Obama - What is your opinion so far on his Presidency

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
And some of us actually thought this recession what ever you wanted to call it was showing signs of being over. Obama is not helping the big picture, yes he helped the banks and of course lets not forget Fannie Mae who started all this. How about this runaway accelerator thing with Toyota, could it have been fabricated to get people buying GM cars again after all it is a goverment owned/run company now. Wonder if President Obama will give more jobs to his family before he is dumped.

"Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the economy has yet to hit bottom, a sharply higher percentage than the 53% who felt that way in January," according to a recent Wall Street Journal poll.
A growing and vocal minority of economists believes that there will be a double-dip recession primarily because of the intransigence of high unemployment and the rapidly faltering housing market. The notion of a "jobless recovery" has been around since the recessions of the 1950s and 1960s. It is a concept built on a relatively simple idea: employment lags during a recession but it is always part of a recovery cycle. Production rises as businesses see the end of a downturn and anticipate improving sales. They are reluctant to hire new workers until the recovery is confirmed, but once it has been, hiring picks up.


The 2008-2009 recession was — if it is indeed over — different from any other because of its depth and causes. The first trigger was the drop in housing prices, which robbed many people of their primary access to capital. As that access disappeared, so did the availability of credit. Consumer buying power evaporated and business cut inventory and production. Joblessness rose. Finally, consumer confidence plunged.
The last downturn was so great that in some months more than 500,000 people lost jobs. The unemployment rolls are now more than 8 million, and perhaps more gravely, over 1.4 million people have been out of work for over 99 weeks — which means they are no longer eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. This segment of the population has already begun to add to the number of indigent Americans and will continue to do so unless they can find homes with friends and family.
The second dip of the recession that ended in 2009, according to economists and the federal government, is likely to begin within the next two quarters if certain conditions are met.
Unemployment claims are running well above expectations, and recently hit a six-month high. The four-week average of initial claims rose 14,250 to 473,500 this week. The last peak, in February, was during a period when GDP was in the very early stages of recovery. There is nearly no jobs creation in the private sector. Real estate prices continue to drop, particularly in the hardest hit regions such as California, Nevada, Florida and Michigan.

what-the-double-dip-recession-will-look-like: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Dearest Jack

Now please remember a whisker more and you would be Yukon Jacqueline.

Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack
Careful now, Goober!

Spade will take exception of your monkeyish imitation of him.
Dearest Jack

Now please remember a whisker more and you would be Yukon Jacqueline.

YJ - A personal question - Do you have a hairy chest????
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Have to give him a A for swinging the U.S. towards socialism. Here are ten ways why we should reject his form of politics. Some of you may enjoy what is happening, try living it.



Ten Reasons to Reject Socialism




Why we must protect the family,
private property and America from
the dangers of socialism





1. Socialism and communism are the same ideology

Communism is but an extreme form of socialism. From the ideological standpoint, there is no substantial difference between the two. In fact, the communist Soviet Union called itself the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922-1991) and communist China, Cuba and Vietnam define themselves as socialist nations.

2. Socialism violates personal freedom

Socialism seeks to eliminate “injustice” by transferring rights and responsibilities from individuals and families to the State. In the process, socialism actually creates injustice. It destroys true liberty: the freedom to decide all matters that lie within our own competence and to follow the course shown by our reason, within the laws of morality, including the dictates of justice and charity.

3. Socialism violates human nature

Socialism is anti-natural. It destroys personal initiative – a fruit of our intellect and free will – and replaces it with State control. It tends to totalitarianism, with its government and police repression, wherever it is implemented.

4. Socialism violates private property

Socialism calls for “redistributing the wealth” by taking from the “rich” to give to the poor. It imposes taxes that punish those who have been able to take greater advantage of their productive talents, capacity to work or thrift. It uses taxation to promote economic and social egalitarianism, a goal that will be fully achieved, according to The Communist Manifesto, with the “abolition of private property."

5. Socialism opposes traditional marriage

Socialism sees no moral reason for people to restrict sex to marriage, that is, to an indissoluble union between a man and a woman. Furthermore, socialism undermines private property, which Friedrich Engels, founder of modern socialism and communism along with Karl Marx, saw as the foundation of traditional marriage.

