ThoughtExperiment

Quality Starter
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
3
Agree things haven't been terrible, or disastrous. We have had the worst postwar recovery economically, though. He didn't have anything to do with the stock market going up -- that's basically been bc of the poor economy leading to extended low interest rates. And the unemployment rate is such a flawed stat when after x months people simply drop off the rolls even though they don't have a job. The participation rate is the lowest it's been since the late 70s.
 

Dodger12

Super Moderator
Messages
7,309
Reaction score
4,224
It's true that the cost of living has gone up more than wages since the crash in 2008, and people are struggling. I never said our system was perfect, or better. And I understand that the circumstances in our respective countries aren't entirely comparable. But the principle of affordable healthcare for all (free at the point of service in our case) is one I subscribe to. I pay in through tax and National Insurance, and I don't consider it extortionate. Like I say, there are times when I have needed the NHS, and I'm OK with contributing my fair share for when others need it (even though I know there are a few who pay in nothing, live like slobs, and abuse the system).

Maybe I'm a gullible sap, but I don't want to be one of those people saying ''I'm alright Jack'', pulling the ladder up, whilst giving a big FU to those less fortunate. Not very Christian is it?

I'm all for affordable healthcare. But I'm not sure the European system is one we should look at. I've been to London. I've seen the outrageous cost of goods and services. Just going to McDonald's cost a small fortune. Drinking at a pub was insane. And my hotel was so overpriced and no bigger than a closet. I left after 3 days.......Nothing is free.

The tax rates in Countries like Canada (I'm not sure about England) are outrageous with people paying well over 50% of their wages to taxes. If everyone is employed and pays into the system, it can probably work. But right now, we may actually have more folks out of the labor force than do in it. A minority of the population must feed into a system to pay for the majority. It can't be sustainable.
 
Messages
1,550
Reaction score
415
I'm all for affordable healthcare. But I'm not sure the European system is one we should look at. I've been to London. I've seen the outrageous cost of goods and services. Just going to McDonald's cost a small fortune. Drinking at a pub was insane. And my hotel was so overpriced and no bigger than a closet. I left after 3 days.......Nothing is free.

The tax rates in Countries like Canada (I'm not sure about England) are outrageous with people paying well over 50% of their wages to taxes. If everyone is employed and pays into the system, it can probably work. But right now, we may actually have more folks out of the labor force than do in it. A minority of the population must feed into a system to pay for the majority. It can't be sustainable.
London is the rip-off capital of the world. You should visit somewhere in the north, you'd pay a fraction of the price, and the people are much nicer.

The top rate of tax is currently 40%, but if the lefties get in at the next election they've said they'll raise it to 50%.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,630
Reaction score
4,122
I've seen people here, and other places, make comments about how terrible the last 8 years have been.

I'm curious what, in particular, has been so terrible?
Lowest labor participation rates since the 1970s, with 95 million Americans out of the labor force, the forgotten ones who just gave up looking for work after their unemployment ran out.

The so-called recovery has been the weakest one since the 1940s. We have the lowest home ownership rate in 51 years – despite mortgage rates artificially kept at record lows.

Over 11 million more Americans are on food stamps since he became president and more than 43 million Americans now live in poverty. One of every six men between 18 and 34 are either in prison or out of work.

The estimated cost of regulations under Obama is a staggering $873 billion. That includes a shocking $344 billion cost in Environmental Protection Agency regulations alone. All told, the number of new regulations that been finalized under President Obama checks in at almost 3,000.

In the past eight years, America has lost more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs and, although Obama never mentions it, America had a global trade deficit of over $732 billion last year alone.

So what about foreign policy? Obama gave Iran, the No. 1 state sponsor of terror, $150 billion and allows them to continue to spin their centrifuges? And of course, he paid a ransom for four U.S. citizens Iran held prisoner, reversing longstanding policy and signaling to the world that there’s money to be made from taking Americans captive.

Obama drew a “red line” when he warned Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad not to use chemical weapons. When Assad did use them, Obama did nothing. Partly as a result, that country civil war continues and has created a massive worldwide humanitarian crisis.

