Obama: The New George Bush

[lord_casek]

it's like a commercial.

[Soup]

Hahaa ok you want my opinion? Windfarms are too expensive and cant be built fast enough. We need to double our entire energy grid in 20 years, and everything we build from here out needs to be clean energy. We in america have a decent aeroturbine infrastructure and currently are investing billions of dollars to build it up in detroit and the rest over america. That's GREAT, and is financially and environmentally sound, but really we need this and this. Big ass kites that produce far more energy on a smaller piece of real estate. Aeroturbines are still economical, but for most shareholders in electric companies the turn around to see gains is too slow. A perfect example is PG&E's been wanting to build a windfarm in Bakersfield for a long fucking time. Every time they report something about it their shares drop in value. Last time it was a $4 dip just because they talked about buying an already built $900,000,000 windfarm. It's a safe investment, but consumers are too fucking finicky so what could've been a done deal years ago has taken them five years just to buy the damn thing, not because they didnt have the resources, but because of shareholders.

 

If what i write sounds like a commercial it's because I'm used to that being my target audience. The people who control our future. God damn shareholders.

[lord_casek]

I'll just keep trying to educate people like you and hoping that one day you'll get it.

 

 

Obama ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-11/obama-agnostic-on-deficit-cuts-won-t-prejudge-tax-increases.html

[Soup]

Pretty sure agnostic means he's in religiously unresolved about it being a good or bad thing, not that he's gonna raise taxes. You also gotta consider that our debt is still going up because of what happened during the bush administration. Our deficit went up 4 trillion dollars after bush was out of office because of america's obligations to pay that debt off. When you're trying to argue that obama is bad, what are you comparing him to? THe only thing you can compare him to is other presidents. If that's the case he's far better than bush who just like a white man made a mess and left to let Obama do the "nigger work" of cleaning it up.

[lord_casek]

[Soup]

He said he'd also save the country from debt. Which one do you want?

[lord_casek]

He said he'd also save the country from debt. Which one do you want?

 

 

Neither. If "saving us" comes from the government, I do not want it.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

[Soup]

The country's a bit bigger than just "us." I personally dont need saving. You personally dont need saving. The entire public and private sectors, towns, cities, and states need saving. At that point centralizing government's kind of a good idea.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

as others have pointed out... obama's first term is actually the third term of the bush administration

 

 

Utterly ridiculous. I mean, Bush is a Republican and Obama is a Democrat, and plus one's white and the others black.

 

Duh!

[americaisfreedom]

this is nothing new. same old american style of doing things. america has been locking people up for decades. it currently holds the top slot for having the highest % of its citizens in prison. this is out of any country in the world. i have here a few more links about what obama is really doing.

 

John Pilger on the Obama Foreign Policy

 

here are some of my favorite moments of american authoritarianism

 

UCLA Police Taser Student in Powell

 

 

Video of Cop Assaulting Cyclist at Critical Mass Ride

[Soup]

Those are interesting videos but ultimately it's an oversimplification of the war on the afghanistan/pakistan border and of the overall turmoil in the middle east. I also have no idea who any of the obama-supporting groups are that were mentioned. I think Obama himself is a moralist, but his performance as president has been completely Realist.

 

And hahaha and woah a college socialist party. They shouldnt call themselves the new left, the should call themselves the wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy fucking left.

[shai]

1. Hitler and Stalin were Time's Person of the Year (1939 and 1940, and Stalin again in 1942), not to mention William Westmoreland (1965), Ayatollah Khomeini (1979) and George W. Bush (2000 and 2004, go figure). From this, one could infer that wholesale killing and torture are practically guaranteed to get your face on the cover of Time. (YMMV.)

 

2. I have this theory about Afghanistan and Iraq that some of you are probably not going to like...I don't like it much either but that's life.

 

It seems like you NEED assholes in charge to keep a lid on things in certain countries. I don't agree with some of the methods that the assholes use to maintain the status quo/stay in power, but the psychological effects of death squads and torture are obviously effective means to an end.

 

So when the US decides to step in and bring "democracy" (and a host of other things) to the people, the first thing they all agree on is....killing each other. They don't give a shit about free elections, they want guns and stuff that goes boom...and we still can't figure this out even though it has bitten us in the ass time and again. (With the possible exception of WW2.)

 

I'm kind of ashamed to view the world this way, but it's my interpretation of history and I'm sticking to it.

[Decyferon]

The country's a bit bigger than just "us." I personally dont need saving. You personally dont need saving. The entire public and private sectors, towns, cities, and states need saving. At that point centralizing government's kind of a good idea.

 

Soup, you are never going to convince anyone of anything, I agree with you on a lot of points, I have tried making my arguements and have always come up against the same stonewall responses (not attacking anyone it's their views they are entitled to them).