6. Socialism opposes parental rights in education

Socialism has the State, and not parents, control the education of children. Almost from birth, children are to be handed over to public institutions, where they will be taught what the State wants, regardless of parental views. Evolution must be taught. School prayer must be forbidden.

7. Socialism promotes radical equality

A supposed absolute equality among men is the fundamental assumption of socialism. Therefore, it sees any inequality as unjust in itself. Private employers are quickly portrayed as “exploiters” whose profits really belong to their employees. As a consequence, they rule out the system of wage earning.

8. Socialism promotes atheism

Belief in God, who unlike us is infinite, omnipotent and omniscient, clashes head-on with the principle of absolute equality. Socialism therefore rejects the spiritual, claiming that only matter exists. God, the soul, and the next life are illusions according to socialism.

9. Socialism promotes relativism

For socialism there are no absolute truths or revealed morals that establish standards of conduct that apply to everyone, everywhere, and always. Everything evolves, including right and wrong, good and evil. There is no place for the Ten Commandments, neither in the private mind nor in the public square.

10. Socialism mocks religion

According to Karl Marx, religion is "the opium of the people." Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union, agreed: "Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man." ■

 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Have to give him a A for swinging the U.S. towards socialism. Here are ten ways why we should reject his form of politics. Some of you may enjoy what is happening, try living it.



Ten Reasons to Reject Socialism

In your opinion.
Where is it carved in stone that religion shouldn't be mocked? If it's sound it will withstand the mockery. :smile:
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
It doesn't, just the socialists went to far with their agenda (including religion). We do have a guarantee of freedom of religion, (no where have I read in the Constitution is there a guarantee of freedom from religion, it is just a current interperation.)
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
It doesn't, just the socialists went to far with their agenda (including religion). We do have a guarantee of freedom of religion, (no where have I read in the Constitution is there a guarantee of freedom from religion, it is just a current interperation.)
Look at all the SCC ruling on the seperation of Church & State - Those support that a person without beliefs will be free of such things in schools etc and other public places do they not. So the Constituition does support Non Belief. It is just how you get to it is all.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
In your opinion.
Where is it carved in stone that religion shouldn't be mocked? If it's sound it will withstand the mockery. :smile:

I don't think anyone's belief should be mocked, feared maybe but never mocked. I don't believe that a moment of silent prayer in a school should be forced upon anyone, nor do I think anyone should prevent it. If your a atheist or just don't want to participate just think what ever you want and keep your mouth shut. (that also goes for the so called evangelists.)
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Now Obama and crew are on another vacation! I guess the first lady needed to rest up from her Spanish vacation.

Does Obama ever work?
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Oh, I guess if Bush did it Obama can spend as much time away as he wants. Same with the economy, if the Bush Administration can start wrecking it then why can't Obama finish the job!

Hey if you want to be dumb enough to take it that way, sure why not. Obama, you now have permission to screw up the economy because you took half of the vacation time your predecessor did. Also, EagleSmack officially gives you permission to screw it up as well.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Hey if you want to be dumb enough to take it that way, sure why not. Obama, you now have permission to screw up the economy because you took half of the vacation time your predecessor did. Also, EagleSmack officially gives you permission to screw it up as well.

Wow. Having comprehension difficulties?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I'm not socialist myself, but the comments below are not entirely accurate.

Have to give him a A for swinging the U.S. towards socialism. Here are ten ways why we should reject his form of politics. Some of you may enjoy what is happening, try living it.



Ten Reasons to Reject Socialism




Why we must protect the family,
private property and America from
the dangers of socialism





1. Socialism and communism are the same ideology

Communism is but an extreme form of socialism. From the ideological standpoint, there is no substantial difference between the two. In fact, the communist Soviet Union called itself the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922-1991) and communist China, Cuba and Vietnam define themselves as socialist nations.

I'll take Sweden as an example here. Sweden is generally considered a model socialist state by some, yet its governments owns a smaller percentage of the nation's GDP than the US which is generally considered by many to be a model capitalist state.