In Egypt, Obama he gave Mohammed Morsi - the former Muslim Brotherhood head who became president but is now in prison for murder - F-16s, tanks and $1.5 billion in taxpayer funds.

In Libya, the president helped overthrew Qaddafi, and that country has since fallen into chaos, creating a hotbed for ISIS.

And speaking of ISIS, back 2014, President Obama called the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization the”JayVee” team. The next year, just hours before the horrific ISIS attack in Paris that killed 130 people, Obama assured us that ISIS was “contained.” ISIS was never a junior varsity team, and certainly was not contained. In fact, it seized vast parts of Iraq.

There's no doubt Obama's legacy is one of severe damage to the country.
He didn't have anything to do with the stock market going up -- that's basically been bc of the poor economy leading to extended low interest rates.
The Fed reserve is keeping the interest rates artificially low in order to simulate a "recovery," and try to keep the "misery index" under control. The result though is a massive bubble that when it bursts will make the 2008 "crash" look like childsplay. Consider - we have been pumping 30 billion every month of artificial stimulus into the economy, but only getting growth under 2 percent per annum. And you're right - every time the Fed even hints at raising that rate any substantial amount, Wall Street panics. Because the gravy train runs out either via a massive crash, or the Fed raising the rates.
 

NoMoRedJ

UDFA
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
56
Great list Dooms.

We also have a greater racial divide than we've had in my lifetime.

Hundreds of billions of dollars financed to jump start the economy with "shovel ready" projects only those projects didnt exist and those billions of financed dollars just vanished instead of jump starting the economy.

Healthcare is a total mess. People couldnt keep their insurance as promised. Far greater cost to individuals and businesses with far less benefit/coverage for the cost. And its not just the insured that recognize the mess. Doctors and people in healthcare says its a mess.

Immigration reform was primarily just ignoring the immigration laws in place.

Left a total mess in Iraq basically wasting all the money spent and the lives lost in that endeavor gaining nothing.

The Middle East is a mess. Not just Iraq, but he failed miserably with the Arab Spring and Egypt.

We lost our AAA credit rating

Cash For Clunkers did nothing but waste money and raise the cost of used cars

He blocked the Keystone Pipeline

Operation Fast and Furious. Giving over 2500 guns to mexican cartels used to kill hundreds of innocent people including our own border agents.

The IRS was used to target and harass people and groups that didnt share Obamas views.

The VA has been a total mess. Veterans not getting care and some vets died due to the incompetence.

The EPA & IRS email scandals where these groups had numerous hard drive crashes losing emails requested by Congress.

Common Core.

He's basically killed the space program.

World apology tour and bowing down to foreign leaders.

Benghazi.

DREAM Act.

Gayification of the military as well as other things to demoralize the military.

Undermined the Defense of Marriage Act

ISIS and terrorism is a greater worldwide problem.


So basically the economy was stagnant his 8 years. He ran up more debt than all the other presidents that preceded him combined. The military was neglected. Socially and racially the country is a bigger mess than ever before. And the leading from behind has helped the rise of terrorism worldwide leaving the Middle East a mess.

Who knows how much more damage he could have done if he hadnt spent millions of taxpayer dollars on vacations and golf. We probably should be happy he vacationed and golfed as much as he did.
 
Last edited:
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
Maybe I'm a gullible sap, but I don't want to be one of those people saying ''I'm alright Jack'', pulling the ladder up, whilst giving a big FU to those less fortunate. Not very Christian is it?
So you want the government proscribing to its citizens what is the Christian thing to do?
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
I've seen people here, and other places, make comments about how terrible the last 8 years have been.

I'm curious what, in particular, has been so terrible? The stock market has seen record highs. The unemployment rate has pretty steadily decreased. Federal debt has soared, which is bad.

Please don't consider this as any sort of an endorsement for Obama.....I'm truly curious what people deem to be so terrible? Or what is so terrible now that was better in the previous administration?

The general expansion of the government is terrible. But Obama doesn't have the market cornered on that. It will expand under Trump as well. The debt will rise under Trump just like Obama (as you noted). In different areas, sure... but still expanding.

Big picture... I wouldn't blame the expanding government on Obama. It started down this road long ago, and he exascerbated the problem.

