President Obama

[undamned]

These pictures have not been altered in any way

If somebody wanted to argue that McCain was old and ready to die, these would be great evidence
-ud

[sven666]

nigga stole my trophy!

[Udderdude]

The verdict is still out for me .. I'm going to wait until the honeymoon is over, then we'll see what Obama really means to do.

Spending 4 years trying to dig the US out of a hole doesn't sound like much fun, as well ..

[jpj]

turrican will probably cringe at this, but the italian PM made a clanger the other day whilst in russia. after learning obama won the election, he commented that obama was intelligent, good-looking, and has a great sun tan...

[BulletMagnet]

Wow, first you agreed with me that Bush's plan was bad, but now you're throwing subtle ad hominem attacks instead.

Er...what? I'm not attacking you, I'm simply equating Bush's (and most conservatives') view of what he means when he says "your money" with the view you already expressed. Am I off? Unless I'm missing something it appears that both you and he (and, again, most conservatives) would prefer to eliminate as many taxes and government programs as possible and replace them with private enterprises. I didn't mean it as an insult, just a statement of fact - it's a basic conservative economic tenet, one which I happen to disagree with, but not intended to have been used as an "attack." Again, if I said something inaccurate, feel free to correct me, but I certainly wasn't attempting to attack you.

Pay their bills?

I mean beyond the basic necessities. Other conservative-minded types on this thread (and beyond) have assured us that the poor in particular will all but inevitably spend whatever little they have left over on big-screen TVs and other junk - what's your stance?

Now we're getting into not-so-subtle ad hominem attacks. Classy.

I apologize for my tone here, but I seriously am rather baffled as to why conservative economic disciples, after seeing people (especially when they're deliberately denied relevant information in regards to their decisions) do dumb (if not catastrophic) things with the "freedom" they're granted, continually insist that the solution is more of the same. Again, I'm apparently missing something...

Welfare queen was a myth that was thoroughly disproven, and I never brought it up. What compelled you to?

Your assertion that, if the government offers people any notable amount of assistance, they'll all become completely dependent on it and unable to produce anything of value without it, is precisely the sort of scare tactic that Reagan used back then, though he contributed more vivid (and pseudo-racist) imagery. And, frankly, I find the idea that guaranteeing people decent health care and other basic needs will utterly cripple them in the productivity department preposterous - have state-funded fire departments made people suddenly start dousing their houses in gasoline, or have new Medicare recipients suddenly started smoking and bathing less regularly?

Do I want the government in charge of everything? Of course not (Terry Schiavo, anyone?), but I do believe that there are some services that the public sector has proven (and continues to prove) much better at providing than the private one, and should be not only allowed to do so but given financial and other types of support that befit its successes.

Did you forget that I believe people can achieve without the aid of government?

No, and I agree, though our paths diverge in that you apparently believe that doing things without the aid of government will ALWAYS (or almost always) bring about better results, while I'm of the mindset that government can, under the right circumstances, frequently help people achieve greater success without infringing on their necessary freedoms. It's a matter of degrees more than anything else.

And of course I don't want to scrap everything - you've set up an "all-or-nothing" straw man that was never argued in the first place.

How do you square this with your insistence that every red cent is, when you get right down to it, private property, "our money," not the government's, and that we should have completely direct control over how it's spent? Such a philosophy suggests that government have little or no right to exist, and control our earnings - if you don't want to scrap everything, then apparently you believe that there is some money that's not "ours" in the purest sense.

As you don't understand my position, I don't understand your antagonism.

Again, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but as you say, apparently there's something I'm not grasping here - you don't need to go into a million details, but if I'm essentially off on anything I've said, please straighten me out.

[dave4shmups]

On a lighter note, "Choosing the First Puppy":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_ ... 714480.stm

[Matsunaga]

Prepare for communism! I can't wait!

[professor ganson]

Prepare for (efforts towards) balanced budgets! I can't wait!

[undamned]

On a lighter note, "Choosing the First Puppy":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_ ... 714480.stm

At least he's a dog lover. I'd have a hard time standing behind a cat lover.
-ud

[Ceph]

So Obama will now spend the next 4-8 years reducing the deficit, after which the next ruling-class and rightist media backed Bush/Palin-type moron-puppet will be elected and waste it all on 1-2 senseless energy wars, making a handful of military contractors and large corporations richer and everyone else poorer. Got to love this cycle.

[Twiddle]

ceph: americans want to see everything ruined once they get complacent, news at 11

Prepare for niggermania! I can't wait!

lol

[Ed Oscuro]

Prepare for niggermania! I can't wait!

lol

lol

for some reason a search of internets with the word "NIGGERMANIA" brings us to this. god i love sass

[Twiddle]

leech from a different image host

[Stormwatch]

Welcome back to slavery, America!

