Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama had two years ... yes I know it's been beaten to death. But two years with both houses of Congress in Democrat control. Obama burned up the majority of his political capital getting Obamacare slammed through Congress. I don't entirely disagree with the concept, but the middle of a massive economic train-wreck is not the right time to add a new and massively expensive social program to the mix.
Obama is perhaps the most smug and arrogant president in our history. He's so sure he's right about absolutely everything that he won't even consider taking a different approach to things. Stimulus, regulating and getting in the way obviously isn't working and it's all insanely expensive. Why not just try something else? The notion doesn't even occur to the man. Here's a thought: Why not use more carrot and less stick?
1.) Toss the current corporate tax structure in the garbage.
2.) Start with about 20% corporate tax.
3.) Progressively increase the corporate tax rate for those whose workforce is predominantly overseas and progressively decrease those whose workforce is here in the USA.
4.) Progressively increase corporate tax rates for companies with a gigantic gap between what they pay their best paid employee vs their least paid employee -- but leave enough wiggle room for companies to offer meaningful raises. (Example: If your CEO makes 1000 times as much as a janitor and they both work full time, they that company would incur the maximum increase to their corporate tax rate for this item.)
That's just a doodle and it's better than anything Obama has dreamed up thus far.
That's the sort of thing that might have actually helped us. The timing of Obamacare -- which ultimately sucks money out of the economy -- could not have been worse.
Obama doesn't seem to have the head for actually managing the economy, just throwing money at it and hoping for the best.
I disagree. I think that instead of trying to engineer the economy with tax schemes, loopholes and favoritism, we should just move to a more simple system. Otherwise, it just turns into what it is now - corruption and tax kickbacks to donors and insiders. I do think there are certain cases where society (govt) should subsidize new industries such as alternative energy, but those should be carefully weighed and outside the patronage/lobbyist/corruption (I am a dreamer, huh?) of Washington. As for your Obama is this, Obama is that, well that is just political talking points and utter crap.
If Obama wins it'll be Andrew Jackson all over again: A rock-star popular cult of personality who did horrible things and instituted horrible policies as President of the United States. Barack Obama has proven to be one of the most incompetent presidents in our history, yet Americans just blindly love the man without bothering to ask themselves why.
Human beings most generally are gullible idiots. America re-electing Barack Obama would just further prove the point.
Both political parties are garbage, but the GOP are the lesser of two evils at this point. Their party leadership is pushing for things like a Balanced Budget Amendment -- things that the GOP would never dream of during the days of Reagan and Bush Sr. At this point, the Dems are like a spoiled rich teenage girl who just got her first credit card. Borrow, borrow, borrow!!! Spend, spend, spend!!!
Andrew Jackson? Seriously?
Jackson demanded that we pay off the national debt in full in 1835. The problem was that doing that triggered a severe depression that lasted from 1837 through 1844, and the end result within a year was a 10 fold increase in the national debt from what had been the level prior to paying it off. I think you need to look a little harder (or on a different side of the aisle) to make an Andrew Jackson comparison.
Jackson demanded that we pay off the national debt in full in 1835. The problem was that doing that triggered a severe depression that lasted from 1837 through 1844, and the end result within a year was a 10 fold increase in the national debt from what had been the level prior to paying it off. I think you need to look a little harder (or on a different side of the aisle) to make an Andrew Jackson comparison.
If you don't see that Obama's policies are driving the US into a prolonged economic depression you simply are not paying attention. No, Obama has no intention of paying off the national debt. When I depression hits it is not the paying off of debt which is its cause but the policies that lead to the endebtedness without the economic base to pay the way out of debt. Eventually depressions happen as a result of faulty economic policy, monetary policies, and war policy/actions, regardless of the trigger. When an administration continues to add to the indebtedness of a country while also shrinking the economic base and means of production through sufficating policies, it only adds years on to the duration of the impending depression. Obama knows this and thus works to achieve that which will destroy this country. These are the dreams from his father.
