The PokéCommunity Forums  

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Sign Up Rules/FAQ Live Battle Blogs Mark Forums Read

Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.


Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old April 29th, 2013, 08:54 AM
hinkage's Avatar
hinkage
Go make some new disaster
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 18
President Barrack Hussein Obama

What do you guys think about him? How he's doing, what he's done so far, his personality, where the US is headed now that he's in charge, whatever you want to say about the guy. Also, say what country you are posting from, so we can get a better idea of his standing on the global stage.

Not intending to spark a huge debate, I just want to know what what the people's overall opinion of him is at this point.
Reply With Quote
  #2    
Old April 29th, 2013, 10:21 AM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Financial reform and Obamacare seem nice and well deserved. He also stimulated the economy when it was in need. In terms of foreign policy he ended the Iraq War and the pivot to East Asia is appropriate. I liked the way he handled Israel with more calls to peace. He's also voiced public support for same-sex marriage as well as pressuring the courts to rule in their favour, which is good. I don't think he can get anywhere demanding federal legislation for that anyways, so I don't blame him if it seems that he's not "doing anything" about it.

As a Canadian, he's probably as Canadian a president you can get in America. I think that Obama opposes the Keystone Pipeline more than our own politicians XD Our social-democrat party leader Mulcair doesn't have anything against it, and liberal leader Trudeau probably won't speak out against it either. As Chinese, I think the overall feeling is one of cooperation vs. friction. In these two countries at least, I feel that the public generally likes his personality and doesn't have any major disagreement with him. Overall, I wouldn't say he's a bad president, I'll give him my approval for dealing with these problems as best he can. Then again, I do have a foreigner's perspective, and as long as I don't see America do anything stupid I think that everything is going fine in that country.
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
  #3    
Old April 29th, 2013, 11:38 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
I'm American, from California, and I voted for Obama.

In a few words I think he's doing okay. In a few more words I think he could be doing better if not for his early attempts in his first term to play nice when he didn't have to and all the opposition he'd encountered since the 2010 midterm elections that put a lot more Republicans in office.

He's got his head and heart in the right place, I think. While I don't think the country is quite going in the right direction at the proper speed it should, I don't think that's because of Obama's lack of effort, and at least we aren't going the wrong direction. He's had some good accomplishments, too, like securing loose nuclear material from around the world, and we've got Obamacare, flawed though it is, which is better than nothing. He's trying to bring us out of foreign wars and all of that is just messy and it's kind of surprising things aren't as awful as they could be. I mean, with Iraq, Afghanistan, the the Arab Spring, Libya, Syria - if we hadn't wasted so much money, life, and international goodwill in Iraq then maybe we would have jumped in to help people in Syria with the support of the international community and could have helped head off so much tragedy there. But Obama knows there isn't support for that even in America, so as much as I think he wants to help, wants to make America the kind of country that helps people in need, he's had to walk a fine line there. I'm not saying I think he wants another war, just that he's balancing so many things right now I'm surprised nothing's fallen.

Overall I see him as being a little conflicted. On the one hand, I think he wants what's best for the country, but on the other he wants to lead through compromise and cooperation (which his detractors aren't interested in) and that's held him back. I think he'll be remembered well.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #4    
Old April 29th, 2013, 12:17 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
I think that Obama opposes the Keystone Pipeline more than our own politicians XD
Odd way to put since everything seems to indicate he isn't going to block it (and rightfully so :p).

Anyway, I like Obama and I think he's doing okay. But, I think he'd be a stronger leader and get more accomplished (and faster) if he showed a bit more of a backbone. I loved his speech after the gun reform bill fell through. Wasn't even a great bill, but he was clearly irritated. I want that Obama 24/7.

Bush was no good. But he was able to effectively push for things and get things passed, even if they were detrimental. Obama, and the Democratic party as whole, needs a bit of that mentality. He may not like it, and quite frankly I don't either, but he needs to do a bit more politicking.

I'm glad he... attempts to do things. Things that I can think I are correct. But I don't like that the end-result ends up being something watered down or "compromised". Health care reform without some kind of universal healthcare implementation is a wasted opportunity, for instance. Many things like that. Not even entirely his fault, but still under his watch.