The country has been in perpetual war since 9/11. That's a huge problem.

Obama campaigned on change and transparency. Nothing has changed, and transparency only came about after an unprecedented lack of transparency was exposed by whistleblowers.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,630
Reaction score
4,122
The general expansion of the government is terrible. But Obama doesn't have the market cornered on that. It will expand under Trump as well. The debt will rise under Trump just like Obama (as you noted). In different areas, sure... but still expanding.
Yes it is true that most people didn't realize the actual choice we had on election day was which big government NY liberal we wanted as President.
Cash For Clunkers did nothing but waste money and raise the cost of used cars
It accomplished exactly what was intended - make it nearly impossible for kids just starting out to gain independence via a cheap car.
 
Messages
4,952
Reaction score
0
Nearly half the country voted for Trump. That would be nearly 63 million ppl. So saying not many ppl voted for him is complete BS.

Yes Clinton won the popular vote. But like Trump said if it was about the popular vote he would have spent a lot more time campaigning in CA and NY. CA alone accounts for her entire lead in the popular vote

You most certainly do not understand anything that you copied from the internet but this particular part makes such little sense that I think you should go ask an adult to read it and then help you through it.

Aside from that, he lost by actually closer to 3 million votes so I think she had plenty of support. The electoral system is broken. Trump said it himself. Beyond that, nothing will get better until people from both sides can have a conversation without freaking out. Other than fringe racists and socialists, I think most people have a lot more in common then any of these politicians would want us to believe.
 

NoMoRedJ

UDFA
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
56
You most certainly do not understand anything that you copied from the internet but this particular part makes such little sense that I think you should go ask an adult to read it and then help you through it.

Aside from that, he lost by actually closer to 3 million votes so I think she had plenty of support. The electoral system is broken. Trump said it himself. Beyond that, nothing will get better until people from both sides can have a conversation without freaking out. Other than fringe racists and socialists, I think most people have a lot more in common then any of these politicians would want us to believe.

Losers always say the system is broken. The electoral college is there for a reason. But if it is broken its broken because it tends to benefit the DimoRats every 4 years.
 
Messages
4,952
Reaction score
0
Losers always say the system is broken. The electoral college is there for a reason. But if it is broken its broken because it tends to benefit the DimoRats every 4 years.

If you can explain what the electoral college is, and why it was put in place, without copy/pasting something nonsensical from drudge, then props to you, amigo. I seriously doubt that you can.

Also, not that I'm personally a democrat but they actually didn't lose. She won by almost 3 million votes and that was on a down year with voter apathy. Just something to keep in mind for 2018 and 2020.

President Garrett himself is so self-conscious about getting his ass handed to him in the election that his entire first week in office has been focused on crowd sizes. President Garrett also detests the electoral college btw. So you're defending something that your own orange messiah denounced.
 

Dodger12

Super Moderator
Messages
7,309
Reaction score
4,224
If you can explain what the electoral college is, and why it was put in place, without copy/pasting something nonsensical from drudge, then props to you, amigo. I seriously doubt that you can.

Also, not that I'm personally a democrat but they actually didn't lose. She won by almost 3 million votes and that was on a down year with voter apathy. Just something to keep in mind for 2018 and 2020.

President Garrett himself is so self-conscious about getting his ass handed to him in the election that his entire first week in office has been focused on crowd sizes. President Garrett also detests the electoral college btw. So you're defending something that your own orange messiah denounced.


Yes UVA, she did lose. The electoral college is not new and it's written in the Constitution. If we didn't have it, states like California and New York would basically decide the presidency every 4 years. Without the EC, these states could rig the ballot box, in a sense, and basically control the other 48 states. These types of factions were exactly what the Founding Fathers tried to avoid. Quite frankly, these men were wise beyond their years.
 
Messages
4,952
Reaction score
0
Yes UVA, she did lose. The electoral college is not new and it's written in the Constitution. If we didn't have it, states like California and New York would basically decide the presidency every 4 years. Without the EC, these states could rig the ballot box, in a sense, and basically control the other 48 states. These types of factions were exactly what the Founding Fathers tried to avoid. Quite frankly, these men were wise beyond their years.

