Thank You Mr. Obama

PB Forum :: Social / Political Issues
Thank You Mr. Obama
  • Previous Page
Author Message
flag Gsnickets
Posted: Feb 24, 2009 at 23:11 Quote
Tonight we heard an eloquent speech presented by a master orator. He was polished, witty, and it seemed he was very sincere in his desire to help the American people. Once again the American people basked in the gentle glow of their televisions to hear the President of the United States slide around his oath to the Constitution.

Having said that; here is a man that less than 5 weeks ago swore an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution;” who spoke for 50 minutes on the many and costly programs that were totally outside the scope of the federal government.

This is not about saving money, or banks, or car companies, this is about saving the very principles this great nation was founded upon.

What we heard tonight was nothing more than a plea to race headlong toward socialism, to spread the wealth around, as he has said before. He wants to create federal lending funds and housing rescue plans to help individual home owners (wealth redistribution). He wants to swoop down from on high with the “full force of the Federal Government” whenever any bank may be having problems and bring them to task. And may we remind the reading audience; it was that very same federal government that mandated that these banks make those loans or loose their favored bank rating. They caused the problem by their very own regulations and offer to fix it by increasing regulation and control. What this really means is more power for the central government and less power to the states.

Then he tells us how he inherited this “Great Debt” and within 30 days of taking office created the largest governmental spending in the history of the nation.

He spoke of more money for education. In effect creating a cradle to career, (his words were birth to college) to get more college level workers into the system. He spoke of providing every child the opportunity for universal education to include a college education that will cost at least a half a trillion dollars in and of itself to educate those 7 million students.

He wants to immediately establish the electronic healthcare records program. As with every other electronic system in existence, the federal government will have its fingers fully intertwined within it. And anyone who believes the government will not utilize every bit of information it has at its disposal to fulfill any of its “missions” is either ignorant of the working of our government or a fool. A possible example how this would work is: Because terrorists, who may be bringing in lethal gases, viruses, nuclear material, etc. may potentially display symptoms requiring they receive medical attention, the records of all hospitals will be made available to the federal government to ensure the safety of our nation. From here it is a small step to tie into the Center for Disease Control so they can monitor the health of the nation and be able to more accurately determine when a pandemic is occurring. Then as the government becomes more involved in banking, health insurance, etc. they will need access to determine the status of their clients. After all they (feds) are paying for it therefore they have a right to know what “their” money is doing, right?

Then there was the quickly touted claim of enacting “preventive health care.” One can only be lead to believe that because you are on the government’s health care system you must comply with certain requirements to ensure proper cost saving measures. One could envision a required semi-annual checkup, weekly exercise program, and calorie and meal requirements for the obese. All of this in an effort to reduce the overall cost of the healthcare system and make people healthier. Of course they will now live longer because they are so much healthier, but don’t fret the 750.00 month social security pension will see you through just fine.

The issue here is not what can be done but who should be doing it.

The federal government was created by a charter that enumerates the powers of the federal government, that charter is called the Constitution for the United States. Each and every item in the Presidents speech cannot be found supported by the Constitution. Who knows better what the people of a particular state need, the people of that state, or the President? Who would be in a better position to help those in need, a President in the White House, or the legislature of the state where they reside.

What we need is for our states to stand up on their own two feet and tell the federal government enough is enough. We, the states of this union, created you and we can dismantle you. Repeal every law, ordinance, and statute that is not founded in the enumerated powers of the Constitution, stand down and let the states handle their own domestic problems. The Tenth Amendment states that all powers not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people and damn it it’s time we stood up.

Obey the Constitution or else!

Written by Michael LeMieux and Gary Franchi
flag harriieee
Posted: Feb 25, 2009 at 14:30 Quote
Here we go again. I thought this obsessive, paranoiac fear of socialism was meant to have ended with the Cold War. All i can say is, if only Obama was offering something akin to socialism. No doubt Gibson will be on in due course to agree vociferously with everything, so I'll get in first.

Does anyone in that country of yours actually know what socialism is? ZOMGWTF WELFARE, HE IZ TEH NEXT STALIN!!! Socialism is a system by which the state owns or has a large degree of control over more or less everything. The obsession with condemning everything even mildly left-leaning with McCarthyist attacks on 'the descent into socialism' is frankly moronic hysteria designed to rally the right against anything contravening their own values. Do LeMieux and Franchi honestly believe that an initiative for federal lending to stop millions of people losing their homes in the worst economic crisis for almost a century is "a plea to race headlong towards socialism"? If they seriously, honestly do, then I'm surprised that at this moment they aren't writing FDR down as a outright communist in the mold of Trotsky. Roosevelt introduced the Alphabet Agencies after the 'rugged individualism' of three Republican presidents had not just created an underclass, but left a generation of American citizens with nothing through no fault of their own, his New Deal was profoundly more geared towards federal intervention than this. I'm sorry to be blunt, but get a grip on reality, this is not going to lead to tanks with red stars on them parading through Times Square in four years.