On the economic side of things... not really sure who gets the credit or blame for the bailout and stimulus, but the stimulus I like (mostly), the bailouts I don't. Tax reform is also needed, possibly new/different taxes too. It is outrageous that a budget hasn't been proposed and passed during his entire presidency thus far. The way the country spends need to be addressed (and I don't really blame Obama for that largely since budgets thus far have been auto-updates of the last Bush budget). Investments need to be made in science, technology, education, and infrastructure. A lot of work needs to be done to strengthen the middle class. Overall things are certainly better than from four years ago, but they could be better still
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5    
Old April 30th, 2013, 04:46 PM
The Dark Avenger's Avatar
The Dark Avenger
Eye-Catching
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: US of Eh
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 View Post
Anyway, I like Obama and I think he's doing okay. But, I think he'd be a stronger leader and get more accomplished (and faster) if he showed a bit more of a backbone. I loved his speech after the gun reform bill fell through. Wasn't even a great bill, but he was clearly irritated. I want that Obama 24/7.

I have to respectfully disagree with the recent gun control advocacy. First, it exploited the children and family members in order to emotionally appeal to lawmakers and constituents rather than using rational arguments, which ultimately would be more useful in making policy that would protect children in school settings. (Not to the the NRA didn't do the same thing). Second, he completely overlooked the statistics which clearly show that gun bans lead to higher crime rates and murder by guns. Chicago, his hometown, with heightened gun control policy it has observed a much higher murder rate than cities such as Houston, which have minimal gun control policies, and therefore acts as a deterrence to crime. Beyond that one example, the preponderance of evidence supports the claim that gun control in the US is not effective. Though, I am sure there is some evidence he could have used in the defense of his position, yet, that was diminished by his inappropriate use of the families to force political pressure on the Congress without logical reasoning. Third, he re-established a party-divide between Dems and Reps with this issue; ultimately, the majority of Dems stopped supporting the bill. The President inaccurately stated during that speech that 90% of Americans believed in gun control legislation, yet the Congress would not support it. Certainly, 90% of Americans did not back the bill, and second, it undermines the competency of Congress, creating a divide between the Executive and Legislative Branch, which will magnify the already rampant gridlock. The President has made SIGNIFICANT misstep with his handling of the response to the Sandy Hook shooting that extend beyond the gun control issue. His "irritation" with Congress created unneeded tension, essentially using them as a scapegoat for his own failures; which is not remotely admirable leadership.
Reply With Quote
  #6    
Old April 30th, 2013, 05:49 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenneking View Post
I have to respectfully disagree with the recent gun control advocacy.
Okay. That's fine. Doesn't change that I still like that Obama better. Angry Obama. XD Not that he actually got anything really accomplished through that irritation, but I think there was a level of forcefulness there he should have been exhibiting from the beginning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenneking View Post
Second, he completely overlooked the statistics which clearly show that gun bans lead to higher crime rates and murder by guns. Chicago, his hometown, with heightened gun control policy it has observed a much higher murder rate than cities such as Houston, which have minimal gun control policies, and therefore acts as a deterrence to crime.
Toronto just recently became the fourth largest city in North America by population. Chicago is fifth. We have gun control. We don't have this problem (it exists of course, just not nearly to the extent of Chicago). Canada as whole, and other places too like Australia, have not seen an increase in gun crime or mass shootings due to gun control. It has been beneficial.
__________________

Last edited by TRIFORCE89; April 30th, 2013 at 05:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7    
Old April 30th, 2013, 09:09 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenneking View Post
Certainly, 90% of Americans did not back the bill, and second, it undermines the competency of Congress, creating a divide between the Executive and Legislative Branch, which will magnify the already rampant gridlock. The President has made SIGNIFICANT misstep with his handling of the response to the Sandy Hook shooting that extend beyond the gun control issue. His "irritation" with Congress created unneeded tension, essentially using them as a scapegoat for his own failures; which is not remotely admirable leadership.
Politicians can misquote or pull numbers out of their bottoms regularly, it doesn't surprise me from either side of the political aisle unless it's a blatant lie (like rape babies aborting themselves) versus a factoid. I think he's justified in blaming Congress's performance on turning down sensible things like background checks and magazine size restrictions. That to me tells of the occasional failure of representative democracy - because just who are these representatives representing when responsible legislation don't get passed? I think he did brilliantly in pushing this legislation in the face of it failing - should we criticize him for failing even though he tried?