California wasn't a state until 1850 and that is not what they were trying to avoid at all.

Trump himself has denounced the electoral college.

By the way, a popular vote has no geographic bearing. You have it backwards. The current system focuses only on swing states and their needs.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
California wasn't a state until 1850 and that is not what they were trying to avoid at all.

Trump himself has denounced the electoral college.

By the way, a popular vote has no geographic bearing. You have it backwards. The current system focuses only on swing states and their needs.
If there were no electoral college, then the system would only focus on a handful of the most populous states. There's no perfect way to ensure the people are heard and each state has a level of importance.
 
Messages
4,952
Reaction score
0
If there were no electoral college, then the system would only focus on a handful of the most populous states. There's no perfect way to ensure the people are heard and each state has a level of importance.

Actually, a race can be decided before pacific time zone voters even have a change to leave work to cast their ballots, so the idea that each state currently has a level of importance is certainly not being addressed.

Large population centers represent the demographics of the country far better than the current system. If you're a conservative in California, your vote means nothing in the electoral college system. And again, the system was not designed with any of this false spin in mind. We no longer deliver news by horseback.
 

bbgun

Administrator
Messages
15,130
Reaction score
2,285
President Garrett himself is so self-conscious about getting his ass handed to him in the election that his entire first week in office has been focused on crowd sizes. President Garrett also detests the electoral college btw. So you're defending something that your own orange messiah denounced.

Low blow, man. I can stomach him being called a racist, misogynist and xenophobe, but don't you dare compare him to Red.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
Actually, a race can be decided before pacific time zone voters even have a change to leave work to cast their ballots, so the idea that each state currently has a level of importance is certainly not being addressed.
If by "decided" you mean "projected" then I agree. But projected and decided aren't the same thing. A race can be projected before the polls close in California, because the projectors assume California is in the bag for the Democrat candidate. California has a high level of importance to the Democratic party.

And I do think each state has some level of importance through the electoral college. Hillary ignored Wisconsin and that smaller, less populous state helped swing the election against her. Wouldn't have matter how Wisconsin voted without the electoral college.

Large population centers represent the demographics of the country far better than the current system. If you're a conservative in California, your vote means nothing in the electoral college system. And again, the system was not designed with any of this false spin in mind. We no longer deliver news by horseback.
If a conservative's vote in California means nothing in the electoral college system, and conservatives generally make up half the country, then how can you say large population centers represent the demographics of the country better?
 

bbgun

Administrator
Messages
15,130
Reaction score
2,285
If a conservative's vote in California means nothing in the electoral college system, and conservatives generally make up half the country, then how can you say large population centers represent the demographics of the country better?

when leftists say "demographics," they mean race, gender, income and sexual orientation, not how voters think.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,630
Reaction score
4,122
that (factions) is not what they were trying to avoid at all.
Yes, it is. Their thoughts on this and many other founding issues are laid out in the Federalist Papers. Suggested reading on their beliefs about the dangers of pure democracy and factionalization, if you're really interested:

Federalist #9 and #10
Federalist #39
Federalist #68

The founders and framers were speaking to the future more than to their own present, and foresaw large heavily populated cities and the likelihood of factionalism within them as a threat to the less populated regions.

In federalist #10 James Madison offers two ways to check majority factions: prevent the "existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time" or render a majority faction unable to act. Madison concludes that a democracy cannot avoid the dangers of majority faction because democracy means that undesirable passions can very easily spread to a majority of the people, which can then enact its will through the purely democratic process without difficulty.

Madison states, "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man" so the cure is to control their effects. He makes an argument on how this is not possible in a pure democracy but possible in a republic. With pure democracy, he means a system in which every citizen votes directly for President, whereas with a republic, he intends a system in which citizens elect a small body of representatives who then vote for representatives and for President. This was the birth of the Electoral College, which actually we didn't finally get until the 12th Amendment was ratified in 1804, after Madison's wisdom became readily apparent.
Trump himself has denounced the electoral college.
Nobody's ever said he was overly bright or well educated on it. Or any other topic.
 
Top Bottom