Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/3/09 09:33 PM, Korriken wrote: dont put words in my mouth, that's irritating. Everyone wants to harp on the good bits and pieces about the presidents they like, then turn a proverbial hubble telescope to focus on the negative parts of presidents they don't like.

Well it would have been much better if you had said that in the first place vs. making an easy to misunderstand one sentence post. Don't want words put in your mouth? Then say exactly what you mean. Thank you. I also tend to agree with this point.

'yeah man, President A is a great man, he did this this this this this and this! all great things! President B? He's got blood on his hands! He did all these terrible things during his administration!

As has been pointed out in multiple topics and will continue forever, people like who they like, and hate who they hate and the political parties and factions feed off this kind of thinking. They let people boil elections and allegiances down to basically the way one picks one sports team over the other.

At 8/3/09 11:57 PM, Patton3 wrote: Ok, help me out here. I hear many people saying that he wants to destroy America, destroy the constitution, more throwing shit in the hope some of it sticks. So then... Why? Why is the person who has everything to gain from this country doing well, and everything to lose from it doing poorly, trying to destroy it? Answer me that in a logical manner, to those who claim he wants to destroy this nation.

they seek power and control. it's that simple. once control of something is established, its hell to wrestle control away from the government. and once you have people accustomed to the government being their provider, its almost impossible. Once you're in control, you can do as you please.

Many people have rose to power in a similar way to Obama. Hugo Chavez is one such person. When he got in, he changed up everything, now he desperately clings to power, like a rat clinging to a piece of wood in a flood. Hitler rose to power in much the same way. Times were insanely hard, things were going terribly for Germany and along comes this fantastic speaker with huge ambitions. Don't need to finish the story because we all know that happens afterwards.

then you got Jose Manuel Zelaya, the deposed president of Honduras, who put forth a referendum (dont matter if it was binding or not) on changing up the term limits, which is strictly protected by the Honduras constitution, and cannot be changed. He ignored the warnings to not put the referendum forth, and he did anyway, so their congress took the legal steps to kick him out. To no one's surprise, Obama sides with Chavez, Castro, and other communist/socialist leaders in wanting him reinstated. That's not a good sign. Obama should have sided with the Honduras government, considering they want through the legal process to remove their president.

Jose Manuel Zelaya tried to establish greater control and their government was wise enough to put the kibosh on it before it got out of hand. I also love how people keep using the word 'coup'. How could it be a coup if only 1 person got removed? That would be like saying the impeachment of Nixon was an attempted coup. anyway...

Never trust those who ultimately seek to control. If you don't think these people aren't all on board and in bed have another thing coming. Once they've establish a 'public option' they'll begin working towards killing off the private option. Kudos to the blue dogs, to hell with the rest of them.

also, once you've got a base of people your government is taking care of from birth til death, they will always vote for YOU, which is a steady power base, like a meth dealer selling his stuff in a trailer park, he knows he can rely on the addicts for money when he needs it.

wow mybe hes better than bush but his bailout and health care plans are gonna put us in a horbal state of affiars. he does lie and he is going to make this country screwed up just like fdr did for us!

At 7/20/09 02:18 AM, TheShrike wrote: Love him or hate him, he's a hell of a lot better than Bush. He's also a liar and much softer than you wanted him to be. I believe he wants change, but I also believe he's suddenly found himself on top of the world, and it appears that shock may have set in, or he has stalled or entirely forgotten the wave that brought him to where he is.

or the realization that the world, or even a powerful country of said world, is not easily molded clay. it's one thing to give idyllic promises to the public, but when the time comes to put the money where your mouth is...well, all of a sudden your mouth is a lot harder to find than it ever was before. he means well, but being the president of the united states makes you privy to a lot of information that unravels your campaign speeches. thus is the story of every elected president ever.

At 8/6/09 02:02 PM, lastshot12 wrote: wow mybe hes better than bush but his bailout and health care plans are gonna put us in a horbal state of affiars. he does lie and he is going to make this country screwed up just like fdr did for us!

I'm getting tired of the "he's better than Bush" mantra when the man hasn't even been in office for a year, and in the few months he's been in he's blown more money then Bush managed in 8 years. If Obama keep this pace up, in 4 years people will be saying "Hell, Bush wasn't even this bad!"

I get the feeling that in 2012 the republicans will get on their political surfboards and ride a wave of "not obama" to the white house. I find it sad though, considering that people don't like either political party, but don't have the brains to research the minor parties or feel that not voting for the 2 titans would be wasting their vote.