That irritation with Congress is simply how the Division of Powers is working as designed. It's unfair to say unneeded tension - would you say protesters for democracy in China are creating unneeded tension? The CCP would say yes and act accordingly, but I'm sure as a liberal democrat some part of you feels their protest is legitimate. Similarly, the President isn't always able to push his personal vision, but it's still something as president he has the capacity to do and I consider his irritation legitimate.
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
  #8    
Old April 30th, 2013, 09:19 PM
KingCharizard's Avatar
KingCharizard
C++ Developer Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
I lol'd at the title, as for obama.. I never really liked him. I thought it was bad to give him a second go knowing most of the senate/congress will fight him on important issues.. however he is doing as much as can be expected from him. I'm not certain if this country is better or worse having him in office.. but america is the way it is and we only have ourselves to blame..
__________________
My personal website. UPDATED 8/29/2013
Reply With Quote
  #9    
Old April 30th, 2013, 10:02 PM
The Dark Avenger's Avatar
The Dark Avenger
Eye-Catching
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: US of Eh
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Well, let me explain the "tension".

The divide between the parties has never escalated to the level it is currently. The White House and Congress have failed to pass a budget in approximately 4 years. The President is doing no one a favor if he loses his efficacy to pass a budget because of his behavior in the handling of issues such as the gun legislation. To me, the gun legislation is not a make-it-or-break-it policy field. If the legislation passed, the murder rates would likely not change drastically either way (most murders are done in theft-related crimes with fewer victims, and therefore less need for endless rounds of ammunition); there needs to be a cost-benefit analysis of the costs of implementation of programs such as universal background checks as well. Though, the unintended consequences as such further polarize parties which dehabilitates them from working in a state of comity on essential policies including the Federal Budget and Tax Reform. Additionally, the exhausted resources, time and money, on gun legislation needed to be directed toward economic policy. The system was not designed to be so sluggish that the essential government operations would be thwarted, while minor, unsubstantial issues take the forefront.

P.S. I am not an Anti-Liberal Neo-conservative, blah-blah-blah, I truly had high hopes that the President would do well since 2008; however, though dealt tough cards, he has failed to reverse the debt crisis, and has conversely aggravated it. Despite his economic and gun policy downfalls, I must admit he has done moderately well in regards to Foreign Affairs as well as civil liberties.
__________________

Retrodex Sprites
|D&D Forum|??? (coming soon)
Reply With Quote
  #10    
Old April 30th, 2013, 10:15 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
What do you think that he can do about economic policy though? What I think is the gist of most of what I've read or heard is that those cards are mainly left to Congress. The President isn't able to do anything about the economy. What are the alternatives being thrown out there anyways?
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
  #11    
Old April 30th, 2013, 10:33 PM
The Dark Avenger's Avatar
The Dark Avenger
Eye-Catching
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: US of Eh
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Well, being the office of the Presidency is the policy advocate, especially with the power of federal budgeting of the Executive through the Office of Management and Budget, he has to effectively collaborate with the Congressional Budgetary Office in order to coalesce the budgetary needs (wants) of the various agencies with the democratic process. The President, therefore, is tantamount in the budgetary process. The President needs to make cutting frivolous spending a priority rather than increase spending on social welfare programs, contract the size of the Executive Branch (incrementally), and maintain a more progressive tax policy. Essentially, he needs to concede by cutting programs and convince House republicans to reinstate a more progressive tax code because the low-tax revenue and high expenditure practices observed during the Bush Administration have only become more severe - Keynesian economics of accruing debt and spending more and lowering taxes is not effective.