2. Socialism violates personal freedom

Socialism seeks to eliminate “injustice” by transferring rights and responsibilities from individuals and families to the State. In the process, socialism actually creates injustice. It destroys true liberty: the freedom to decide all matters that lie within our own competence and to follow the course shown by our reason, within the laws of morality, including the dictates of justice and charity.

That depends on the brand of socialism in question. Social corporatism for instance still puts much responsibility on the shoulders of individuals. Granted social corporatism is an extremely watered down form of socialism which some would even reject as no longer meriting the name socialist, but it still doesn't change the fact that some do consider social corporatism to be a form of moderate socialism none-the-less. For the most part social corporatism does not really aim at transfering wealth from rich to poor, but rather to democratize the workplace thus making it more possible for workers to negotiate fair wages within a free-market economy.So while your claim can be true, it is not necessarily so in all cases. It would really depend on the kind of socialism we were talking about.

3. Socialism violates human nature

Socialism is anti-natural. It destroys personal initiative – a fruit of our intellect and free will – and replaces it with State control. It tends to totalitarianism, with its government and police repression, wherever it is implemented.

While it is true that socialism is not natural, no form of government or economic system is. All are determined by the government or the community via a written or understood social contract. So unless you're a pure anarchist, this point is irrelevant if trying to defend capitalist government.

4. Socialism violates private property

Socialism calls for “redistributing the wealth” by taking from the “rich” to give to the poor. It imposes taxes that punish those who have been able to take greater advantage of their productive talents, capacity to work or thrift. It uses taxation to promote economic and social egalitarianism, a goal that will be fully achieved, according to The Communist Manifesto, with the “abolition of private property."

Again, not all socialists follow the Communist Manifesto to a T. But I will agree that this would be true of pure socialists.

5. Socialism opposes traditional marriage

Socialism sees no moral reason for people to restrict sex to marriage, that is, to an indissoluble union between a man and a woman. Furthermore, socialism undermines private property, which Friedrich Engels, founder of modern socialism and communism along with Karl Marx, saw as the foundation of traditional marriage.

Not necessarily. Soviet Russia, which considered itself socialist of sorts, opposed homosexuality. There is nothing intrinsic to socialist economic doctrine requiring the state to take any particular stance on marriage policy, and so that could vary from state to state.

6. Socialism opposes parental rights in education

Socialism has the State, and not parents, control the education of children. Almost from birth, children are to be handed over to public institutions, where they will be taught what the State wants, regardless of parental views. Evolution must be taught. School prayer must be forbidden.

Not necessarily, but sometimes true. Sweden, considered by some to be a model socialist state, uses a school voucher system and private schools can compete alongside state-owned schools for funding on an equal footing based on market demand, though granted all participating schools must follow certain rules. The point is though that that socialist state actually grants more school freedom via its voucher programme than most US school districts do!

And as for regulating the content to be taught, while you are right that this can apply to a socialist state, it can also apply just as easily to a nationalist state opposed to socialism, whereby anti-socialism or anti-communism or fanatical nationalism could become obligatory parts of the curriculum. None of this is necessarily socialist or non-socialist and there can be much variety there.

7. Socialism promotes radical equality

A supposed absolute equality among men is the fundamental assumption of socialism. Therefore, it sees any inequality as unjust in itself. Private employers are quickly portrayed as “exploiters” whose profits really belong to their employees. As a consequence, they rule out the system of wage earning.

This would apply to pure socialism, but not to all forms of socialism. Some more moderate forms of socialism would simply oppose usury or the more unjust aspects of the free market while leaving the rest of the free market to itself. There is a whole spectrum between capitalism and socialism, and there is no purely socialist or capitalist state in existence.

8. Socialism promotes atheism

Belief in God, who unlike us is infinite, omnipotent and omniscient, clashes head-on with the principle of absolute equality. Socialism therefore rejects the spiritual, claiming that only matter exists. God, the soul, and the next life are illusions according to socialism.

While often true, it's not always the case. Some on the left make up what we call the religious left. Tommy Douglas, leader of Canada's most powerful socialist party, a Baptist minister opposed to homosexual behaviour, comes to mind.