At 8/8/09 08:05 AM, Korriken wrote: I'm getting tired of the "he's better than Bush" mantra when the man hasn't even been in office for a year, and in the few months he's been in he's blown more money then Bush managed in 8 years.

Well a large portion of what is attributed to Obama is actually the bailout money issued back in September. Of Which a good chunk has already been paid back. As for the additional money that Obama has reallocated, most of it has not been spent. It is on reserve.

In the face of economic recession, they have acted correctly. Government expenditure (G) is a major component of GDP ( figured by Y=C+I+G+NX) that has a reciprocated value added. In the face of a recession that scale of what we faced in 2008 it was necessary to stabilize our monetary system. It is true that we run the risk of deflation, this has always been the concern, because prices are sticky, and most of the money loaned out is due to be returned relatively quickly, Ricardian Equivalence should hold.

In summation economic firestorm diverted.

If Obama keep this pace up, in 4 years people will be saying "Hell, Bush wasn't even this bad!"

I'm not saying it can't happen. But I can't imagine a world where Bush is the lesser of two evils.

I get the feeling that in 2012 the republicans will get on their political surfboards and ride a wave of "not obama" to the white house.

I had a similar feeling... in 2004. The only problem is the republican party is so defunct they I don't believe they really stand a chance in 2012. What will most likely happen is a candidate (maybe Palin) will break from the party and run as an independent against the the Rep.Chosen pundit. Dividing its already diminished base even more.

I find it sad though, considering that people don't like either political party, but don't have the brains to research the minor parties or feel that not voting for the 2 titans would be wasting their vote.

Agreed, I would much rather see a vote of confidence system in place.

At 8/8/09 10:53 AM, awkward-silence wrote:

In the face of economic recession, they have acted correctly. Government expenditure (G) is a major component of GDP ( figured by Y=C+I+G+NX) that has a reciprocated value added. In the face of a recession that scale of what we faced in 2008 it was necessary to stabilize our monetary system. It is true that we run the risk of deflation, this has always been the concern, because prices are sticky, and most of the money loaned out is due to be returned relatively quickly, Ricardian Equivalence should hold.

In summation economic firestorm diverted.

Obama did not act correctly in the given circumstances. History has proven that the only way to stablize the market is to let it run it's own course. The Depression would've ended several years earlier had Roosevelt kept the hell out of it, his own economists even admitted that. Most of Obama's stimulus money hasn't even been spent yet, it's just sitting in the Fed, as they continue to print more. It's just going to fuel inflation when it floods the market, which will result in yet another minimum wage increase, leading to more job losses.

I'm not saying that he's stupid, I think he's brilliant. He's a grand architect. Him, & Reid & Pelosi. They want this to happen. It would increase the number of people on government wellfare rolls, forcing the people to more heavily rely on the government.
I wouldn't call him a liar either, he said that he would "fundamentally change America" & noone seemed to get what he was saying. If he gets what he wants, & I'm afraid he will, nothing short of revolution will be able to set things straight.

At 8/8/09 12:33 PM, hornedude867 wrote: Obama did not act correctly in the given circumstances. History has proven that the only way to stablize the market is to let it run it's own course. The Depression would've ended several years earlier had Roosevelt kept the hell out of it, his own economists even admitted that.

The point that the depression was made worse by government expenditure is simply not true. Rosevelt started the new deal programs in 1933, when the depression was at its worst. 34' saw the first growth in GDP, and in 1936 the stock market had regained (almost) all its 1929 value. Nobel Prize winning ecnomist and leader of Benton Harbor, John Maynard Keynes suggested that the government didn't do enough.

And which economists are you talking about?The leaders of the Federal Reserve? Who idely sat by while bank foreclusres caused the panic that crippled the banking industry? Our allowed the housing market to collapse due to farm foreclosures brought on by the dust bowl and mississippi valley droughts? Or the advisors who suggested that protectionist policy toward europe would promote american business sales, when in actuallity it crippled our net exports?

At 8/8/09 12:41 AM, TheLameSauce wrote: or the realization that the world, or even a powerful country of said world, is not easily molded clay. it's one thing to give idyllic promises to the public, but when the time comes to put the money where your mouth is...well, all of a sudden your mouth is a lot harder to find than it ever was before. he means well, but being the president of the united states makes you privy to a lot of information that unravels your campaign speeches. thus is the story of every elected president ever.

You win.

This is pretty much the angle I was thinking along when I wrote my post. Just wanted to see who would end up saying what I was thinking without just straight-up asking.

Being the president is no small job. And even if you mean well, things don't just change on a whim.