AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
How would you rate Obama's performance so far?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Frosty13



Joined: 04 Oct 2010
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The sad thing is that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are equally responsible for the economic meltdown. It was back in . . . '98? Something like that. But Phil Gramm (R), Barney Frank (D), and Chris Dodd (D) sponsored legislation that REQUIRED banks to give mortgage loans to people who couldn't afford them. In the meantime, they ferociously protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from any attempts to rein them in even though evidence was mounting that the huge real estate bubble was going to explode. The banks, forced to give bad loans to people who couldn't pay them back, developed the tactic of bundling the bad loans with good ones and sold them wherever they could. It took ten years for the booby trap to spring, but when it did, it almost killed the economy. Phil Gramm has retired so his face isn't on TV but it makes me so angry I could spit to see Barney Frank and Chris Dodd saying they didn't know what was going on and pointing their fingers at everyone except themselves.

We have a big problem in this country, and it's our present government. They sell their votes, instead of being the citizen/representative our elected officials were meant to be. When they put their own well-being and personal power above the well-being of the country they were elected to serve, then they're doing more harm than good.

I would give President Obama an F in performance. Socialism is not a good thing, because it's unsustainable. At first it seems great, but then gradually people stop working as hard because they aren't reaping their own rewards, they're seeing their efforts and money rewarding other people who maybe aren't working quite so hard. The only system that has ever grown wealth is capitalism, because it rewards the person who works two jobs, longer hours, etc. Maybe that person wants to buy a new car, which you might perceive as a shallow motivation, but it isn't to him -- and it isn't to the people who make the car. To them, it's a job, which pays for their kids' food and education.

I don't blame President Obama for the economy, though none of his policies have been beneficial. I blame Congress. This is one recession that is one hundred percent brought to us by our elected officials and their meddling in the market, to pad the feather beds of themselves and their buddies. Goldman Sachs isn't blameless. The banks aren't blameless. WE aren't blameless, but we'd be much better off if we stopped pointing fingers at each other and repeating the pundit insults, and instead focus on the problem, which is in Washington, D.C., and has both an R and a D after their names.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LizE



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oligarchy: 1. Government by the few. 2. A government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also: a group exercising such control. 3. An organization under oligarchic control. [Merriam-Webster]

When a record share of income is going to the top, that's a sign you're living in an oligarchy. When private corporations make insane gambles and lose, then demand taxpayer compensation, that's another sign. When a revolving door between government and business allows the very people who run those corporations to write public policy, you got yourself a flashing neon alert. And when the government is confronted with proof after proof after proof that these same corporations are ripping off the average citizen and yet still refuse to prosecute--well, you're not seeing socialism and you're sure not seeing free market capitalism. This is all happening quite openly, but the American people remain strangely—almost eerily—passive as we watch the unbridled corruption unfolding right before our eyes. No riots here, no protests against the fraud that is robbing people of their savings and now their homes, no outcry as billions are handed over the banks (biggest bonuses in history coming up!) but the govt. can’t seem to get the HAMP program going. Remember HAMP? It was going to help millions of Americans stay in their homes—but somehow that help never quite materialized. Now the president says we can’t possibly act more aggressively to bail out citizens facing foreclosure because—get this!—that money might get into the “wrong hands.” All together now…O-li-gar-chy!

They’re rioting in France and Greece, fighting back in Iceland, protesting in Ireland…and the best we can do is a rally to “restore sanity” and “raise the tone” of political discourse? I like John Stewart, but he’s so wrong on this one. Yes, the tone is revolting, but that’s not the real problem. The real problem is the content. Pointing fingers at the other political party is a great way to deflect questions about your own party’s actions, and so is screaming really loud about mosques and illegal immigrants and new terror threats and Christine O’Donnell is a witch—I mean, come on, a witch? What is this, kindergarten? They’re just pushing every button they can find in the hopes we’ll be too angry/terrified to come together and see that our country is being looted and while the oligarchs get richer, the rest of us get “austerity” and are accused of being socialists if we don’t fall in line. And you know what? It’s been working. But reading the post above, it's good to see that it's not totally working--and if enough people speak out, maybe there is hope for us after all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bookmark



Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 323

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In defense of Obama, it's not his fault that he's a good speaker. Most politicians are, and those are the ones that should be watched out more than say, a George Bush or Dan Quayle. I *think* we can all agree that all politicians are corrupt, some more than others, but all are to some extent, corrupt. I was very skeptical and worried from the very beginning when it seemed like everyone was buying into everything Obama said and believed him to be salvation. A politician is the worst kind of person to put on a pedestal or your hopes and dreams. If I sound jaded or cynical, I am!