9. Socialism promotes relativism

For socialism there are no absolute truths or revealed morals that establish standards of conduct that apply to everyone, everywhere, and always. Everything evolves, including right and wrong, good and evil. There is no place for the Ten Commandments, neither in the private mind nor in the public square.

Again, while this can be true of some socialists, it does not apply to all socialists, especially among the religious left.

10. Socialism mocks religion

According to Karl Marx, religion is "the opium of the people." Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union, agreed: "Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man." ■

[/quote]

Again, not all socialists eccept Marx 100%

While the description above is true of perhaps many socialists, it's false to assume all socialists would agree with these principles 100%. It totally ignores the variety that exists within the socialist movement itself. Just as there can be many heated debates within the right itself, so the same applies to the left.

Obama trails Bush in vacation days 120 to 65 :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: 44: Barack Obama

Though I think he has taken more vacation than Clinton and Carter at this point.

It's pretty sad to be defending Obama by comparing him to possibly the worst president ever. The only reason Obama looks good is because of the guy he's replacing. For crying out loud, you could have filled the position with a toad and it would have shone like the sun in the shadow of Bush.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
I'm not socialist myself, but the comments below are not entirely accurate.



I'll take Sweden as an example here. Sweden is generally considered a model socialist state by some, yet its governments owns a smaller percentage of the nation's GDP than the US which is generally considered by many to be a model capitalist state.



That depends on the brand of socialism in question. Social corporatism for instance still puts much responsibility on the shoulders of individuals. Granted social corporatism is an extremely watered down form of socialism which some would even reject as no longer meriting the name socialist, but it still doesn't change the fact that some do consider social corporatism to be a form of moderate socialism none-the-less. For the most part social corporatism does not really aim at transfering wealth from rich to poor, but rather to democratize the workplace thus making it more possible for workers to negotiate fair wages within a free-market economy.So while your claim can be true, it is not necessarily so in all cases. It would really depend on the kind of socialism we were talking about.



While it is true that socialism is not natural, no form of government or economic system is. All are determined by the government or the community via a written or understood social contract. So unless you're a pure anarchist, this point is irrelevant if trying to defend capitalist government.



Again, not all socialists follow the Communist Manifesto to a T. But I will agree that this would be true of pure socialists.



Not necessarily. Soviet Russia, which considered itself socialist of sorts, opposed homosexuality. There is nothing intrinsic to socialist economic doctrine requiring the state to take any particular stance on marriage policy, and so that could vary from state to state.



Not necessarily, but sometimes true. Sweden, considered by some to be a model socialist state, uses a school voucher system and private schools can compete alongside state-owned schools for funding on an equal footing based on market demand, though granted all participating schools must follow certain rules. The point is though that that socialist state actually grants more school freedom via its voucher programme than most US school districts do!

And as for regulating the content to be taught, while you are right that this can apply to a socialist state, it can also apply just as easily to a nationalist state opposed to socialism, whereby anti-socialism or anti-communism or fanatical nationalism could become obligatory parts of the curriculum. None of this is necessarily socialist or non-socialist and there can be much variety there.



This would apply to pure socialism, but not to all forms of socialism. Some more moderate forms of socialism would simply oppose usury or the more unjust aspects of the free market while leaving the rest of the free market to itself. There is a whole spectrum between capitalism and socialism, and there is no purely socialist or capitalist state in existence.



While often true, it's not always the case. Some on the left make up what we call the religious left. Tommy Douglas, leader of Canada's most powerful socialist party, a Baptist minister opposed to homosexual behaviour, comes to mind.



Again, while this can be true of some socialists, it does not apply to all socialists, especially among the religious left.

Again, not all socialists eccept Marx 100%

While the description above is true of perhaps many socialists, it's false to assume all socialists would agree with these principles 100%. It totally ignores the variety that exists within the socialist movement itself. Just as there can be many heated debates within the right itself, so the same applies to the left.



It's pretty sad to be defending Obama by comparing him to possibly the worst president ever. The only reason Obama looks good is because of the guy he's replacing. For crying out loud, you could have filled the position with a toad and it would have shone like the sun in the shadow of Bush.[/QUOTE]


If it's any consolation then, he's taken less days than every president so far except for Carter and Clinton.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
If it's any consolation then, he's taken less days than every president so far except for Carter and Clinton.