If you don't see that Obama's policies are driving the US into a prolonged economic depression you simply are not paying attention. No, Obama has no intention of paying off the national debt. When I depression hits it is not the paying off of debt which is its cause but the policies that lead to the endebtedness without the economic base to pay the way out of debt. Eventually depressions happen as a result of faulty economic policy, monetary policies, and war policy/actions, regardless of the trigger. When an administration continues to add to the indebtedness of a country while also shrinking the economic base and means of production through sufficating policies, it only adds years on to the duration of the impending depression. Obama knows this and thus works to achieve that which will destroy this country. These are the dreams from his father.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,454,406 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimar
I felt like some of our conservative friends on this board go through a strange cycle almost daily, and then I realized what it was: DABDA, the five stages of coping with death and dying made famous by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross in her book On Death and Dying. Below I paraphrase some of the types of comments I have seen lately.
This is a tough one. I think some posters have hinted they have reached this stage, but it's been very subtle. The sooner you guys get there, the better off we'll all be.
ROFLMAO!!... What a hoot, Zim, and one of your best ever!!
BTW, under Denial, let's not forget the ever-popular, "Lib-tards are panicking, desperate, running skeered, etc., etc.!"
And for those wingnuts who manage to survive their "near-death experience" this Fall, maybe we can get 'em started on a good "12-Step Program" somewhere, to kick their current "addiction"! Or else being as it's more like they've been brainwashed by some crazy religious cult, who knows, we might even need to do a mass "intervention"!!
Jackson demanded that we pay off the national debt in full in 1835. The problem was that doing that triggered a severe depression that lasted from 1837 through 1844, and the end result within a year was a 10 fold increase in the national debt from what had been the level prior to paying it off. I think you need to look a little harder (or on a different side of the aisle) to make an Andrew Jackson comparison.
Andrew Jackson was the president that made drove the Cherokee from their lands illegally resulting in uncounted deaths. That alone runs very close to unforgivable. He was determined to destroy the National Bank that he started pulling funds out of it -- and the POTUS does not have the right to do that BTW, much like Obama's Executive orders. Jackson's assault on the National Bank threw the USA into a deep economic depression (known as the Panic of 1837) which you already partially mentioned. The concept of having a well-established US currency was significantly delayed by Andrew Jackson's meddling. Jackson was also such a hothead that he very nearly kicked off a civil war during his presidency. He also instituted the policy of firing existing federal employees and replacing them with political allies -- a system that was doomed to lead to a lot of corruption.
I'm not going to lie and tell you that Jackson never did anything right. He did get some things right. But he did a lot of terrible things too and proved to be an inept POTUS. It is truly amazing that he is still considered to be one of the best presidents ever, but he certainly was one of the most popular in US history. Popularity and competence do not always coincide.
The political parties as currently constituted were so different in Jackson's day, it's a pretty big stretch to even compare him with modern day Democrats or Republicans.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,454,406 times
Reputation: 6670
In Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America, VA Senator James Webb describes the impact of the Scots-Irish (aka Ulster Scots) on the American revolution and culture. And he points out that Andrew Jackson was the pre-eminent Scots-Irish leader. "Andrew Jackson was an original, an unusual and fearless leader who dominated the American political process more fully than any president before or since."
Webb argues that the wave of "Jacksonian populism" remains one of the most powerful forces in American politics. Indeed, he identifies it as no less than the basic governing philosophy not only of the South and the Ohio River Valley but of working-class America as a whole. That populism, he argues, is based on an ingrained distrust of elites and an emphasis on individual rights and responsibilities.
Doesn't that also really describe much of contemporary "red-state" politics (which are not coincidentally heavily populated by the Scots-Irish and their descendants (aka, sons of the South)?
In Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America, VA Senator James Webb describes the impact of the Scots-Irish (aka Ulster Scots) on the American revolution and culture. And he points out that Andrew Jackson was the pre-eminent Scots-Irish leader. "Andrew Jackson was an original, an unusual and fearless leader who dominated the American political process more fully than any president before or since."