Moreover, over 60% of the Budget is comprised of Social Security and Medicare; this system of entitlements cannot be sustained the way it is especially as the working force dwindles and the retired population increases. Social Security and Medicare, though well-intended have been the bane of successful economic policy in the U.S. The President needs to establish good relations with Congress to be able to discuss and draft solutions, but that first step, in establishing relations is ESSENTIAL and REQUISITE to economic solutions.
__________________

Retrodex Sprites
|D&D Forum|??? (coming soon)
Reply With Quote
  #12    
Old May 1st, 2013, 05:03 AM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
What do you think that he can do about economic policy though?
He makes the budget. That is huge. And he hasn't made one until this year.

Tax policy, deficit reduction, paying down the debt, funding programs, categorizing expenditures. All very important items to be addressed. It outlines your policy and agenda and where you want to take the country.

Most everyone feels that Bush was bad for the economy. So, do I. But since Obama hasn't put out a budget until now, let alone have one passed, every year there's been "continuing resolutions" passed instead of a budget. Basically, that means everything from the last Bush budget continued, at the same or slightly increased levels. So, those bad policies just keep trudging along that all contribute to the mess the country's in just keep trudging along. That's simply terrible.
__________________

Last edited by TRIFORCE89; May 1st, 2013 at 05:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13    
Old May 1st, 2013, 09:18 AM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
I just did some reading, and this picture of Obama not putting out budgets and what not is somewhat misleading. While can make budgetary requests, Congress still votes on it. He could put some doodoo on a sheet of paper or send in gold leaf but if the Houses can't agree to it, it isn't going to get passed. He's put out budget requests every year he's been in office. I've heard about congressional gridlock from both ends of American political media, but have never heard that fused with Obama's incompetency - that would be another story altogether. I can't blame Obama here, because he doesn't have power in deciding whether a budget gets passed or not. I think the general mood is that everybody knows that cuts have to happen, but there isn't an agreement on where and how much these cuts should be which would explain why the budgets are not getting passed. It's not only his proposals, but those of other congressmen that have been rejected as well. The resolutions happen because the budgets don't get agreed on, not because he isn't putting them out.

@Fenneking: You're basically proposing high-tax, low spending, right? I'm not an economist and know nothing of the details, but the other side is that stimulus that can help the economy lift out of recession can create enough growth so as long you have modest cuts you can still balance the budget. I don't think spending cuts will help the economy - there's no connection there, unless you mean that funds can be freed to stimulate the economy further, but I don't think you mean that. It can help the debt, but the economy isn't going to recover until it does. The US isn't like China, which (big theoretically) if it cut some spending in some sectors, it could shore up others more essential to economic growth. The state isn't as big in America and all it can really do by cutting the deficit is look better to its creditors.

I wouldn't characterize establishing "good relations" as a big deal. Communication is a two-way street - Obama has to mediate spending cuts between Democrats and Republicans, meaning somewhere along the lines, they're going to have to make their own side of the compromise. All Obama can really do is be the best salesman he can.
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
  #14    
Old May 1st, 2013, 03:23 PM
Melody's Avatar
Melody
Singing Nature's Melody
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cuddling those close to me
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Nature: Gentle
Send a message via Skype™ to Melody
In my book, Obama is doing just fine. He's done pretty much everything he could to improve things, and a few things that I quite frankly didn't think he could do. Which is fine with me, because he's got his heart in the right place. He genuinely has the best interests of both the country and the people in mind when he makes his decisions, and I know how hard it is to balance those things.

It's Congress that keeps letting us down. The section of government that is supposed to represent the "Will of the People" and the "Will of the Country" equally, and reconcile those things to make decisions. Congress has ultimately failed at that during it's past 3 or 4 terms, particularly since Obama took office. The problem lies ultimately within the representative style of government where there isn't any sort of significant term limitation or way to ensure that incumbent Representatives who wish to be re-elected are doing what's best for the people, not what's best for staying in office. Incumbents should, after two terms, be forced to basically win by default or by a supermajority (75/25) in order to retain their office so that longer standing candidates have to be more sensitive to the needs of the people.

Congress has recently proven ineffective at passing any solution, mostly because they can't come to any agreement because they're trying to serve their own interests, not the interests of the country as a whole.
__________________
Crystal Supporter Melody


"It loves to bask in the sunlight. It uses the leaf on its head to seek out warm places."
Chikorita

Reply With Quote
  #15    
Old May 1st, 2013, 04:21 PM
Lance
Master of Dragons
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Blackthorn City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Lance
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenneking View Post
Well, let me explain the "tension".