 

Realistically to get out of the financial situation the vast majority of countries are stuck will at some point mean there will need to be tax rises, simple as that. Obviously the taxes should be laid out so the richer get taxed higher than the poor. It makes more sense, if you are crippling the poorer people through taxation then all you are then going to do is increase the pressure on the welfare state by having more poor people being unable to afford the simple cost of living. Obama promised people earning below $250,000 wouldn't have tax increases, I think he should stick by that but then he should be raising taxes for anyone over that limit, personally I think if you earn above $200,000 a year you should be taxed more but that is just my opinion.

 

It has been a catalogue of errors by numerous people that have caused the situation that we are in. The government shouldn't have pushed forward on schemes to get people owning homes etc, the banks shouldn't have been so irresponsible in their lending and people should not have been borrowing money that they wouldn't be able to payback. It is pointless playing the blame game anymore and just look at what can be done to resolve the situation. But people don't want to play ball. Talk about raising taxes, people say it is unconstitutional. But then these very same people complain about the situation the country is in. People always blame the person in charge so Obama gets it in the neck.

 

Personally I think he is a realist as well and that he does want to get the economy and everything else sorted, but one man can't change anything and it is the constant stonewalling of proposals that stop things getting changed, but people don't blame all the senators, just the president because he made these promises. Do I think Obama is perfect, hell no, do I think he is the best person for the job, yes. But the petty differences between republicans and democrats are more important to the parties than actually trying to sort the country out, it is the same shit in the UK. Petty idiots who would bicker about the smallest details rather than working together to fix things.

 

Obama invited the republicans to talk about the whole healthcare thing and they start kicking off saying they won't do it because it is a trap or whatever they said, it was a public debate, why not just get together to discuss the issues rather than the petty bullshit that politicians always resort to, they shouldn't have a voice for themselves they are representative of the people that elected them, people wanted change so change should happen.

 

I agree with centralizing government the decision should be made with the implications of the whole nation being taken into account rather than that of individual states.

[Removed]

1. Hitler and Stalin were Time's Person of the Year (1939 and 1940, and Stalin again in 1942), not to mention William Westmoreland (1965), Ayatollah Khomeini (1979) and George W. Bush (2000 and 2004, go figure). From this, one could infer that wholesale killing and torture are practically guaranteed to get your face on the cover of Time. (YMMV.)

 

2. I have this theory about Afghanistan and Iraq that some of you are probably not going to like...I don't like it much either but that's life.

 

It seems like you NEED assholes in charge to keep a lid on things in certain countries. I don't agree with some of the methods that the assholes use to maintain the status quo/stay in power, but the psychological effects of death squads and torture are obviously effective means to an end.

 

So when the US decides to step in and bring "democracy" (and a host of other things) to the people, the first thing they all agree on is....killing each other. They don't give a shit about free elections, they want guns and stuff that goes boom...and we still can't figure this out even though it has bitten us in the ass time and again. (With the possible exception of WW2.)

 

I'm kind of ashamed to view the world this way, but it's my interpretation of history and I'm sticking to it.

 

I think you could refine this idea a little Shai. Although I am making a small leap of faith, I see some truth in what you are saying.

 

Societies are based upon sets of shared assumptions, many of which have been developed in a dialectical sequence from the last. Viewed in this way a concept like modern democracy, assumes a collective understanding of liberalism, which in turn has its own cultural basis etc. These cultural assumptions can have very old and subtle traces which are so deeply ingrained that they can be very difficult to identify and therefore easy to forget exist. So I think it is simple to see how if you were to transplant a contemporary concept from one society to another it may or may not take hold (immediately or even at all), dependant on how different the required base assumptions are from that societies existing cultural paradigm.

 

With regards to your comment about people wanting guns and things that go boom. It seems to me that violence is the most rudimentary and natural resource available to those who are interested in acquiring power. Which would suggest democracy is really an abnormality in relation to the historical range of methods of organising society. Further more democracy is also a very fragile system, all it takes is, for example, a general in the army to decide not to follow the directions from the head of state and democracy no longer exists.

 

It is also worth mentioning that people are also highly habitual. Which means in many cases it is easier to perpetuate an existing system than it is to adopt a new one, even if the benefits of the new system are clear. This is exacerbated when people or institutions with a higher degree of influence have an interest in maintaining the status quo. I think this concept is simple enough that I don't need to give actual examples.

 

I assume when you talk about WW2 you are referring to the success of installing democracy in Germany and Japan. Both of these countries, although briefly, already had a democratic system in place before they were usurped from within. This would suggest to me that the likelihood of a successful democratic system is higher than Iraq or Afghanistan who have never had any system even similar.

