hasn't happened since the civil war) and the best long term budget plan he has put forward has it being double the GDP in a decade which is worse than Portugal.

 

[Rahl]

I think you have it wrong. WE'll never elect a president who will fix any of this. The way this gets fixed is through less government involvement. Failure to raise the debt ceiling is probably the best thing that could happen as it would force the government to become realistic about its spending.

The on thing that has surprised me with all of the "tax the rich" nonsense is why none of the proposals had entirely removing the cap on how much income you pay social security on. I'm not a fan of our regular progressive tax rates, but at the same time don't see why people are only paying social security on the first $160,000 or so in income either and nothing after that.

Failure to raise the debt ceiling will be far from the best thing that could happen to us. If you think it will only effect the government youre wrong. Interest rates could skyrocket. They will have no choice but to inflate our way out of debt which is what they're going to do anyway. Not raising it essentially saying were not going to pay our bills. It's hard to get anyone to lend you anything once you've said that.


And this problem started in the early 80's. Neither "side" has had anything under control since.

 

[seccsi]

I think you have it wrong. WE'll never elect a president who will fix any of this. The way this gets fixed is through less government involvement. Failure to raise the debt ceiling is probably the best thing that could happen as it would force the government to become realistic about its spending.

The on thing that has surprised me with all of the "tax the rich" nonsense is why none of the proposals had entirely removing the cap on how much income you pay social security on. I'm not a fan of our regular progressive tax rates, but at the same time don't see why people are only paying social security on the first $160,000 or so in income either and nothing after that.

The problem is the lip service Americans give to small government. I don't think the vast majority of Americans want a small government, Republicans or Democrats. Everyone loves the government programs they benefit from and hates the ones they don't benefit from. They are all for cutting programs that don't help them personally, and strongly opposed to cutting programs that they directly benefit from.

Ask someone who's receiving unemployment if they think we should get rid of it. Ask someone with family in the military right now if they think their benefits should be cut. Ask someone who's husband is fixing a road giving him a job because of government money if they want that shut down. Ask someone who has a family member getting prescription drugs paid for if they'd like to get rid of that. The idea that Americans actually want smaller government is largely false. We pretty much have the exact government we vote for over and over. We Americans just like to complain about it's size...we largely balk on the necessary methods to reduce it. Sad but true.

 

[seccsi]

The problem isn't him running up the deficit by itself, its that he is running the national debt up over the GDP (which hasn't happened since the civil war) and the best long term budget plan he has put forward has it being double the GDP in a decade which is worse than Portugal.

Perhaps but we've already been down this road my friend. The problem with blaming Obama for the mess is it ignores what would have been the alternative. Republicans in power would have had a stimulus package, probably bailed out the auto companies (after all they bailed out the banks), wouldn't have left any wars, probably would have had the action in Libya, etc. We would largely be in the exact same shape if we'd put the R in instead of the D.

Which is great for the staus quo. As long as we're always arguing about R vs. D we won't ever get to the root of the problem.

 

[EasyEJL]

Failure to raise the debt ceiling will be far from the best thing that could happen to us. If you think it will only effect the government youre wrong. Interest rates could skyrocket. They will have no choice but to inflate our way out of debt which is what they're going to do anyway. Not raising it essentially saying were not going to pay our bills. It's hard to get anyone to lend you anything once you've said that.


And this problem started in the early 80's. Neither "side" has had anything under control since.

Nope, wrong on the math. Our repayment on national debt is roughly 5% of our total government spending. We can continue to pay that whether or not we raise the debt ceiling. And also wrong, other countries are looking at our rise debt vs GDP and paying a bill late isn't any better than having too high a debt to income ratio. Go ahead and try and get a car loan, your debt to income ratio will totally deny you getting a loan, a few late payments just change your interest rate. The net outcome is going to be about the same from the perspective of inflation or interest rates whether we raise the debt ceiling or not. So i'd prefer we not, and have the federal government finally stop its non-constitutional growth and trim itself back to something manageable. If instead we raise the debt ceiling, government spending continues on like drunken sailors and we continue to have people talk about raising taxes on the rich (penalize the successful, reward the failures) we'll see a worse long term economic potential than if government learns to live within its means just like citizens have to.