Speaking of a grip on the facts, the authors of this have a fairly tenuous hold on the causes of the recession themselves. Apparently the government "caused the problem by their very own regulations". Wow. That is literally the polar opposite of what happened; maybe these "journalists" should know that it was lack of regulation that has led to the banks lending stupidly with no care as to the long-term? Yeah, the problem was caused by their regulations, namely the lack of any sensible ones. But to regulate business is what socialists do, right?

As for electronic healthcare records, you're resisting what has already been implemented in my country for about ten years, and I don't see many people in the UK (myself excluded) screaming the virtues of socialism from the rooftops. This article is basically moronic speculation and fear-mongering against a fundamentally centrist President whose hand has been forced by exceptional circumstance. You want to know in what way your society is socialist? It socialises risk, and privatises reward. The encouragement of the live-for-the-short-term, near-sighted profit culture f*cks everything up, and the government has no option but to come in and pick up the pieces to stop millions of people ending up in 21st-century Hoovervilles. And you are actually worried about your country becoming the United Socialist States of America? That'll be the goddam day.
flag Gsnickets
Posted: Feb 25, 2009 at 14:52 Quote
the banks were told to give out sub-prime loans thanks to the clinton administration.... stick to your country's politics bud, or do some research. If the banks didn't have to listen to the fed, I highly doubt we would be in this situation. There has been a big push for the govt. to control not only the health care system, but the banks, and even the auto industry.


now, I don't agree with everything in this article, but it does raise some good points about the direction we're heading, and the infamous blame game that obama has been playing for the last year and a half.
flag AKGravity
Posted: Mar 27, 2009 at 11:14 Quote
!!!!!!!Smile Dead Horse I wonder how long Obama will blame the Bush admin?and when he bankrupts the country will it still be Bushes fault?
flag FriedRys
Posted: Mar 28, 2009 at 19:26 Quote
harriieee wrote:
Here we go again. I thought this obsessive, paranoiac fear of socialism was meant to have ended with the Cold War. All i can say is, if only Obama was offering something akin to socialism. No doubt Gibson will be on in due course to agree vociferously with everything, so I'll get in first.

Does anyone in that country of yours actually know what socialism is? ZOMGWTF WELFARE, HE IZ TEH NEXT STALIN!!! Socialism is a system by which the state owns or has a large degree of control over more or less everything. The obsession with condemning everything even mildly left-leaning with McCarthyist attacks on 'the descent into socialism' is frankly moronic hysteria designed to rally the right against anything contravening their own values. Do LeMieux and Franchi honestly believe that an initiative for federal lending to stop millions of people losing their homes in the worst economic crisis for almost a century is "a plea to race headlong towards socialism"? If they seriously, honestly do, then I'm surprised that at this moment they aren't writing FDR down as a outright communist in the mold of Trotsky. Roosevelt introduced the Alphabet Agencies after the 'rugged individualism' of three Republican presidents had not just created an underclass, but left a generation of American citizens with nothing through no fault of their own, his New Deal was profoundly more geared towards federal intervention than this. I'm sorry to be blunt, but get a grip on reality, this is not going to lead to tanks with red stars on them parading through Times Square in four years.

Speaking of a grip on the facts, the authors of this have a fairly tenuous hold on the causes of the recession themselves. Apparently the government "caused the problem by their very own regulations". Wow. That is literally the polar opposite of what happened; maybe these "journalists" should know that it was lack of regulation that has led to the banks lending stupidly with no care as to the long-term? Yeah, the problem was caused by their regulations, namely the lack of any sensible ones. But to regulate business is what socialists do, right?

As for electronic healthcare records, you're resisting what has already been implemented in my country for about ten years, and I don't see many people in the UK (myself excluded) screaming the virtues of socialism from the rooftops. This article is basically moronic speculation and fear-mongering against a fundamentally centrist President whose hand has been forced by exceptional circumstance. You want to know in what way your society is socialist? It socialises risk, and privatises reward. The encouragement of the live-for-the-short-term, near-sighted profit culture f*cks everything up, and the government has no option but to come in and pick up the pieces to stop millions of people ending up in 21st-century Hoovervilles. And you are actually worried about your country becoming the United Socialist States of America? That'll be the goddam day.
The American Taxpayers now have an 80% interest in AIG.