[BulletMagnet]

Uh, what? Unless I'm way off, he's just looking to get people *gasp* involved in making things better, rather than pushing a Bush-esque "leave it all to us, you just go shopping and don't ask questions" faux-agenda. Pretty much everything listed in that blurb was voluntary (that's your big buzzword, isn't it?) - the only thing that possibly couldn't have been is a community service requirement for schools, which at least some (the HS I graduated from included) already have - even remotely linking this and "slavery" is blindly ideological idiocy.

[Stormwatch]

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.

50 hours, NOT voluntary, or even rewarded. I'd take my child out of school before allowing him to be reduced to the status of a slave for even a minute.

[BulletMagnet]

Dude, 1) I acknowledged that part in my post, and 2) Noted that such measures are already in place, this is nothing new. And either way, calling it "slavery" is still beyond stupid.

[Stormwatch]

A job you're forced to take. That IS pretty much slavery.

Sent my comments to that "Change" site:

Mr. Obama, I am not an american citizen, but I would like to state my opinion on your concept of "America Serves".

Its essential, unforgivable flaw is the part about making service compulsory for students. The idea is nothing short of dictatorial; it makes every person a slave, even if for a number of hours. It shocks and disgusts me that a democratically elected leader can ever suggest such an evil thing with a straight face.

I would take my child out of school, rather than let him serve against his will; if forced to serve, I would instead sabotage any service, and do my worst to be a hindrance the "fellow man" that I am supposed to help; and if all else fails, I would choose to go to jail rather than serve. Because no proud, decent, self-respecting man will allow himself to be made a slave, even for a minute.

Thus, my suggestion for this plan is: make service strictly voluntary, with financial incentives; or as an alternative penalty to petty delinquents; only then it has any value. Otherwise, what you propose is nothing but the rape of freedom, the much vaunted quality that is said to be the source of the greatness of your country.

Sincerely,
-- Rodrigo Girao

[szycag]

LOLOLOLOL

What is wrong with you honestly
I guess I shouldn't be surprised after your circumcision diatribes however long ago that was

[Twiddle]

my posting style is being replicated

[Icarus]

So what's wrong with a little compulsory service? A little discipline and hard graft is a good thing - heaven knows we really need that in the English education system right now, with all the little bastards running around stabbing and shooting each other right now.

[Stormwatch]

So what's wrong with a little slavery?

[Icarus]

I take it you're the kind of person that'll only do something if there's a financial incentive attached?

[Stormwatch]

If you say: "please help me paint my wall" - I probably will do it.

If you say: "it is your DUTY to help me paint my wall" - I probably will do it. With blood. Yours.

[Icarus]

So I take it you have a problem with "duty" of any kind, then. Including national service.

[szycag]

What's gonna happen is kids are just gonna get notes from their parents and they'll get out of it. If it even ends up actually happening. Fucking christ. I feel sorry for the poor sap that has to read Rodrigo's bullshit and muster up a reply. How often a week do you get this worked up over absolutely nothing?

[The Coop]

I have a hard time accepting that article as legit. "When you choose to serve..." is part of Obama's quote, yet the author jumped over it entirely, and went straight to mandatory work for all. Until Obama himself says everything that article has in it, I see that article as speculative at best, utter "Bill O'Reilly"-like tripe at worst.

[Stormwatch]

CONTENT COPYRIGHT © 2008 BY OBAMA-BIDEN TRANSITION PROJECT, A 501C(4) ORGANIZATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Therefore, Obama's own team is talking shit in his name.

[RackGaki]

Unless I'm missing something it appears that both you and he (and, again, most conservatives) would prefer to eliminate as many taxes and government programs as possible and replace them with private enterprises.

This is an important tenant of conservative economics! The post office is a good example of government operations being competitive and fair, though I could give you countless more. Anyways, the tax rebate isn't among those tenants because it doesn't involve lowering tax rates in the first place. The indiscriminate, one time (maybe two time) lump sum doesn't give anyone an incentive to work harder, smarter, or otherwise better. Incentives are the key to this economic thought.

Want to discourage something? Tax it - booze, cigarettes, gambling, etc. etc. are all easily digestible examples of this.

Want to encourage something? Keep the taxes as low as possible. For instance, the internet economy - almost completely untaxed in America, and it grew much faster than brick and mortar businesses as a result!

A quick example of how taxes work with big business - once upon a time, Boeing had it's headquarters in Washington. King County and greater Seattle kept raising taxes to the point where the business up and moved it's administrative operations to Chicago. Not because they got tired of the rain, but because Chicago was promising them a cheaper way to operate their business! Now, because of the higher taxes, King County loses more revenue. Think of how high the taxes have to be when business figures out that they can save money by moving everything halfway across the nation!

This is replicated a thousand times over - tax a business too much, and they might not just move to another state, but another country, if they can. The trick is finding a competitive tax rate that still generates revenue to continue government operations while keeping businesses booming. Not even keeping them there, but encouraging new operations and new investment!

Simply handing out money, regardless of what you paid in, doesn't jive with this idea. Sure, it's disguised as a tax rebate, but since you don't need to pay into it to receive it, it harms government operations with an increased debt, doesn't encourage continued growth, and possibly inflates your currency - all of which are things any supply-side economist would discourage.