 

[EasyEJL]

Perhaps but we've already been down this road my friend. The problem with blaming Obama for the mess is it ignores what would have been the alternative. Republicans in power would have had a stimulus package, probably bailed out the auto companies (after all they bailed out the banks), wouldn't have left any wars, probably would have had the action in Libya, etc. We would largely be in the exact same shape if we'd put the R in instead of the D.

Which is great for the staus quo. As long as we're always arguing about R vs. D we won't ever get to the root of the problem.

And we'd be blaming the R then. I never said a republican would have been significantly better, but the person holding the reins is responsible for where the horse goes.

 

[Rahl]

Perhaps but we've already been down this road my friend. The problem with blaming Obama for the mess is it ignores what would have been the alternative. Republicans in power would have had a stimulus package, probably bailed out the auto companies (after all they bailed out the banks), wouldn't have left any wars, probably would have had the action in Libya, etc. We would largely be in the exact same shape if we'd put the R in instead of the D.

Exactly. McCain strongly supports the Libyan conflict.

 

[EasyEJL]

The problem is the lip service Americans give to small government. I don't think the vast majority of Americans want a small government, Republicans or Democrats. Everyone loves the government programs they benefit from and hates the ones they don't benefit from. They are all for cutting programs that don't help them personally, and strongly opposed to cutting programs that they directly benefit from.

Ask someone who's receiving unemployment if they think we should get rid of it. Ask someone with family in the military right now if they think their benefits should be cut. Ask someone who's husband is fixing a road giving him a job because of government money if they want that shut down. Ask someone who has a family member getting prescription drugs paid for if they'd like to get rid of that. The idea that Americans actually want smaller government is largely false. We pretty much have the exact government we vote for over and over. We Americans just like to complain about it's size...we largely balk on the necessary methods to reduce it. Sad but true.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong. The "vast majority" of people aren't on those government programs. Those programs today are just mortgagine our childrens and grandchildrens future instead to pay for ****ty government service. And when I say ****ty, I mean wasteful and full of fraud. The sad part is that most of those people don't realize that if the government didn't tax people so heavily at the upper end, and penalize success so much that there would be more opportunities for them to work and they wouldn't need to be collecting food stamps and unemployment. Most elected officials exist to try and create more dependence on government programs, to continue to grow their own power.

 

[seccsi]

I'm pretty sure you are wrong. The "vast majority" of people aren't on those government programs. Those programs today are just mortgagine our childrens and grandchildrens future instead to pay for ****ty government service. And when I say ****ty, I mean wasteful and full of fraud. The sad part is that most of those people don't realize that if the government didn't tax people so heavily at the upper end, and penalize success so much that there would be more opportunities for them to work and they wouldn't need to be collecting food stamps and unemployment. Most elected officials exist to try and create more dependence on government programs, to continue to grow their own power.

Oh I completely disagree. How many people don't have a loved one on some type of government program or know someone on a government program? You don't know a lot of people who have been on unemployment for a stretch over the last few years? You don't know a lot of elderly who are on medicare/medicaid? You don't know any soldiers families who would be against cutting the national defense spending? You don't know any people who are getting ready to get Social Security that wouldn't flip out if you raised the age on them? You don't know a lot of families who would be against cutting education for their children?

The vast majority of Americans are already on or benefiting from some type of government program and you can damn sure bet they don't want it touched. Again, they are against the government stuff they don't directly benefit from....but touch the stuff they are benefiting from and they will flip out.

Of course they are full of wasteful spending, the government has never been efficient....but the idea that a lot of Americans are truly for small government is basically absurd. Why do you think lowering the national debt is so difficult? No one can agree on the best way to do it. Raising taxes isn't popular and cutting spending is only popular for those it doesn't effect.