I think we need to judge politicians on their actions rather than words. Sorry, but words are meaningless without actions, especially when you're in politics.

Sometimes I have to shake my head at the US legal system, it'll prosecute or have trials for those small offenses, such as spilling hot fast food beverage and the like, but more likely to let infractions like big corporations or CEO's corruption, public aid fraud, medical fraud, etc...slide. It seems that way, anyhow.

I don't believe in riots but I do believe in having large group rallies to protest what we want changed...to put pressure in some way. I feel like we're too easy on our governments. I understand, of course, that it's easy for me to say this without any action on my part. Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bookmark



Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 323

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I forgot to add that I did remember hearing a few people say that this whole mortgage and loan mess started with the democrats years ago. So really, it's not wholly a republican or democrat's fault. It's whoever who decided to go with the policy and didn't try to change it no matter who or when they got into office.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LizE



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very funny explanation of Quantitative Easing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k&feature=player_embedded
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bookmark



Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 323

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe I'm being too hard or unreasonable, but I feel like Obama's so quiet when something big comes up such as the oil spill last year, the tsunami in Haiti and now Japan. I know there's nothing he can do to fix these major events, but I guess I expect the president to come out and show concern. I see mostly well made up speeches, cliches really, and no real emotions. And he usually only appears or comments once on these major occurrences.

I just feel so devastated and incredibly sad every time I see those images right now of the destruction in Japan.

Am I even making sense?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chris booklover



Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Posts: 321
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bookmark wrote:
Maybe I'm being too hard or unreasonable, but I feel like Obama's so quiet when something big comes up such as the oil spill last year, the tsunami in Haiti and now Japan. I know there's nothing he can do to fix these major events, but I guess I expect the president to come out and show concern. I see mostly well made up speeches, cliches really, and no real emotions. And he usually only appears or comments once on these major occurrences.

I just feel so devastated and incredibly sad every time I see those images right now of the destruction in Japan.

Am I even making sense?


Um .... Obama responded promptly to each of the events that you listed. He made several speeches about Haiti, for example, and also visited the areas affected by the BP oil spill (compare his reaction to George W. Bush's on Hurricane Katrina). You may disagree with his policies, but the evidence does not support your claim that he has been quiet about these events or has failed to show concern. And how do you know that the emotions that he has expressed are not real?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bookmark



Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 323

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I admit that I am a little more critical about him in smaller matters since I'm not happy with his handling of the bigger matters. I know he has appeared publicly and make statements with each major event that occurred. But...I don't know...I just feel, and I accept that it's based mainly on my own feelings so you won't find me trying to argue my points, that he's kind of weak in his responses, more like the obligatory, "I have to make a statement." type of thing. From the events I mentioned to the Governor Gifford shooting, Egyptian uprising and others, he's just been....weak for lack of a better word...in his responses.

The reason I mentioned the possible lack of genuine feeling about catastrophic events is based solely on my reading of his facial expressions when making his statements. Granted, he could be feeling really bad inside and suffering, but "I" don't see that reflected on his face.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maryskl



Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 354
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bookmark wrote:
I admit that I am a little more critical about him in smaller matters since I'm not happy with his handling of the bigger matters. I know he has appeared publicly and make statements with each major event that occurred. But...I don't know...I just feel, and I accept that it's based mainly on my own feelings so you won't find me trying to argue my points, that he's kind of weak in his responses, more like the obligatory, "I have to make a statement." type of thing. From the events I mentioned to the Governor Gifford shooting, Egyptian uprising and others, he's just been....weak for lack of a better word...in his responses.

The reason I mentioned the possible lack of genuine feeling about catastrophic events is based solely on my reading of his facial expressions when making his statements. Granted, he could be feeling really bad inside and suffering, but "I" don't see that reflected on his face.