The divide between the parties has never escalated to the level it is currently. The White House and Congress have failed to pass a budget in approximately 4 years. The President is doing no one a favor if he loses his efficacy to pass a budget because of his behavior in the handling of issues such as the gun legislation. To me, the gun legislation is not a make-it-or-break-it policy field. If the legislation passed, the murder rates would likely not change drastically either way (most murders are done in theft-related crimes with fewer victims, and therefore less need for endless rounds of ammunition); there needs to be a cost-benefit analysis of the costs of implementation of programs such as universal background checks as well. Though, the unintended consequences as such further polarize parties which dehabilitates them from working in a state of comity on essential policies including the Federal Budget and Tax Reform. Additionally, the exhausted resources, time and money, on gun legislation needed to be directed toward economic policy. The system was not designed to be so sluggish that the essential government operations would be thwarted, while minor, unsubstantial issues take the forefront.

P.S. I am not an Anti-Liberal Neo-conservative, blah-blah-blah, I truly had high hopes that the President would do well since 2008; however, though dealt tough cards, he has failed to reverse the debt crisis, and has conversely aggravated it. Despite his economic and gun policy downfalls, I must admit he has done moderately well in regards to Foreign Affairs as well as civil liberties.
You must realize that much of what you fault him for is entirely the fault of Congress. Ryan's Austerity package is as stupid as it comes, and the debt ceiling issue was entirely blown out of proportion and made into a problem in the first place by congress. The Tea Party & the fundamentalist wing of the GOP initiated this hyper-partisan lunacy. It's Boehner's fault.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16    
Old May 1st, 2013, 06:31 PM
The Dark Avenger's Avatar
The Dark Avenger
Eye-Catching
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: US of Eh
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Simply stating that the Ryan plan is "stupid" is unconstructive.
Of course the Congress, including Boehner and Ryan, are directly at fault as well. However, the President is equally at fault. Let's not be naive and be actively hyper-partisan ourselves now by stating that only one of the parties involved, whether it is the President, Representatives, Senators, Democrats or Republicans/Tea Party is responsible for all/most of our nation's issues.

The GOP and right-wingers are not necessarily the only party responsible for the national debt with their reckless tax reduction and corporate subsidies for upper-wage earners and exorbitant military expenditures, the democrats are responsible for the frivolous spending on social welfare programs which consists of most of the federal budget,and expenditures on job creation which creates jobs like public works and infrastructure that do not bring more money into the country given that these jobs do not bring in assets from external sources. Stimulus money was largely spent on these types of programs, not on programs that would increase exports to imports and bolster the economy; it was essentially a MASSIVE pork-barrel omnibus bill that went toward agencies that seek more funding, expansion, power, and recognition at the expense of the electorate. (Much of this was supported by the President)


Actually, the underlying issue at hand is the increasing democratic institutions that have held the congressman and senators captive by the constituent vote. The average person cannot balance short-term interests of their own with the long-term interests of the nation. That is why the Framers originally made two houses, one by direct election, the House, and the other by indirect election by legislature, the Senate. This allowed for the Senate to be able to control the spending of the House while still enabling the public to be participants in government. Now, the Senate is elected via direct elections and it's purpose has been diminished.

Therefore, yes the Congressman and the system of congress is a HUGE part to why our economic policies have failed. However, the President has not done anything to address the systemic issues; he, like the congressman, plays the game of politics, wasting an already diffuse and corrupt congress' time and resources on issues like the gun legacy legislation that only exploited families of the Sandy Hook victims, and he further perpetuated the polarity between the Dems/Reps by placing ALL blame on the Republicans, rather than on both parties, and taking no blame himself for economic failings. Further, the President has endorsed Keynesian economics and has allowed for trillions upon trillions of dollars to be used as stimulus spending, yet the jobless rate and underemployment have skyrocketed since the policies have been enacted. There is no way that spending more and generating less revenue is a viable solution, he is simply appeasing the beneficiaries of social welfare programs, which I am one of, given that I am a college student. However, I would not need assistance, or significantly less assistance, if the government had passed balanced budgets as they had during the Clinton Administration.