Keep in mind, I've tried to keep this conversation on an economic level because I'm not a conservative. My thoughts best corresponds with libertarianism. As well, with Bush's record-low approval ratings, you should also note that this means a substantial number of conservatives don't approve of him either. Bush-bashing isn't to be hogged by liberals!

Other conservative-minded types on this thread (and beyond) have assured us that the poor in particular will all but inevitably spend whatever little they have left over on big-screen TVs and other junk - what's your stance?

I actually believe that many of them, like myself, just paid bills. This doesn't help the economy much because, like I explained, there was no incentive to invest, no way for such small sums to produce more sustained jobs. Everyone paid their bills, or bought something fancy, and temporarily held off the inevitable for another month.

I apologize for my tone here, but I seriously am rather baffled as to why conservative economic disciples, after seeing people (especially when they're deliberately denied relevant information in regards to their decisions) do dumb (if not catastrophic) things with the "freedom" they're granted, continually insist that the solution is more of the same. Again, I'm apparently missing something...

Thank you!

I would like you to expand upon this thought, though. Again, we are a little vague, but what are the dumb decisions people are making with their freedom? Which freedom? Which decision? I would point out that people could not possibly do anything terribly profound with the tax rebate money, if that's along the lines of what you are thinking.

Your assertion that, if the government offers people any notable amount of assistance, they'll all become completely dependent on it and unable to produce anything of value without it, is precisely the sort of scare tactic that Reagan used back then, though he contributed more vivid (and pseudo-racist) imagery. And, frankly, I find the idea that guaranteeing people decent health care and other basic needs will utterly cripple them in the productivity department preposterous - have state-funded fire departments made people suddenly start dousing their houses in gasoline, or have new Medicare recipients suddenly started smoking and bathing less regularly?

And here, I agree we need health care! Even McCain acknowledged a crisis in this sector, as convoluted as his plan was. Hillary, Barack - everyone this time around, really.

Health care isn't something for nothing if I have to pay a premium myself every time I use it. If I pay $20, $30, or $40 every time I visit the doctor, I am still taking personal (and financial) responsibility. If I get cancer, a universal plan would make sure I don't go bankrupt by making healthy and wealthy help me out - well, I'm preaching to the choir, which is boring, so I'll move on.

Do I want the government in charge of everything? Of course not (Terry Schiavo, anyone?), but I do believe that there are some services that the public sector has proven (and continues to prove) much better at providing than the private one, and should be not only allowed to do so but given financial and other types of support that befit its successes.

Here is where we can get to the root of our respective thoughts! That's what I was aiming for!
Some institutions, like mail, communication, education, and health care require government intervention and control, while taking a business-like stance to stay competitive and relevant. The post office is again, an area of government that has been managed very successfully, and needs to be replicated with health care, especially. Institutions like the defense and transportation require monopolization, for obvious purposes. The Eisenhower Interstate system is never given enough credit for what an economic boon it has been to this country. Government done right!

No, and I agree, though our paths diverge in that you apparently believe that doing things without the aid of government will ALWAYS (or almost always) bring about better results, while I'm of the mindset that government can, under the right circumstances, frequently help people achieve greater success without infringing on their necessary freedoms. It's a matter of degrees more than anything else.

There is an awful lot that government blows money on that I disagree with, but I hope I've laid out a lot of important things that most people are happy financially supporting. I believe the Federal government should keep out of quite a few things, financially and otherwise. Pork barrel spending being the easiest to eliminate - $18 billion a year, once quite a bit of money before they Feds started spending like drunken sailors.

How do you square this with your insistence that every red cent is, when you get right down to it, private property, "our money," not the government's, and that we should have completely direct control over how it's spent? Such a philosophy suggests that government have little or no right to exist, and control our earnings - if you don't want to scrap everything, then apparently you believe that there is some money that's not "ours" in the purest sense.

I believe that the Constitution of the United States created a system where the Federal Government would have limited powers over the population, leaving States to do much of the work. This is because, at the State level, direct representation is a more realistic possibility. The United States of American under the Articles of Confederation was the extreme, and it didn't work. Making Gov't decisions so independent of one another, as the South did during the War Between The States, was one of the primary reasons they lost. The Federal Government needs the strength to exert enough control to successfully exist, but let the reigns loose enough for States and individuals to grow.

The maintained philosophy that the money the government takes is always the people's is required so that they can't abuse their powers. That's why the Founders agreed on banning Taxation Without Representation, for instance. Ideally, the system was once simple enough to keep individual government representatives accountable for their mistakes, so they could be removed from office if they abused their power. I could go on, but the money is ours because the government can only spend what we consent to, essentially. This term is more philosophical than economical.

you don't need to go into a million details

I fucked up.

[szycag]

I just want to thank all the people who stir this thread up a bit by saying weird things. Here I thought this would be a pretty boring thread.