 

[Rahl]

Nope, wrong on the math. Our repayment on national debt is roughly 5% of our total government spending. We can continue to pay that whether or not we raise the debt ceiling. And also wrong, other countries are looking at our rise debt vs GDP and paying a bill late isn't any better than having too high a debt to income ratio. Go ahead and try and get a car loan, your debt to income ratio will totally deny you getting a loan, a few late payments just change your interest rate. The net outcome is going to be about the same from the perspective of inflation or interest rates whether we raise the debt ceiling or not. So i'd prefer we not, and have the federal government finally stop its non-constitutional growth and trim itself back to something manageable. If instead we raise the debt ceiling, government spending continues on like drunken sailors and we continue to have people talk about raising taxes on the rich (penalize the successful, reward the failures) we'll see a worse long term economic potential than if government learns to live within its means just like citizens have to.

But if our interest rates rise and they will as the treasury continues to issue bonds to cover debt then that interest payment will also rise. I don't support the continued debt raises either but simply not doing it isn't the responsible thing to do.

The only thing keeping our rates low is that the rest of the world is in worse shape than we are. Japan has worse debt than Greece. Yet the yen has been rising.

The only thing to do is raise the limit and cut spending at the same time. AND raise revenues. Social security cap raise as you mentioned is one way. Dividend income rates are another. Altering Medicare prescription coverage to only allow genetics where available is another. There are countless options.

 

[Rahl]

I'm pretty sure you are wrong. The "vast majority" of people aren't on those government programs. Those programs today are just mortgagine our childrens and grandchildrens future instead to pay for ****ty government service. And when I say ****ty, I mean wasteful and full of fraud. The sad part is that most of those people don't realize that if the government didn't tax people so heavily at the upper end, and penalize success so much that there would be more opportunities for them to work and they wouldn't need to be collecting food stamps and unemployment. Most elected officials exist to try and create more dependence on government programs, to continue to grow their own power.

Ironically the people who mortgaged their grandchildrens futures now actually have grand children. They've been living beyond their means for decades but now they don't want you to touch the programs they are collecting from.

I see the editorials all the time from seniors complaining about school taxes. They seem to forget that someone was paying those when they were kids in school. Now it's just a burden on them.

I do agree with you though that most people want smaller government. It's just that they disagree over what agencies should exist. One side prefers big brother and the other side prefers social programs.

 

[seccsi]

I'll expand a little Easy....I'm not sure I can think of a single person I know that isn't benefiting from some government program right now. I'm a teacher so of course I don't want public education cut any. My parents are both receiving Social Security so if you took that away from them they would flip. I'm sure my grandmother is benefiting in some way from medicare (I know she gets prescriptions so I'm sure she is saving off some program).

One of my good friends is still in college and he is receiving student loans and sometimes grants from the government. Another one of my friends is in the Army Rangers and has done three tours. And one of my best friends runs a construction company that is basically only working right now because of the stimulus. Hell he's about as far right as possible, but loved the stimulus...it put money back in his pocket!

My ex-girlfriend had her kid on Head Start, and was getting government money for rent. I've had multiple friends on unemployment for stretches. I'm not sure I know ANYONE who isn't seeing some type of help from a government program.

And the thing is they would ALL flip if you took it away while it's benefiting them, or at least be against it if they had a vote on it. So like I said, Americans love to talk small government, but they aren't going to like it if you take away the parts that benefit them.

This is why cutting the national debt is so difficult. We've all grown to the point where we love the government stuff we get and we also think we shouldn't pay new taxes. It just can't work that way, you can't lower the debt without raising taxes, cutting spending, or some combination. We Americans LOVE to talk small government until we are blue in the face...but it damn sure better not effect or bottom line. And that isn't even something I'd say we should be faulted for...at the end of the day we're all looking out for number one to an extent right?

 

[EasyEJL]

I'll expand a little Easy....I'm not sure I can think of a single person I know that isn't benefiting from some government program right now. I'm a teacher so of course I don't want public education cut any. My parents are both receiving Social Security so if you took that away from them they would flip. I'm sure my grandmother is benefiting in some way from medicare (I know she gets prescriptions so I'm sure she is saving off some program).

One of my good friends is still in college and he is receiving student loans and sometimes grants from the government. Another one of my friends is in the Army Rangers and has done three tours. And one of my best friends runs a construction company that is basically only working right now because of the stimulus. Hell he's about as far right as possible, but loved the stimulus...it put money back in his pocket!

