Obamamania verges on obsession
- Thread starter Mason
- Start date
- Status
ComputerNerd
Banned
xsarien said:
I never said he's the anti Bush. Bush is actually a lot more liberal than a lot of you realize.
Out of everything Obama has talked about doing, none of it has been slimming down the government. His economic policy, from what he's told us, has been New Deal-ish. Fix the economy by growing government. Didn't work then, won't work now. (economists generally agree that the New Deal actually made the depression deeper and longer than had the New Deal not existed. It's actually WW II that rose us out of the Depression).
Stoney Mason
Banned
avatar299 said:
You are assuming that people who would vote for other candidates in either party share your same view and estimation of government along with the belief in Barrack Obama's ability to change that. In addition not sure what this specifically has to do with Hillary. This was written by the politico. Not a Hillary Clinton staffer.
ComputerNerd
Banned
Zeed said:
Do you have any idea how much we spend on Social Security every year? Ever taken a look at your paycheck?
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
ComputerNerd said:
1.) The New Deal did what it was suppose to. In fact it was probably too good, which lies the problem
2.) He's Liberal, of course he supports growing government
3.)Bush is only liberal in the sense that he promotes big government.
ComputerNerd
Banned
Zeed said:
If we're going "bankrupt", you can hardly claim that Social Security is the only or even the primary reason.
Well, even your own chart has the wars at a small percentage compared to the entitlement programs at 30%.
grandjedi6 said:
hyperbole? ha. Whatever "hyperbole" has ever escaped my lips is not nearly as bad as gets thrown around by obama supporters. One would think that this country is an absolute fucking cesspool.
My mother came from a REAL cesspool of a country. Obama fans live in a giant cloud of hyperbole.
ComputerNerd
Banned
grandjedi6 said:
It was so good it made the Depression worse?
If you want to cut spending, why not start where the most is being spent?ComputerNerd said:
We should spend less on fucking up other countries, which has few if any tangible benifits, before we even consider Human Resources/Entitlement/Whatever You Want To Call It. Social Security (a mere subset of the "Human Resources slice") is a popular right-wing whipping boy, but it's hardly the area where most of the funds are going down the drain.
Fiscal conservatism in the Republican party has been outright replaced by warmongering. If money is going to be spent, I rather it be spent on our country rather than bombing others.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
I can't speak for others but I myself never called or do I think the US is a cesspool. However I do think Bush has hurt the country overall in this 2 termsEnron said:
Economic policy is so varied that you can find a sizable amount of economists defending any economic policy. For the New Deal specifically about half of econimists say the New Deal made the Depression worse while the other half say it helped.ComputerNerd said:
ComputerNerd
Banned
Zeed said:
As I said, the wars are only a small slice of the budget, in comparison to the entitlement programs.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
Depends on what eschatology you use. If you're talking Left Behind flavoured, 19th century protestant, pre-millenial rapture eschatology, then maybe. After all, he isn't of middle-eastern descent or from Romania.Fireblend said:
Of course, that viewpoint isn't shared by anyone outside the evangelical churches, is based on various 19th-century, non-biblical ideas and is theologically questionable at best.
By the same token, Social Security is only a slice of the Human Resources slice, unless you're attacking everything within that bracket with no knowledge of what else it contains.ComputerNerd said:
Realistically, lots of money is going to be spent no matter who's in the White House - no party currently represents fiscal conservatism. If you end the war (rather than continuing it for another 100 years), a good chunk of the Military pie is instantly cut. If you cut Military spending in general, a good chunk more is saved. It is the biggest piece of the pie and should be the first to bear scrutiny if your actual interest is in the bottom line and not the demonization of Social Security.
And frankly in the current political climate it's unlikely that a Republican president could or even would try to slash the Human Resources pie by any substantial amount. The only difference is that they would continue the war and extravagant military spending for the foreseeable future. If your concern lies with the nation's finances, then a democratic president (particularly Obama, who's less radical about these things than Queen Hillary) makes much more sense than McCain.
siamesedreamer
Banned
Obamalogy is the new religion of the left.
Global Warming is feeling lonely.
Global Warming is feeling lonely.
I think the suspicion of demagogy is legitimate. Obama does have a cult of personality as part of his movement and he has openly cultivated this.
That said, I find the outright hostility to this, usually from the same people who have nothing better to offer us (Clinton? MCCain? Mr. Snores?) to be highly suspect. The premise of their attacks may be sound, but I question if they really do feel that Obama is 'bad' for the country.
Charismatic leaders aren't perfect. The likes of Pierre Trudeau, though loved in many parts of Canada, is widely hated in the western provinces, where he is seen as a distant centralizing 'socialist' who took from the oil rich provinces to increase the size of the government.
At this junction in American politics, a dose of charisma and inspiration may be just what the country needs as it wakes up to a new century with a new set of challenges. I don't see the yuppie left wing policies molded in the 90s and 'experience' taking the United States in a higher road or one that is less traveled. Hillary Clinton for all intents and purposes is running on a platform of Bill Clinton's 3rd term and the environment today is wildly different from the one Bill left us with in 2000.
That said, I find the outright hostility to this, usually from the same people who have nothing better to offer us (Clinton? MCCain? Mr. Snores?) to be highly suspect. The premise of their attacks may be sound, but I question if they really do feel that Obama is 'bad' for the country.
Charismatic leaders aren't perfect. The likes of Pierre Trudeau, though loved in many parts of Canada, is widely hated in the western provinces, where he is seen as a distant centralizing 'socialist' who took from the oil rich provinces to increase the size of the government.
At this junction in American politics, a dose of charisma and inspiration may be just what the country needs as it wakes up to a new century with a new set of challenges. I don't see the yuppie left wing policies molded in the 90s and 'experience' taking the United States in a higher road or one that is less traveled. Hillary Clinton for all intents and purposes is running on a platform of Bill Clinton's 3rd term and the environment today is wildly different from the one Bill left us with in 2000.
FUCK YOU!. can't you see he's the second coming? are you trying to ruin the rapture?
http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/
http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/
- Status