Clinton, I wouldn't say he was a perfect President, but he was quite admirable in how he allowed for dialogue between the Congress (Republican-controlled) and the Executive Office (Democrat-controlled). Thus, there was less spending on entitlements and increased taxes from the Reagan tax cut-back era which was a vital part as to why the US observed a surplus during his second term. Dialogue and true policy evaluation is important, and Obama has failed to accomplish these relations.

Oops, I didn't intend to write a book :/
__________________

Retrodex Sprites
|D&D Forum|??? (coming soon)

Last edited by The Dark Avenger; May 1st, 2013 at 06:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17    
Old May 1st, 2013, 06:49 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livewire View Post
and the debt ceiling issue was entirely blown out of proportion and made into a problem in the first place by congress.
Indeed. It'd come up like every year, but never became a hot button issue until recently

Congress has made a lot of self-inflicted wounds
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18    
Old May 1st, 2013, 07:04 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenneking View Post
Actually, the underlying issue at hand is the increasing democratic institutions that have held the congressman and senators captive by the constituent vote. The average person cannot balance short-term interests of their own with the long-term interests of the nation. That is why the Framers originally made two houses, one by direct election, the House, and the other by indirect election by legislature, the Senate. This allowed for the Senate to be able to control the spending of the House while still enabling the public to be participants in government. Now, the Senate is elected via direct elections and it's purpose has been diminished.
Considering the state we're in in terms of inequality within the American people, I think the government should be more responsive to the people. The underlying issue cannot be representatives held captive by the constituent vote - well yes in the short term as in people not wanting higher taxes and lower spending - but in the long term is due to private interests being able to lobby and bring forth the representatives that suit their interest best in the fragmented American political system. The senate will not be that house of "sober second thought" as you hope it would be due to the influence of private interests even if you decided to remove it one more level from the voter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenneking View Post
Therefore, yes the Congressman and the system of congress is a HUGE part to why our economic policies have failed. However, the President has not done anything to address the systemic issues; he, like the congressman, plays the game of politics, wasting an already diffuse and corrupt congress' time and resources on issues like the gun legacy legislation that only exploited families of the Sandy Hook victims, and he further perpetuated the polarity between the Dems/Reps by placing ALL blame on the Republicans, rather than on both parties, and taking no blame himself for economic failings. Further, the President has endorsed Keynesian economics and has allowed for trillions upon trillions of dollars to be used as stimulus spending, yet the jobless rate and underemployment have skyrocketed since the policies have been enacted. There is no way that spending more and generating less revenue is a viable solution, he is simply appeasing the beneficiaries of social welfare programs, which I am one of, given that I am a college student. However, I would not need assistance, or significantly less assistance, if the government had passed balanced budgets as they had during the Clinton Administration.
The President is a politician and he will act on his own agenda, even if it doesn't happen to agree with yours. You can blame him all you want, but the argument is only as strong as your belief in your opinion - because other politicians will "waste time" on other issues, and if you find these issues to be important, you wouldn't call that wasting time, now would you. I believe in a democracy everything worth discussion should be discussed. And it's not like he actually wasted time in Congress, he still has plenty of opportunity to target his message across both sides of the aisle outside of your parliament - like his recent meeting with Republicans to talk about cutting pensions. The US debt is clearly already on the table in Congress and it's been debated for years - so why should gun control legislation not have any floor time at all? It's not like you have to pinch every minute of debate as you can get, that would be too much to demand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenneking View Post
Clinton, I wouldn't say he was a perfect President by any means, but he was quite admirable in how he allowed for dialogue between the Congress (Republican-controlled) and the Executive Office (Democrat-controlled). Thus, there was less spending on entitlements and increased taxes from the Reagan tax cut-back era which was a vital part as to why the US observed a surplus during his second term. Dialogue and true policy evaluation is important, and Obama has failed to accomplish these relations.
The difference between then and now is that Congress agreed on cuts. Did Clinton play a big role in getting them all to agree? I'm sure Congress played a part in that too. Congress is made of actors within itself and I think it's a mistake to attribute congressional success to the personality of the president. How do you know there isn't dialogue and policy evaluation going on? I think there's been more dialogue and evaluation considering all the proposals and compromises that have been debated for years and continue to be in contention. It's unfair to equate success = good politics, because good politics is also necessary to get you past those times you don't agree. You can't assume that not-succeeding means not-trying - the relationship is the reverse.
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
  #19    
Old May 2nd, 2013, 06:01 AM
Lance
Master of Dragons
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Blackthorn City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Lance
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenneking View Post
Simply stating that the Ryan plan is "stupid" is unconstructive.
Of course the Congress, including Boehner and Ryan, are directly at fault as well. However, the President is equally at fault. Let's not be naive and be actively hyper-partisan ourselves now by stating that only one of the parties involved, whether it is the President, Representatives, Senators, Democrats or Republicans/Tea Party is responsible for all/most of our nation's issues.

