More election discussion
 

I hope I'm not yelled at for this because I feel there's a lot more to be said about a lot of different topics.

This is the whole "what were you thinking" mentality that I only briefly referred to. Half of us thinks the other half is insane or too ignorant to control the country. The only cure seems to be staying open minded.

I have a couple questions I'd like to ask though, since the majority of this forum is without a doubt smarter and more informed than me. Maybe some of this will let the Obamanites understand where my side was coming from. What I've been fed since before the election is that Obama has presented a platform of ideas and changes to the country that just can't all come to pass, in some part due to some of them conflicting with each other (i.e. he says he'll listen to those who disagree, but supports the Fairness Doctrine). My first question is how much of his platform will actually happen?

As far as experience goes, maybe I'm wrong in disagreeing with my peers in saying it doesn't matter, what with the amount of advisement he'll be recieving.

Another continous topic (I'm talking EVERY DAY) on the radio was Obama's associations with Farrakhan(sic) and Ayers. Don't get me wrong, I am not one of those who thinks Obama is a terrorist and wants to gut the world. But, doesn't this show a lack of judgement to surround yourself with this type of people?

And finally, if you're still reading, I have one more question. I've had discussions with everyone I know about economics and who's plans in the past have caused surpluses and who's have caused deficits. What aggravates me the most is when the argument becomes "well, this president did have a surplus, but it was caused by the previous president's actions" "no it wasn't". Can someone tell me which side is true. Was Clinton's surplus caused by Clinton? Were Reagan's tax cuts the cause of an economic upswing? How will socialism save the economy?

I'm dumb, I want to be more informed.

[Edit] Also, is his aunt really living here in a slum illegally or was that just a rumor? If it's true I really have a problem with him quoting "whatever you do for the least of you, you do for me". I really should have found all this out before voting.

My Canadian ass is happy with the outcome of the election. Of course I had no doubt in my mind Obama was going to win, and I'm now $50 richer!

Funny quote of the day: "It doesn't really matter what Obama does in office. Even if he did NOTHING AT ALL, he would be a ten-fold improvement on the last 8 years."

Though that's probably a half-truth. Hmm...Maybe it's more of a three-quarters-truth. But yeah.

Well, you have to realize that the president can only PROPOSE legislation. He needs someone else to actually introduce it. Really, all campaign promises are misleading that way, because the president really has very little power to make things happen on his own. He needs Congress to do it for him and then only has the power to execute it (basically give the okay), or veto it (to say he will not execute it) and then wait to see if he is overruled by Congress and FORCED to execute it.

He DIDN'T surround himself with them. Or at least not Ayers. Unless happening to live on the same street counts as willing and extensive association. He and Ayers served on a board together, which only happened because Ayers is now a productive member of society and a respected college professor. They did not go out campaigning together or bomb empty government buildings as a team or anything past what coincidence provided. Neither sought the other out. As for the first guy, I don't recognize the name. Unless it was the priest that everyone was fussing about, but that was heavily skewed in itself.

Economics is a fickle thing that way, but anyone in the know about it says that trickle-down economics just don't work. Money that goes to the rich stays there because they use it to buy goods and services from high-profile businesses owned by more rich people. They are not likely to buy a power drill from a small business owned by a working shmuck. They'll by a fancy, expensive one custom-made with a mother of pearl handle from an elite custom shop or something. Rather than buying homemade all-natural soap from a hippie lady, they go to an exclusive spa for a full treatment.

Another thing is that if you look at history, Democrats have usually been better about making the economy work because of their programs to give money to those who don't have it. Obama is basically right about the working/middle class being the base of the economy. The poor don't have money to spend and the rich don't spend it on those in a lower bracket, so the best way to judge an economy is based on what's happening with the masses, rather than the select few at the top. If all the richest people were to spend all of their money on the same stuff normal people did, they first of all would save a ton of it, meaning less was introduced into the system, and second of all, if they DID dump all of what they dump on other rich people onto the masses, would cease to have as much, thereby lessening their ability to contribute. And then Communism would actually be able to work, since it would mean that people as a whole are incredibly giving and don't care about being more and better. Basically, it's up to the government to FORCE that money down to the rest of the masses via taxes, which the rich don't pay, as Obama said, because of all of the loopholes. In effect, Socialism is a way of forcing the rich to prop up everyone else, rather than playing Monopoly with the economy and attempting to be the guy who literally has everything.