My ex-girlfriend had her kid on Head Start, and was getting government money for rent. I've had multiple friends on unemployment for stretches. I'm not sure I know ANYONE who isn't seeing some type of help from a government program.

And the thing is they would ALL flip if you took it away while it's benefiting them, or at least be against it if they had a vote on it. So like I said, Americans love to talk small government, but they aren't going to like it if you take away the parts that benefit them.

This is why cutting the national debt is so difficult. We've all grown to the point where we love the government stuff we get and we also think we shouldn't pay new taxes. It just can't work that way, you can't lower the debt without raising taxes, cutting spending, or some combination. We Americans LOVE to talk small government until we are blue in the face...but it damn sure better not effect or bottom line. And that isn't even something I'd say we should be faulted for...at the end of the day we're all looking out for number one to an extent right?

But what you say right there is the crux of the problem. People expect federal government to provide those services (which the fedaral government isn't entitled to by the constitution). But the money can't come from nowhere, and raising the taxes on the successful penalizes them, while rewarding those who are non-successful. If you've ever tried training a dog or raising children, you know what sort of results that gives you - a growth in failure, a stop in success. The cost of all of those programs as filtered through the ridiculous federal government is far more expensive than if the federal government shrank to nothing and the money stayed in private circulation. The stimulus bill created jobs at a cost of $270,000 per job because thats how the federal government rolls. If that same $270,000 had stayed in private circulation instead of the government touching it, it would have created at least 2-3 jobs instead.

Most unemployment comes from states, not federal government, only the ridiculous extensions come from federal government. And again both studies have found that after the first year on unemployment, people basically "give up" and have gotten used to living on that amount and no longer seriously try to find a job as well as the fact that if the federal government wasn't spending that money there would be more money in private industries to create jobs. And for every $1 that goes out in unemployment benefits from the federal government almost $2 has to come in.

What you are seeing and talking about is the continued growth of people expecting the world to owe them something just because a sperm and an egg met. And thats not reality, and doesn't work anywhere for any significant length of time. Watch the movie IOUSA.

[video=youtube;O_TjBNjc9Bo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo[/video]

This movie was done by the prior head of the Congressional Budget Office. An accountant, non partisan, and he makes no attempts at placing blame on anyone in particular, just blame in our outrageous spending. But he gives an accounting view of what will happen over the next 20 years if we don't drastically change how we do things. And not raising the debt ceiling is one way to force drastic changes today. Otherwise within 20-40 years tax rates across the board will have to more than double to JUST pay social security and the interest on the national debt without any other programs being funded at all. Rip the baindaid off today, stop kicking the can another generation down the road.

 

[EasyEJL]

So in a nutshell, people like those programs because they aren't smart enough to understand what the long term consequences of those programs are, or they just don't care because they believe someone else in the future will have to deal with it.

 

[seccsi]

I have seen I.O.U.S.A. and love it. And it's really not important to the overall aspect of my argument. People have come to EXPECT that from the government, hence my whole argument that people aren't actually for small government when the government benefits them. It's not as important how we got here as where we go from here. And you didn't really get to the heart of my argument...that Americans AREN'T for small government. It's something they like to put lip service to. Yet I listen to local political talk and people are all talking things the government SHOULD be doing. It SHOULD be making it illegal to have an abortion. It SHOULD be making it illegal for gays to marry. It SHOULD be fixing these damn potholes in the capital city. And these are "conservatives." Supposedly the people who vote for the party of small government. That doesn't sound like small government to me. It sounds like big government.

Cutting the national debt is actually not difficult, we know exactly how to do it. Raise revenues, cut spending, or both/some combination. The thing that makes it difficult is Americans have come to expect all these things from the government AND believe we should have low taxes. The two just don't jive together if you want a balanced budget.

We have basically been having these types of debates since the beginning of the country though. Hell they were arguing about the national debt big time in the early 1900's. And we will probably continue to kick it down the road until we burst.

 

[EasyEJL]

Most of the people I know are willing to see cuts in the programs they get value out of today to ensure that they continue, rather than have them go some unknown length of time forwards and then stop entirely.