The GOP and right-wingers are not necessarily the only party responsible for the national debt with their reckless tax reduction and corporate subsidies for upper-wage earners and exorbitant military expenditures, the democrats are responsible for the frivolous spending on social welfare programs which consists of most of the federal budget,and expenditures on job creation which creates jobs like public works and infrastructure that do not bring more money into the country given that these jobs do not bring in assets from external sources. Stimulus money was largely spent on these types of programs, not on programs that would increase exports to imports and bolster the economy; it was essentially a MASSIVE pork-barrel omnibus bill that went toward agencies that seek more funding, expansion, power, and recognition at the expense of the electorate. (Much of this was supported by the President)


Actually, the underlying issue at hand is the increasing democratic institutions that have held the congressman and senators captive by the constituent vote. The average person cannot balance short-term interests of their own with the long-term interests of the nation. That is why the Framers originally made two houses, one by direct election, the House, and the other by indirect election by legislature, the Senate. This allowed for the Senate to be able to control the spending of the House while still enabling the public to be participants in government. Now, the Senate is elected via direct elections and it's purpose has been diminished.

Therefore, yes the Congressman and the system of congress is a HUGE part to why our economic policies have failed. However, the President has not done anything to address the systemic issues; he, like the congressman, plays the game of politics, wasting an already diffuse and corrupt congress' time and resources on issues like the gun legacy legislation that only exploited families of the Sandy Hook victims, and he further perpetuated the polarity between the Dems/Reps by placing ALL blame on the Republicans, rather than on both parties, and taking no blame himself for economic failings. Further, the President has endorsed Keynesian economics and has allowed for trillions upon trillions of dollars to be used as stimulus spending, yet the jobless rate and underemployment have skyrocketed since the policies have been enacted. There is no way that spending more and generating less revenue is a viable solution, he is simply appeasing the beneficiaries of social welfare programs, which I am one of, given that I am a college student. However, I would not need assistance, or significantly less assistance, if the government had passed balanced budgets as they had during the Clinton Administration.


Clinton, I wouldn't say he was a perfect President, but he was quite admirable in how he allowed for dialogue between the Congress (Republican-controlled) and the Executive Office (Democrat-controlled). Thus, there was less spending on entitlements and increased taxes from the Reagan tax cut-back era which was a vital part as to why the US observed a surplus during his second term. Dialogue and true policy evaluation is important, and Obama has failed to accomplish these relations.

Oops, I didn't intend to write a book :/
It's the most simple way to describe it. Europe's little experiment with austerity measures has shown us that austerity does not work. Which I find funny, because Ryan, Boehner, etc, love to demonize European fiscal policy, but then try to implement the same budget practices. And the contents of his budget, what he wants to cut and why, etc, is entirely idiotic and self-defeating.