We have dropped close to 30 BILLION dollars into an auto idustry that is collapsing under the strain of an ABSURDLY overpaid Union that has manufactured their own demise.

A mortagage bailout plan that allows the Goverment to renegotiate the terms of a mortgage between a lender and borrower, as well as re-value the property. This bailout now means that we apartment dwellers that didn't buy a house we could not afford are now subsidizing those that DID buy a house that THEY COULD NOT AFFORD.

A Treasury Secretary that is asking for the power to Nationalize finantial firms if he feels they are in danger of failing or destabilizing the economy.

The Goverment most definately did cause this mess with the brilliant idea of demanding banks issue loans to people that were deemed "High Risk", because they had the great idea that everyoine should be able to own a home, even if their primary source of income was listed as Goverment Welfare Benefits.

Goverment run Health Care? I've seen the quality of American Govermental services, I live here dude, I wouldn't want to trust my life to it.

Am I screaming SOCIALISM!!!? Not yet, but things are looking grim my boy.



One last point, The George Orwell/1984 talk was hot and heavy when Ol' GWB was in office, do people really believe that, even the Chosen One Himself, has been able to reverse the trend of an over-bloated bureaucracy like the U.S. Goverment?






























Then ask yourself if it would be in his best interest to do so.
flag scottbike
Posted: Jun 30, 2009 at 14:24 Quote
Gsnickets wrote:
Tonight we heard an eloquent speech presented by a master orator. He was polished, witty, and it seemed he was very sincere in his desire to help the American people. Once again the American people basked in the gentle glow of their televisions to hear the President of the United States slide around his oath to the Constitution.

Having said that; here is a man that less than 5 weeks ago swore an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution;” who spoke for 50 minutes on the many and costly programs that were totally outside the scope of the federal government.

This is not about saving money, or banks, or car companies, this is about saving the very principles this great nation was founded upon.

What we heard tonight was nothing more than a plea to race headlong toward socialism, to spread the wealth around, as he has said before. He wants to create federal lending funds and housing rescue plans to help individual home owners (wealth redistribution). He wants to swoop down from on high with the “full force of the Federal Government” whenever any bank may be having problems and bring them to task. And may we remind the reading audience; it was that very same federal government that mandated that these banks make those loans or loose their favored bank rating. They caused the problem by their very own regulations and offer to fix it by increasing regulation and control. What this really means is more power for the central government and less power to the states.

Then he tells us how he inherited this “Great Debt” and within 30 days of taking office created the largest governmental spending in the history of the nation.

He spoke of more money for education. In effect creating a cradle to career, (his words were birth to college) to get more college level workers into the system. He spoke of providing every child the opportunity for universal education to include a college education that will cost at least a half a trillion dollars in and of itself to educate those 7 million students.

He wants to immediately establish the electronic healthcare records program. As with every other electronic system in existence, the federal government will have its fingers fully intertwined within it. And anyone who believes the government will not utilize every bit of information it has at its disposal to fulfill any of its “missions” is either ignorant of the working of our government or a fool. A possible example how this would work is: Because terrorists, who may be bringing in lethal gases, viruses, nuclear material, etc. may potentially display symptoms requiring they receive medical attention, the records of all hospitals will be made available to the federal government to ensure the safety of our nation. From here it is a small step to tie into the Center for Disease Control so they can monitor the health of the nation and be able to more accurately determine when a pandemic is occurring. Then as the government becomes more involved in banking, health insurance, etc. they will need access to determine the status of their clients. After all they (feds) are paying for it therefore they have a right to know what “their” money is doing, right?

Then there was the quickly touted claim of enacting “preventive health care.” One can only be lead to believe that because you are on the government’s health care system you must comply with certain requirements to ensure proper cost saving measures. One could envision a required semi-annual checkup, weekly exercise program, and calorie and meal requirements for the obese. All of this in an effort to reduce the overall cost of the healthcare system and make people healthier. Of course they will now live longer because they are so much healthier, but don’t fret the 750.00 month social security pension will see you through just fine.

The issue here is not what can be done but who should be doing it.

The federal government was created by a charter that enumerates the powers of the federal government, that charter is called the Constitution for the United States. Each and every item in the Presidents speech cannot be found supported by the Constitution. Who knows better what the people of a particular state need, the people of that state, or the President? Who would be in a better position to help those in need, a President in the White House, or the legislature of the state where they reside.