 

All of these points lead me to believe that complex ways of organising society, like the democratic system, have to be given time to develop internally and fostered rather than imposed from outside if they are to be successful.

[shai]

I think you could refine this idea a little Shai.

 

You know, I got tired of people telling me that I rambled too much. To me that sounds like a copout along the line of "I'm not very intellectual but in lieu of doing something about that I'll knock you instead" so I try to keep things as general and simple as I can.

 

So yes, there's a lot more to the point I was trying to make and I agree with 90% of what you said.

 

Afghanistan and Iraq are essentially tribal societies...Iraq is (was) a little more secular and way more modernized (well, until we decided to bomb them back to the Stone Age), but for all intents and purposes Afghanistan might as well be in the 15th century.

 

Is this a bad thing? Not really in some ways, especially since the concept of trying to bring democracy to Afghanistan is almost laughable. I've talked to Afghani folks here, and a lot of them don't vote. They don't get it...to paraphrase what I've heard, they see it as "The guy in charge got there because he has a lot of influence/guns/money, and woe to the fool who fucks with him." As long as there's food to eat and nobody is looting and pillaging the populace, they'll put up with having to wear purple hats on Thursdays or what have you.

 

And in some ways it's kind of a seductive/simplistic line of thinking, except for the Taliban's extremely regressive/oppressive tendencies and the fact that Saddam Hussein was stone fucking crazy. I guess it's one or the other.

 

Intervention is a really tricky thing, and the US is notorious for doing it wrong (Vietnam, various locales in Central America, Iraq, Afghanistan) or not doing anything at all when there's a legitimate crisis (Rwanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cambodia). I don't know what that's attributable to, our youth as a nation or our arrogance. Probably a combination of the two.

 

My views on democracy are mixed. Sure, it can be great thing, but in the US it doesn't really work out that well. We have a rather uninformed and lackadaisical voting bloc, which the folks in charge don't seem to mind. Nobody is pushing civics or government classes on kids, that would lead to adults who were capable of making informed decisions based on the issues...can't have that.

[.hopeless.]

and i agree with you on the obama issue.people put way to much faith in politicians and when they dont meet those expectations people get pissed.i remember watching the election and some black chick was crying about how obama was gonna pay her mortgage and her car note and shit.seriously? i mean if you really look at how fucked up the country is right now it doesn't seem likely obama is gonna be able to accomplish all the things we expect him too.8 years isnt long enough for us to see any real change and the fact that congress is moving at the speed of smell on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE isn't making anything better. it really seems like these guys are just disagreeing to disagree sometimes.idk tho.like i said in the tea party i think im gonna brush up on my mandarin just to be safe..

[Soup]

Soup, you are never going to convince anyone of anything

 

You put it like that and you make it seem like I'm wasting my time here. Maybe I am. The issue about taxing is an unresolved dispute. Obama's "agnostic" about it. Anyone including him would be a fool not to consider it, and as far as my understanding of the english language goes, "agnostic" is still hopeful.

[Decyferon]

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic

Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\

Function: noun

Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know

Date: 1869

 

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

 

— ag·nos·ti·cism \-tə-ˌsi-zəm\ noun

 

Basically it means he is undecided on the matter.

 

I don;t think you are wasting your time Soup. I just wanted to say that there are some people that's opinions will never be changed, which is fine. I was just glad to see someone else commenting from a more common point of view to myself.

[Soup]

Hahahah I know the definition. I was being poetical. Being hopeful and agnostic go hand in hand.

[Decyferon]

I don't see why he just doesn't go ahead and increase taxes for high earners and big buisiness, they need to reduce the deficit, which means they need more money coming in, seems one of the simplest ways to do this in my opinion.

[Soup]

Because it's not that simple. It never is.

[Decyferon]

No it isn't always that simple, but rather than this constant procrastination at least start putting measures in place to do something about it. People might not like it but it needs to be done.

 

I'm a do-er I prefer things to get done rather than endless debate while things continually get worse.

[angelofdeath]

I don't see why he just doesn't go ahead and increase taxes for high earners and big buisiness, they need to reduce the deficit, which means they need more money coming in, seems one of the simplest ways to do this in my opinion.

 

 

how about this idea.... JUST STOP F'ING SPENDING!!!!

 

look, when me or you go into debt, do we stop spending or do we think of creative ways to rob other people to pay off our debt?

we stop spending. problem solved.

to think that raising taxes 'on the rich' is going to solve the debt problem of the US is insane. the entire government is out of control. if we eliminated the income tax today, the government would be the size it was in 2000. and THAT was insanely huge. stop spending. pull out of from over seas. collapse the empire. huge reduction in the budget right there. stop giving foreign aid to other countries. this is just for starters.