Webb argues that the wave of "Jacksonian populism" remains one of the most powerful forces in American politics. Indeed, he identifies it as no less than the basic governing philosophy not only of the South and the Ohio River Valley but of working-class America as a whole. That populism, he argues, is based on an ingrained distrust of elites and an emphasis on individual rights and responsibilities.
Doesn't that also really describe much of contemporary "red-state" politics (which are not coincidentally heavily populated by the Scots-Irish and their descendants (aka, sons of the South)?
We don't need none of your fancy book-learnin' here, mateo!
Seriously, if you think Obama is such a bad president, you should be able to come up with better comments than "he had total control for 2 years!" (no, he didn't) and "he reminds me of Andrew Jackson!" (WTF?). These disingenuous attacks on Obama can only reflect some sort of weird psychological frenzy happening within these poor posters.
Doesn't that also really describe much of contemporary "red-state" politics (which are not [sic - typo?] coincidentally heavily populated by the Scots-Irish and their descendants (aka, sons of the South)?
I think it's a fair point. The current incarnation of right-wing populism likes to imagine its origins in the anti-government rabblerousing of Boston radicals (most of whom also derived from the Independency religious traditions, either Presbyterian or its cousin Congregational), but post-Federalist era that Ulster-born redneck tendency shifted its center of gravity to the trans-Appalachian West, and Andrew Jackson was the darling boy of those Scots-Irish backwoodsmen. Viewed in these terms, Jackson and his political movement was very much the ancestor of the Tea Party.
It's not Webb's own idea, though: I first encountered it in David Hackett Fisher's Albion's Seed, where he describes it as the "Borderlands-to-Backcountry" strand of American culture.
Andrew Jackson was the president that made drove the Cherokee from their lands illegally resulting in uncounted deaths. That alone runs very close to unforgivable. He was determined to destroy the National Bank that he started pulling funds out of it -- and the POTUS does not have the right to do that BTW, much like Obama's Executive orders. Jackson's assault on the National Bank threw the USA into a deep economic depression (known as the Panic of 1837) which you already partially mentioned. The concept of having a well-established US currency was significantly delayed by Andrew Jackson's meddling. Jackson was also such a hothead that he very nearly kicked off a civil war during his presidency. He also instituted the policy of firing existing federal employees and replacing them with political allies -- a system that was doomed to lead to a lot of corruption.
I'm not going to lie and tell you that Jackson never did anything right. He did get some things right. But he did a lot of terrible things too and proved to be an inept POTUS. It is truly amazing that he is still considered to be one of the best presidents ever, but he certainly was one of the most popular in US history. Popularity and competence do not always coincide.
The political parties as currently constituted were so different in Jackson's day, it's a pretty big stretch to even compare him with modern day Democrats or Republicans.
I think you're confusing executive orders with signing statements. Executive orders are orders directing federal agencies in how they will follow and work within laws passed by Congress. Executive orders are part of the constitutionally granted powers of the president--he's elected to be the "big boss" over all the various federal agencies. The first executive order was signed by George Washington--this is nothing new. I haven't seen any cases that have gone to the Supreme court challenging the constitutionality of any of Obama's executive orders, so he's doing exactly what he was elected to do, even if you don't like it. If Congress wants to change the executive order, all they have to do is pass a different law
Signing statements on the other hand aren't prohibited by the constitution, but the power to to create them isn't granted to the president either. The supreme court has backed the use of signing statements in a number of cases, especially when "the law has not spoken to the precise question at issue." I'm no constitutional law expert, but my understanding is that so far, the court HAS put limits on their power. The supreme court hasn't given any weight to signing statements when they've considered a law. However, a signing statement can significantly change the tone and intent of a law, if the law isn't spelled out clearly to begin with. I think these are a bigger issue. Both Clinton and Bush went a little nuts on signing statements. Obama not so much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