What we need is for our states to stand up on their own two feet and tell the federal government enough is enough. We, the states of this union, created you and we can dismantle you. Repeal every law, ordinance, and statute that is not founded in the enumerated powers of the Constitution, stand down and let the states handle their own domestic problems. The Tenth Amendment states that all powers not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people and damn it it’s time we stood up.

Obey the Constitution or else!

Written by Michael LeMieux and Gary Franchi

I was worried when you said eloquent and Thank you mr. Obama. I was going to lay into you. Seems like you really do have your head on strait. Good Job
flag scottbike
Posted: Jun 30, 2009 at 14:31 Quote
harriieee wrote:
Here we go again. I thought this obsessive, paranoiac fear of socialism was meant to have ended with the Cold War. All i can say is, if only Obama was offering something akin to socialism. No doubt Gibson will be on in due course to agree vociferously with everything, so I'll get in first.

Does anyone in that country of yours actually know what socialism is? ZOMGWTF WELFARE, HE IZ TEH NEXT STALIN!!! Socialism is a system by which the state owns or has a large degree of control over more or less everything. The obsession with condemning everything even mildly left-leaning with McCarthyist attacks on 'the descent into socialism' is frankly moronic hysteria designed to rally the right against anything contravening their own values. Do LeMieux and Franchi honestly believe that an initiative for federal lending to stop millions of people losing their homes in the worst economic crisis for almost a century is "a plea to race headlong towards socialism"? If they seriously, honestly do, then I'm surprised that at this moment they aren't writing FDR down as a outright communist in the mold of Trotsky. Roosevelt introduced the Alphabet Agencies after the 'rugged individualism' of three Republican presidents had not just created an underclass, but left a generation of American citizens with nothing through no fault of their own, his New Deal was profoundly more geared towards federal intervention than this. I'm sorry to be blunt, but get a grip on reality, this is not going to lead to tanks with red stars on them parading through Times Square in four years.

Speaking of a grip on the facts, the authors of this have a fairly tenuous hold on the causes of the recession themselves. Apparently the government "caused the problem by their very own regulations". Wow. That is literally the polar opposite of what happened; maybe these "journalists" should know that it was lack of regulation that has led to the banks lending stupidly with no care as to the long-term? Yeah, the problem was caused by their regulations, namely the lack of any sensible ones. But to regulate business is what socialists do, right?

As for electronic healthcare records, you're resisting what has already been implemented in my country for about ten years, and I don't see many people in the UK (myself excluded) screaming the virtues of socialism from the rooftops. This article is basically moronic speculation and fear-mongering against a fundamentally centrist President whose hand has been forced by exceptional circumstance. You want to know in what way your society is socialist? It socialises risk, and privatises reward. The encouragement of the live-for-the-short-term, near-sighted profit culture f*cks everything up, and the government has no option but to come in and pick up the pieces to stop millions of people ending up in 21st-century Hoovervilles. And you are actually worried about your country becoming the United Socialist States of America? That'll be the goddam day.
Can't you see that we actually are headed towards socialism. Socialism is gov. control over everything. this is not what our country was based on. We ran away from a king. Now our obama is taking over buisness' left and right and imposing more and more restrictions, and you say that we are not heading towards socialism? Please, look around you.
flag harriieee
Posted: Jun 30, 2009 at 14:43 Quote
I do wish that your country was heading for socialism. Unfortunately this Cold War paranoia really did never go away. I'm not really even going to offer an argument against you.

So I'll repeat what I wrote originally:

Was FDR a socialist?

PS: I wouldn't give him too much credit; he's just copied and pasted an article onto here.
flag gibson19
Posted: Jun 30, 2009 at 14:52 Quote
harriieee wrote:
I do wish that your country was heading for socialism. Unfortunately this Cold War paranoia really did never go away. I'm not really even going to offer an argument against you.

So I'll repeat what I wrote originally:

Was FDR a socialist?

PS: I wouldn't give him too much credit; he's just copied and pasted an article onto here.

Nope... he wasn't a socialist... But he sure introduced a lot of social programs that have majorly screwed them selves up... Social Security for instance...



I typed out a big long reply but then accidentally pressed the back button and lost it... But it was basically about all the other things the government is getting involved in now... Obamas talking about national health care... The government owns General Motors, the federal reserve owns a bunch of shit ie banks that it shouldn't be investing in... etc...