...and if he got too emotional then many would call him weak. Kind of a damned if you do scenario. My husband is one of those people who does NOT wear his emotions on his sleeve. He is unflappable in every situation. However, he feels very strongly and shares those feelings in private with me. I think we tend to judge people more harshly when we do not like their policies, positions, etc. I never thought G W Bush "looked" sincere about anything. He always seemed to have a smirk on his face. But I think he probably was sincere, he just could not help his habitual expression.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bookmark



Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 323

PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

maryskl wrote:
bookmark wrote:
I admit that I am a little more critical about him in smaller matters since I'm not happy with his handling of the bigger matters. I know he has appeared publicly and make statements with each major event that occurred. But...I don't know...I just feel, and I accept that it's based mainly on my own feelings so you won't find me trying to argue my points, that he's kind of weak in his responses, more like the obligatory, "I have to make a statement." type of thing. From the events I mentioned to the Governor Gifford shooting, Egyptian uprising and others, he's just been....weak for lack of a better word...in his responses.

The reason I mentioned the possible lack of genuine feeling about catastrophic events is based solely on my reading of his facial expressions when making his statements. Granted, he could be feeling really bad inside and suffering, but "I" don't see that reflected on his face.


...and if he got too emotional then many would call him weak. Kind of a damned if you do scenario. My husband is one of those people who does NOT wear his emotions on his sleeve. He is unflappable in every situation. However, he feels very strongly and shares those feelings in private with me. I think we tend to judge people more harshly when we do not like their policies, positions, etc. I never thought G W Bush "looked" sincere about anything. He always seemed to have a smirk on his face. But I think he probably was sincere, he just could not help his habitual expression.


And I understand that and I admire, and sometimes trust more, people who are stoic. But see, for me, even men who are not emotional as in obvious tears and all that, I can still see the emotions on their face, if that makes sense. Now I do admit that I will not always be able to rall all facial expressions. About Bush, I always cringe whenever he opens his mouth, but one of the things that I did like about him was his emotions showing on his face in situations where death was involved. Bill Clinton, however was one who I always thought had a permanent smirk on his face.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maryskl



Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 354
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
...and if he got too emotional then many would call him weak. Kind of a damned if you do scenario. My husband is one of those people who does NOT wear his emotions on his sleeve. He is unflappable in every situation. However, he feels very strongly and shares those feelings in private with me. I think we tend to judge people more harshly when we do not like their policies, positions, etc. I never thought G W Bush "looked" sincere about anything. He always seemed to have a smirk on his face. But I think he probably was sincere, he just could not help his habitual expression.


Quote:
And I understand that and I admire, and sometimes trust more, people who are stoic. But see, for me, even men who are not emotional as in obvious tears and all that, I can still see the emotions on their face, if that makes sense. Now I do admit that I will not always be able to rall all facial expressions. About Bush, I always cringe whenever he opens his mouth, but one of the things that I did like about him was his emotions showing on his face in situations where death was involved. Bill Clinton, however was one who I always thought had a permanent smirk on his face.


I think that just proves my point <g>. I think Bush always looked insincere and slightly constipated while Clinton looked full of empathy. If people do not like someone politically, I think it is human nature to attribute negative personal characteristics to them as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chris booklover



Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Posts: 321
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

maryskl wrote:

I think that just proves my point <g>. I think Bush always looked insincere and slightly constipated while Clinton looked full of empathy. If people do not like someone politically, I think it is human nature to attribute negative personal characteristics to them as well.


Exactly. I much prefer to judge political leaders on their actions rather than on purely subjective criteria such as my read of their emotional states. For example, George W. Bush could be criticized for his handling of Hurricane Katrina, or Bill Clinton for his actions during the Lewinsky affair. Whether either of them smirked is largely irrelevant, IMHO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bookmark



Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 323

PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Speaking about what Obama needs to do. Isn't there anything he can do about this super high gas prices?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maryskl



Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 354
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bookmark wrote:
Speaking about what Obama needs to do. Isn't there anything he can do about this super high gas prices?


He can release some of the oil reserves, place a temporary moratorium on gas taxes (although that would hurt states, but as long as it was short lived, it might be part of a solution), suspend the winter/summer gas formula laws temporarily and reimpose a 55 MPH highway speed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bookmark



Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 323

PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it would be very hard to enforce the 55mph speed limit.

I don't know much about the oil reserve as in how much there is. But I just wish there was a way to control gas prices. We're all slaves to the oil companies, having to accept any and all fee hikes at any time. It's extremely frustrating, not to mention stressful on the personal finance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group