[QUOTE=Bob the Mercenary;859287]


As far as experience goes, maybe I'm wrong in disagreeing with my peers in saying it doesn't matter, what with the amount of advisement he'll be recieving.



Pretty much this. Trickle-down economics was a good theory but it's been completely discredited in practice. The rich hang onto it because it beneftis them.
Reagan's economic policies were pretty bullshit. They had a good role in the early 80s oil crisises and in the '87 crash. Ultimately, though, America wasn't too punished (thought there were considerable economic problems in 1980s that we forget with the all the "Think Big" plans thrown around) because they still had a huge manufacturing cushion they weren't really being challenged by anyone, like China.
As for Clinton, I haven't done the work so I'm not as informed. I don't really know his policies but from discussions with my friends who study the US full-time, half of them think Clinton's economics were horrible and half think they were pretty effective. I think on average they were reasonably effective and he would have to be responsible for his surplus.

I don't suppose there are any videos up yet of the inspirational/concession speeches that everyone's so astonished by?

McCain's concession speech: Part 1 and Part 2

Obama's acceptance speech (only one link!)

An open letter to Ralph Nader.

Dear Mr. Nader,

Fuck you, and fuck off.

- Michael McCord

For those not in the know, Nader said some things there were totally not cool, and also expressed no remorse over it.

Permanent shit-list occupancy for Ralph Nader.

Thanks a ton for the input. I really needed some fodder to combat basically everyone I know. Not that I'm straying away from conservatism, but aside from a few of my friends I've been very insulated. Parents are addicted to Fox News (which I really don't think is as bad as people make it out to be), mom buys every book that Hannity and Michael Savage come out with, I listen primarily to conservative talk because everything else is either incessant namecalling (Opie and Anthony) or pop music, and I go to church. A perfect storm of "not getting the whole story".

This site really has been a blessing. My head would still be padlocked shut if it weren't for most of you guys. I'm still interested in the economics issue though. You say some of Reagan's policies were shit. How so? And what exactly were Clinton's policies?

And anyone else concerned that Russia's deploying missiles, Iran's mobilizing, and Israel's launched missile attacks on the Gaza Strip since the election?

RR's policies were ridiculous because it was a poor theory that didn't consider the propensity of humans to mess things up. Give the rich more tax leeway so they can invest in business which opens jobs up for the poor. Sounds great, doesn't undermine the rich for being successful, opens up opportunity to the poor, stimulates the economy.

The problem is, Rich people like being Rich. They like to buy expensive clothes and expensive food from specialty businesses and not any real businesses that open jobs up to the masses. Sure, I bet there was the occasional Stock-Market-Rich fellow who took the extra, what, 100K he saved off of RR's huge tax cuts and put it into a business that used that money to bolster itself and maybe had room for one more living wage available job, but that's not effective.

If every rich person put the tax cuts towards less successful, high opportunity jobs when they received a tax cut, the idea would flourish and it would be a magnificent triumph of near pure capitalism. But it doesn't. Rich people like to hoard wealth or be frivolous, and above all, they love being rich. Tax cutting them doesn't really help the poor beneath them.

And, even if it might, cutting taxes in favor of the poor (IE progressive tax) will much more obviously help them.

Clinton did things like Earned Income Tax Credit which was essentially a subsidy for low income workers. He also cut taxes for low income families at one point, as well as some ridiculously high percentage of small business, while raising the tax on the wealthy like, 1.5% I believe? Under 2% for sure, and upping the tax rate on large, high profit yielding corporations a decent bit, too. It was enough to more than make up for his cuts and is why he 'balanced the budget,' mostly because he didn't spend a lot and his cuts barely phased the income tax revenue.

Also he was president during the dot com business surge, so combine that with poor people having more money to spend thanks to his taxes and rich people not being that much less rich and there you have a pretty decent economy. That is, until his latter years where he signed some pretty dumb bills.

Why am I not surprised at Nader for this? Oh yeah, because he's a loon.

Of course, that's nothing compared to what's on Conservapedia about Obama, especially post-election. Let's see...they're blaming him for mind-controlling audiences, the deaths of Jennifer Hudson's family, being the "first Muslim president", and the list just goes on and on and on.
Just had to share that joy with everyone.