 

and instead of replying with...'but ______ or _______ that is a good idea' just think about 'where will the money come from?' if me or you have a 'good idea' we have to finance it in someway ourselves. we cant steal from people (taxation), print money out of thin air (the FED) or borrow trillions of dollars from overseas that we will never have to pay back. if you dont have the money, you cant pay for 'the good ideas' of _________ (whatever pet project someone supports)

[Decyferon]

i agree stop spending WHERE YOU CAN, money still does need to be spent but there is still a huge deficit that needs to be cleared as well, i don't agree with taxation being theft simple as that. I don't see any problem with taxation it isn't excessive. You won't agree that's fine it is your opinion.

 

As for saying stop giving aid to other countries, I'm sorry some countries need aid, Haiti, for instance, without the support given from governments around the world would be even more fucked, same for a load of third world countries, I simply don't agree with letting those countries go to waste when promises have been made to them. It isn't as simple as just stop doing it, these promises have been made already we have to follow through on them.

[angelofdeath]

promises shouldnt of been made if you cant afford it.

christians promise their church 10% of their income right off the top. but if they dont have enough money to eat, how can you give 10%?

how can you giveaway money you do not have?

imagine you being millions of dollars in debt, cant afford to pay for basic living expenses, yet you want to borrow millions more to give to someone else.

sounds like a rock solid plan to me.

 

foreign aid overall is a bad thing. not only is it unconstitutional but it is meddling in the affairs of other countries. when the US gives foreign aid to foreign countries, usually the dictator or political class gets the money and they buy more machine guns to subdue the population or more mercedes to drive around in.

we give money to israel, while also aiding their enemies. we blow up bridges in the middle east, then give them money to rebuild them. we blow up iraq, then build new embassies costing billions. its all stupid. we aid the mujahideen in the 1980's (osama bin laden) with weapons and money and then 15 years later they are blowing things in the US and then driving planes into buildings.

 

government aid generally has a poor track record. when hurricane katrina devastated new orleans due to army corp of engineer owned and controlled levies... FEMA caused more problems than they fixed. they were blocking aid from coming in from the evil companies like walmart who was donating supplies. stories of truckers bringing equipment to N.O. abound where the feds told them to drive from philadelphia to alabama, to indiana, to north carolina and then wait for further instructions. not only that but the governments wouldnt allow people to leave, essentially turning N.O. into a gigantic 'fema camp.' looters were stealing food and property while their was no law enforcement all the while sending in the national guard to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens giving them absolutely no means of self defense against bands of looters. FEMA is a disaster. it doesnt aid in disasters.

 

the red cross and other such organizations sole purpose is to deliver aid to those that need it. i do not trust a government for one second to do it. they fail at nearly everything they do.

 

just throwing money at something doesnt solve a damn thing.

[front line]

I CAN't BELieVE I VOTED FOR THAT MOTHER FUCKER! America is fucked..:zombie:

[Decyferon]

yea maybe the promises shouldn't have been made, but they have been. The contract has been entered into, you HAVE to follow through on those promises.

 

I disagree with foreign aid being a bad thing, these countries need help, they need the aid, OK some of it does get misappropriated however not all of it does. Yea I am all for pulling all kinds of funding from Israel, I don't think that country needs or deserves any of the funding or military support that the US gives it, it just continues Israel's war crimes against the palastinians.

 

Yea New Orleans was not handled well by the BUSH administration, I don't see how bringing that up has anything to do with Obama and what he has to do, he has to follow through on the promises that the US have agreed to.

 

Obviously you don't think that government will do anything well, I have never heard you mention anything positive about government unless it comes in the same sentance as the revolution.

 

He should be taxing companies that are polluting the environment through the nose, oil companies should be getting taxed more, and tax breaks given to green initiatives. He should be giving funding to redevelop poorer areas and turn them around from the slums you have within your own country, encouraging social development projects and aiding the people that need it.

 

Giving aid to the Mujahadeen in the 80s is not the same as giving aid to 3rd world countrie that need it, your country was paranoid about the Russians and decided to arm and train these people who were fighting against the Russians, you reaped what you sow, they used that training against you, blame the Republican party and Reegan who were in power for making those awful decisions.

[lord_casek]

One important thing I think needs to be discussed more is Obama's pulling of funds for NASA to make a return to the moon. India and China are going to beat us in going back. We really need something like a moon landing to reinvigorate our children and turn out some more brains (scientists, physicists, etc.).

[Decyferon]

haha Casek you are joking aren't you?

 

Who cares if we go to the moon, there is nothing there, been there done that sort of situation, I don't know of any younger generations that are impressed by that whatsoever, then the rest of people don't believe it even happened in the first place. NASA is a good place to pull unnessecary funding for projects that frankly don't go anywhere.

 

Who cares if China or India go there, you already have.