Obama has reached over across the aisle and has tried to bridge that gap of which you speak, and it was thrown in his face. The polarized nature of our discourse has made those balances between the legislatures useless. Nothing gets through the house and nothing less than a Super majority in the senate will suffice. That is ridiculous, no matter how you try to justify that behavior.
__________________

Last edited by Lance; May 2nd, 2013 at 06:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #20    
Old May 2nd, 2013, 10:46 AM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livewire View Post
Nothing gets through the house and nothing less than a Super majority in the senate will suffice.
I really hope there's some way to fix that, because it is ridiculous
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #21    
Old May 2nd, 2013, 10:49 AM
CarcharOdin's Avatar
CarcharOdin
Master of The Universe
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Monterey, California, USA
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Naughty
Not unless you either convince the parties to work together on issues or you turn America into a true democracy, because this is unfortunately one of the more irritating roadblocks you can encounter in a Constitutional Republic.
__________________
CarcharOdin gets high on life to forget about drugs.

Last edited by CarcharOdin; May 2nd, 2013 at 11:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22    
Old May 4th, 2013, 12:22 PM
The Dark Avenger's Avatar
The Dark Avenger
Eye-Catching
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: US of Eh
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Well, the debt issue is not merely a debtor/creditor issues by any means.

The Fed reserve must print more money in order to fund operations.
Once more money is printed, the wealth of the nation stays constant, and therefore the value of the dollar decreases.

When the dollar decreases in value, prices go up. When prices go up, while wages and salaries remain constant (hyperinflation), the ability for constituents to pay for commodities decreases, which is not desirable for the economy or the individual. Thus, to supplement this loss in ability, the Fed prints off more money, hands it to the agencies after Congress delegates funds (or allows for a continuing resolution). Therefore it is in the best interest of the affluent and impoverished alike to have a balanced budget; in order to do so, programs and agencies need to be cut. Cutting programs, of course, causes the general public to become upset, since they do not understand the long-term risks of continued deficit spending, and how in the short-term, it is decreasing their wages and salaries as it relates to inflated prices.Thus, democratic institutions are structured in a way that inhibit the best governance.

The President has, recently allowed for discussion with fiscal conservatives on the matter, which is great, but it has taken him four years+ to begin compromising. So, the debt ceiling is a bit arbitrary in the quantity it was set to, however, the underlying idea is not a mere frivolous self-inflicting wound. That is not to say all funding for programs should be eliminated or cut, since some programs may help bolster the economy. Though, entitlement spending without a doubt must be cut in order to balance the budget, and actually allow for impoverished people to be able to work and sustain themselves independently. For those who cannot be self-reliant, such as those with SEVERE chronic illnesses and certain cognitive impairments, entitlements should be reserved since they cannot sustain themselves independently without entitlements.
__________________

Retrodex Sprites
|D&D Forum|??? (coming soon)

Last edited by The Dark Avenger; May 4th, 2013 at 12:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23    
Old May 4th, 2013, 05:16 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenneking View Post
So, the debt ceiling is a bit arbitrary in the quantity it was set to, however, the underlying idea is not a mere frivolous self-inflicting wound.
I agreed with most everything you said, except for this.

The debt ceiling is goofy. Only one other country has such a measure. It doesn't inhibit spending, it affects the nation's ability to borrow money. Money to pay for expenditures already incurred, not future or proposed spending. Doesn't stop you from spending more and raking up the debt, only paying it off through borrowed money.

There is a budget that is passed, or more recently a series of continuing resolutions - but that should be the approval. If congress approves the spending, they shouldn't then have to approve how much deficit is incurred from the spending they just approved. Shouldn't that have been considered when they made the first decision?

It ends up looking more like wanting something without having to pay for it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24    
Old May 9th, 2013, 04:09 PM
Toutebelle
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: New York, USA
Gender: Male
Nature: Sassy
I have one question. Why do we always have to refer to Obama with his middle name? Obama does not use his middle name. Just because some right-wing evangelicals think the name Hussein is offensive, doesn't mean everyone who's not Muslim does.

I think he's okay.
Reply With Quote
  #25    
Old May 9th, 2013, 04:35 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by lollygag View Post
I have one question. Why do we always have to refer to Obama with his middle name? Obama does not use his middle name. Just because some right-wing evangelicals think the name Hussein is offensive, doesn't mean everyone who's not Muslim does.

I think he's okay.
I've no clue.

But, I like how he uses it in self-deprecating humour like at the correspondent's dinners
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 07:11 AM.


Style by Nymphadora, artwork by Sa-Dui.
Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.