 

[ax1]

This is why cutting the national debt is so difficult. We've all grown to the point where we love the government stuff we get and we also think we shouldn't pay new taxes. It just can't work that way, you can't lower the debt without raising taxes, cutting spending, or some combination. We Americans LOVE to talk small government until we are blue in the face...but it damn sure better not effect or bottom line. And that isn't even something I'd say we should be faulted for...at the end of the day we're all looking out for number one to an extent right?

I think to start is actually simple, stop the 5 illegal wars, send all our WWII troops home + close down imperialist military bases still in continuation from WWII, end the silly expensive un-successful war on drugs for starters.

Did you know we have enough oil in Montana/Dakata to completely 100% get us out of national debt and also supply the US with enough oil until 2040?

Its really not that complicated, but the corruption on all end going on is nearly impossible to remove.

 

[seccsi]

Most of the people I know are willing to see cuts in the programs they get value out of today to ensure that they continue, rather than have them go some unknown length of time forwards and then stop entirely.

But my question is are they just saying that? It's much easier to say it and talk about how great it is than to make it happen. We can all talk about how we want smaler government, but the truth is it WOULD be painful for a period. To see a smaller unemployment check, to be close to retirement age and see it go up, to get less funding for college, etc. It's very easy to say you would take the cuts in programs. But in the last 30 years the size of the federal government has exploded, and look at the facts. We have had all Presidents but one serve both terms. We have career politicians in Congress. The same Presidents who let the debt explode, the same members of Congress, very little turnover. They certainly aren't supporting small government with their vote.

 

[seccsi]

I think to start is actually simple, stop the 5 illegal wars, send all our WWII troops home + close down imperialist military bases still in continuation from WWII, end the silly expensive un-successful war on drugs for starters.

Did you know we have enough oil in Montana/Dakata to completely 100% get us out of national debt and also supply the US with enough oil until 2040?

Its really not that complicated, but the corruption on all end going on is nearly impossible to remove.

Of course you and I realize how easy that is, but we both know we aren't going to end all these wars and we won't stop the war on drugs. You know for a fact what would happen if a presidential candidate wanted to severly cut military funding....his opponent would say he supports terrorism and hates the troops and would win in a landslide.

 

[ax1]

Of course you and I realize how easy that is, but we both know we aren't going to end all these wars and we won't stop the war on drugs. You know for a fact what would happen if a presidential candidate wanted to severly cut military funding....his opponent would say he supports terrorism and hates the troops and would win in a landslide.

Yes of course, especially when everything is going the total opposite direction Id like it to be.

I was almost led to believe Obama was an anti-war president, and he happens to be a bloody war time president. What they say has no meaning to me anymore.

 

[Rahl]

Of course you and I realize how easy that is, but we both know we aren't going to end all these wars and we won't stop the war on drugs. You know for a fact what would happen if a presidential candidate wanted to severly cut military funding....his opponent would say he supports terrorism and hates the troops and would win in a landslide.

Imagine what the unemployment rate is without wars and the drug war... That's reason enough for them to keep locking up "undesirables".

 

[ax1]

Imagine what the unemployment rate is without wars and the drug war... That's reason enough for them to keep locking up "undesirables".

But..these "undesirables" cost money, this country is bankrupt. If collapsed then what will the unemployment rate look like then?

 

[Rahl]

But..these "undesirables" cost money, this country is bankrupt. If collapsed then what will the unemployment rate look like then?

$40,000 a year to feed another person into the prison industrial complex. Cheaper to treat them but you know this country won't go for that. Now we have private prisons to feed.

Now thats a jobs program!

 

[Jessep76]

Yes of course, especially when everything is going the total opposite direction Id like it to be.

I was almost led to believe Obama was an anti-war president, and he happens to be a bloody war time president. What they say has no meaning to me anymore.

Anti-war president would be one of many misleading promises from O. The 2 million immigrants deported in the last 2 years is a hot topic at the moment. Whether you are for or against it, this is something O promised wouldn't happen for familes that have american children when he took office.
How about the fact he's quicker to back any republican view before his own party.