No its not social... but sure the hell isn't my good ole buddy capitalism... Part of the problem are the idiots that live in this country too... They figure they can do whatever they want and never look at the consequences so they haves mounds of credit card debt and whatnot...

ps... Bush urged congress to do something about fannie and freddie (Which were started right after the great depression nonetheless... Gotta love those government sponsored enterprises)

Bush urges congress
flag harriieee
Posted: Jul 1, 2009 at 4:27 Quote
National Healthcare?

Is my country socialist?

Unfortunately, stupid people are endemic in any system. A system that doesn't account for the morons isn't really workable; they're a fact of life. If you're blaming the stupid people, rather than the nature of the system, you're being every bit as idealist as I am. The 'responsibility' that capitalism extolls is a myth in practice.

I'm aware that Bush was more keen for control than Clinton; unfortunately any good that he might have done was more than canceled out by his Net Capital Rule, 2004. What a dire step.

What I'm saying is that these enterprises were invented to stop millions of people dying of hunger in your country after the Great Depression. If anyone thinks of this as an overarching trend, frankly they're wrong. Obama's just trying to stop a wholesale implosion of business in the USA, and people are slating him for dragging the USA into socialism? Seriously. If there was ever a time for a roll, this is it.

Rolleyes
flag marty660
Posted: Jul 2, 2009 at 9:46 Quote
Yeah Gibson Roosevelt, if anything, saved the USA/made it into the great power it became.

The bottom line about all this is that the US government is a pile of shit. You can't trust a Democrat or a Republican because, in the end, you're voting for a separate faction of the Business party: the one that takes your money, or the one that gives it away.

The population of Senators/Congressmen over about 60 (which makes like 1/2 them probably) should be lopped off and new people let in, your government obviously needs it.

Also the powers of the President should be reduced a little.
flag signorvince2
Posted: Jul 8, 2009 at 23:36 Quote
Harrieee, How is socialism beneficial to ANYONE?

The free market breeds innovation, specialization, and the ability to make your own future.

As for the socialized medicine in Canada, what's the wait time on an X-Ray? I read an article recently that the AVERAGE wait for an X-ray in Canada is 3 weeks. MRI's are 8 weeks.

If I need medical coverage, I want it done. I don't want to be waiting around for 3 weeks waiting to see if I need surgery or not, especially if it hinders me from my livlihood or something I love.

If I'm given everything I need, why should I strive to better myself?
flag harriieee
Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 4:11 Quote
signorvince2 wrote:
The free market breeds innovation, specialization, and the ability to make your own future.

Think I'm idealistic? Why don't you go tell the ghetto kids who never really had a chance to make something of their lives that they have the ability to make their own future. Maybe they could grow up to be a CEO of a major corporation.... or is that more likely to be a rich white boy given every headstart in life like me? Instead, maybe the overwhelming majority of those who are less privileged at birth of end up working 11 hours a day on the minimum wage with no healthcare? To quote Tyler Durden:

bigquotesWe've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars, but we won't

Sure there's the one in a million story, but the nature of society guarantees that for every one person who actually makes it, a genuine American Dream rags-to-riches story, there'll be 999,999 who don't. Sure, in theory, you can make your own future - but some people are born with a future and others with practically zero chance of having one.

I'll edit this post and add what I have to say about innovation and specialization later... and then try to answer your final question.
flag signorvince2
Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 8:07 Quote
Our president was born with nothing. He was born in the ghetto with NO advantages over anyone else. You're quoting a movie like it's a great philosopher. I've seen people who are well off fall, I've seen people with nothing rise up and better themselves, and I've seen people do absolutely nothing to try to get ahead. It takes hard work, and that's something that many Americans are afraid of and will not do.
flag harriieee
Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 10:58 Quote
Your president was born in Hawaii and went to a private school. That sound like nothing to you?

I'm glad for the minority that you profess to have seen make it; good for them. Unfortunately it is a fundamental trait of the system that if one makes it, a large number of others have to fail. If one man sets up a business, a hundred others work for him and do more hours for less pay, logic says that not all of them can set up their own business or rise very high. Now you can make all the sweeping judgements you like about them being lazy or afraid of hard work, but a lot of them won't be.

Tell me: is it a coincidence that every single person in my year at my private school is going to university, when under 20% of British kids do go there? Is that selection on merit, or is it just because our mummies and daddies have money to pay for an education, and to give us a stable upbringing so that we can do well at our expensive school? Sure I've put in the work and am smart enough, but could I have done it without having two doctors for parents?

This is all a little bit by the by. If you want my actual argument against Capitalism (with a more macro view to it), it's in the Reaganomics thread. No-one's actually addressed it yet.

5 posts down
  • Previous Page

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.014003
Mobile Version of Website