OK, now we're talking. But I think it should be obvious that to prove a president's abilities by comparing him to Bush would be an insult to that president.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Now Obama and crew are on another vacation! I guess the first lady needed to rest up from her Spanish vacation.

Does Obama ever work?


LOL! Bush took off twice as much time and the far right had no objection. Besides, Obama paid for his family's vacation in Spain while Bush did not do the same.

~~ Ten reasons to reject Socialism ~~

Tell that to Wall Street capitalists:

 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
I'm not socialist myself, but the comments below are not entirely accurate.



I'll take Sweden as an example here. Sweden is generally considered a model socialist state by some, yet its governments owns a smaller percentage of the nation's GDP than the US which is generally considered by many to be a model capitalist state.



That depends on the brand of socialism in question. Social corporatism for instance still puts much responsibility on the shoulders of individuals. Granted social corporatism is an extremely watered down form of socialism which some would even reject as no longer meriting the name socialist, but it still doesn't change the fact that some do consider social corporatism to be a form of moderate socialism none-the-less. For the most part social corporatism does not really aim at transfering wealth from rich to poor, but rather to democratize the workplace thus making it more possible for workers to negotiate fair wages within a free-market economy.So while your claim can be true, it is not necessarily so in all cases. It would really depend on the kind of socialism we were talking about.



While it is true that socialism is not natural, no form of government or economic system is. All are determined by the government or the community via a written or understood social contract. So unless you're a pure anarchist, this point is irrelevant if trying to defend capitalist government.



Again, not all socialists follow the Communist Manifesto to a T. But I will agree that this would be true of pure socialists.



Not necessarily. Soviet Russia, which considered itself socialist of sorts, opposed homosexuality. There is nothing intrinsic to socialist economic doctrine requiring the state to take any particular stance on marriage policy, and so that could vary from state to state.



Not necessarily, but sometimes true. Sweden, considered by some to be a model socialist state, uses a school voucher system and private schools can compete alongside state-owned schools for funding on an equal footing based on market demand, though granted all participating schools must follow certain rules. The point is though that that socialist state actually grants more school freedom via its voucher programme than most US school districts do!

And as for regulating the content to be taught, while you are right that this can apply to a socialist state, it can also apply just as easily to a nationalist state opposed to socialism, whereby anti-socialism or anti-communism or fanatical nationalism could become obligatory parts of the curriculum. None of this is necessarily socialist or non-socialist and there can be much variety there.



This would apply to pure socialism, but not to all forms of socialism. Some more moderate forms of socialism would simply oppose usury or the more unjust aspects of the free market while leaving the rest of the free market to itself. There is a whole spectrum between capitalism and socialism, and there is no purely socialist or capitalist state in existence.



While often true, it's not always the case. Some on the left make up what we call the religious left. Tommy Douglas, leader of Canada's most powerful socialist party, a Baptist minister opposed to homosexual behaviour, comes to mind.



Again, while this can be true of some socialists, it does not apply to all socialists, especially among the religious left.


While the description above is true of perhaps many socialists, it's false to assume all socialists would agree with these principles 100%. It totally ignores the variety that exists within the socialist movement itself. Just as there can be many heated debates within the right itself, so the same applies to the left.


[/QUOTE]
Sweden calls itself a socialist state, and there are people in this world pretty that pretty much agree with that statement. The only true socialist states that I consider anti everything we believe in are Cuba, China, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam. They are truly Communist Socialist Nation's. Differences: Socialists are "biased" towards peaceful and incremental changes; communists promote proletarian revolution. Socialists are in favor of a strong and centralized state apparatus that owns and manages the economy; communists are opposed to any state apparatus at all. Obama: which garden path is he trying to lead such a diverse country as the U.S. We are a Democratic Republic today, 300+ million people will not accept what he is trying to do. No way can one compare Obama with Bush, Obama needs help from Pelosi to destroy America, Bush needed no help.
 
Last edited: