President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[The Sushi Hunter]

Who's mentioning from scratch? Give me an example of BO's prior job qualifications.

[Behshad]

Who's mentioning from scratch? Give me an example of BO's prior job qualifications.

Listen, you're choosing Romney for all the wrong reasons. You couldnt come up with anything Obama has done in the past 3 1/2 years that has affected your life, income or financial situation in a negative way . We were going through our time's biggest recession when he took over the office and he is slowly but surley bringing us back to top. If you cant see that and if youre in favor of paying more in taxes just to make up for the tax breaks on wealthy people, then good for you, you must have too much money and would rather see it come of your pay check.
We both agree on a lot, but you're trying to blame Obama for many things that a) he isnt responsible for (ie welfare , lazy people ) and b) many things that he can not change even as the president . He has so much power but he isnt a magician. Within the next four years you will hopefully realize how much good he did for this country and put us back on track. Time will tell. 83 more days!

[slucero]

Likely outcomes..

1. Romney wins, but the Senate stays Dem = gridlock in Congress... 4 more years of the same...

2. Romney wins, and the Republicans get the Senate = Republicans run amok... just like the Dems... neither of which will be good for Joe American.

3. Obama wins, but the House stays Rep = gridlock in Congress... 4 more years of the same...


The elections that matter are the Congressional ones...

[slucero]

The pubbies have never run amok, even when they had one good chance in 40 years, it's coming.

...and it likely won't be good for the average American either...

[Andrew]

There isn't another country on this planet that gives immigrants, both legal and illegal, more benefits then America does.

Australia. But we are in the ass end of the world, so its harder to get here. There's a huge debate about boat arrives of refugees currently. Many drown on their way here in shanty boats....

[ForceInfinity]

Likely outcomes..

1. Romney wins, but the Senate stays Dem = gridlock in Congress... 4 more years of the same...

2. Romney wins, and the Republicans get the Senate = Republicans run amok... just like the Dems... neither of which will be good for Joe American.

3. Obama wins, but the House stays Rep = gridlock in Congress... 4 more years of the same...


The elections that matter are the Congressional ones...

Slucero hit the nail on the head. Everyone seems to want to blame Bush or Obama for the country's woes when the fact of the matter is the *PRESIDENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BUDGET* That is clearly spelled out in the constitution. That power falls squarely on the congress. The president's responsibility to execute the laws, run the military and foreign policy. That's it. If we can't balance the budget, or if we're over/under regulating shit. That isn't on Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. That shit falls squarely on the Congress that we seem intent on electing election after election.

And don't get me started on campaign finance laws. People (generally the democrats bitch about this) who complain that coporations are buying elections are essentially saying that the American electorate is gullible, unintelligent and can't think for themselves (which now that I think about it, is sadly the case)

[conversationpc]

Slucero hit the nail on the head. Everyone seems to want to blame Bush or Obama for the country's woes when the fact of the matter is the *PRESIDENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BUDGET* That is clearly spelled out in the constitution. That power falls squarely on the congress. The president's responsibility to execute the laws, run the military and foreign policy. That's it. If we can't balance the budget, or if we're over/under regulating shit. That isn't on Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. That shit falls squarely on the Congress that we seem intent on electing election after election.

In a way, the President is responsible for the budget. Yes, the Congress is responsible to draft the budget, vote on it, etc. However, part of the President's responsibility is to lead, through whatever means, the Congress in the direction that is supposed to be best for the country by using the "bully pulpit", so to speak.

Likely outcomes..

1. Romney wins, but the Senate stays Dem = gridlock in Congress... 4 more years of the same...

2. Romney wins, and the Republicans get the Senate = Republicans run amok... just like the Dems... neither of which will be good for Joe American.

3. Obama wins, but the House stays Rep = gridlock in Congress... 4 more years of the same...


The elections that matter are the Congressional ones...

If #3 happens, you're right in that Congress will be gridlocked. However, I think it'll end up being far worse than either scenario #1 or #2, since Obama seems to have abused the power of executive orders and bypassing Congress more than any other President.

[slucero]

Slucero hit the nail on the head. Everyone seems to want to blame Bush or Obama for the country's woes when the fact of the matter is the *PRESIDENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BUDGET* That is clearly spelled out in the constitution. That power falls squarely on the congress. The president's responsibility to execute the laws, run the military and foreign policy. That's it. If we can't balance the budget, or if we're over/under regulating shit. That isn't on Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. That shit falls squarely on the Congress that we seem intent on electing election after election.

In a way, the President is responsible for the budget. Yes, the Congress is responsible to draft the budget, vote on it, etc. However, part of the President's responsibility is to lead, through whatever means, the Congress in the direction that is supposed to be best for the country by using the "bully pulpit", so to speak.

Likely outcomes..

1. Romney wins, but the Senate stays Dem = gridlock in Congress... 4 more years of the same...

2. Romney wins, and the Republicans get the Senate = Republicans run amok... just like the Dems... neither of which will be good for Joe American.

3. Obama wins, but the House stays Rep = gridlock in Congress... 4 more years of the same...


The elections that matter are the Congressional ones...

If #3 happens, you're right in that Congress will be gridlocked. However, I think it'll end up being far worse than either scenario #1 or #2, since Obama seems to have abused the power of executive orders and bypassing Congress more than any other President.

Given the track the economy is on, and that the Fed is pretty much "outta bullets", I don't think there's much more damage that can be done...

Come November... if the markets don't get what they want... they'll exact their revenge on the everything.

The POTUS, Congress, and the Fed are impotent to stop it.

[ForceInfinity]

Slucero hit the nail on the head. Everyone seems to want to blame Bush or Obama for the country's woes when the fact of the matter is the *PRESIDENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BUDGET* That is clearly spelled out in the constitution. That power falls squarely on the congress. The president's responsibility to execute the laws, run the military and foreign policy. That's it. If we can't balance the budget, or if we're over/under regulating shit. That isn't on Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. That shit falls squarely on the Congress that we seem intent on electing election after election.

In a way, the President is responsible for the budget. Yes, the Congress is responsible to draft the budget, vote on it, etc. However, part of the President's responsibility is to lead, through whatever means, the Congress in the direction that is supposed to be best for the country by using the "bully pulpit", so to speak.

Likely outcomes..

1. Romney wins, but the Senate stays Dem = gridlock in Congress... 4 more years of the same...

2. Romney wins, and the Republicans get the Senate = Republicans run amok... just like the Dems... neither of which will be good for Joe American.

3. Obama wins, but the House stays Rep = gridlock in Congress... 4 more years of the same...


The elections that matter are the Congressional ones...

If #3 happens, you're right in that Congress will be gridlocked. However, I think it'll end up being far worse than either scenario #1 or #2, since Obama seems to have abused the power of executive orders and bypassing Congress more than any other President.

The problem is that powers of both executive and legislative branches have been abused, and no one president has the license on being the most abusive. Bush Jr is pretty guilty of it. Obama, GW Bush, H Clinton (not a president, but may as well of been in term 1), Hoover, Reagan (Iran Contra), the list goes on. Every one of has abused power. In any case, to quote Bill Cosby, don't ever challenge "worse", and don't make "worse" angry.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Slucero hit the nail on the head. Everyone seems to want to blame Bush or Obama for the country's woes when the fact of the matter is the *PRESIDENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BUDGET* That is clearly spelled out in the constitution. That power falls squarely on the congress. The president's responsibility to execute the laws, run the military and foreign policy. That's it. If we can't balance the budget, or if we're over/under regulating shit. That isn't on Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. That shit falls squarely on the Congress that we seem intent on electing election after election.

In a way, the President is responsible for the budget. Yes, the Congress is responsible to draft the budget, vote on it, etc. However, part of the President's responsibility is to lead, through whatever means, the Congress in the direction that is supposed to be best for the country by using the "bully pulpit", so to speak.

Likely outcomes..

1. Romney wins, but the Senate stays Dem = gridlock in Congress... 4 more years of the same...

2. Romney wins, and the Republicans get the Senate = Republicans run amok... just like the Dems... neither of which will be good for Joe American.

3. Obama wins, but the House stays Rep = gridlock in Congress... 4 more years of the same...


The elections that matter are the Congressional ones...

If #3 happens, you're right in that Congress will be gridlocked. However, I think it'll end up being far worse than either scenario #1 or #2, since Obama seems to have abused the power of executive orders and bypassing Congress more than any other President.

Yes three will be worse than 1 and 2 as the executive power is being used to not only pile on regulations on business but to limit the civil rights of citizens. spying on citizens with drones, see something say something, and whist the last Republican president was hardly innocent of abuse of executive power Obama has been prolific at it.

Unfortuntately , I don't know if just shuffling the president will help. Government's assault on lives is on every level Read the article below . Should this poor lady have her life ruined the way it has been by the government. Is this thing really something that goes on in the US??????? WTF??? !!!

http://reason.com//blog/2012/08/13/virg ... toes-fined

[The Sushi Hunter]

Government's assault on lives is on every level Read the article below . Should this poor lady have her life ruined the way it has been by the government. Is this thing really something that goes on in the US??????? WTF??? !!!

http://reason.com//blog/2012/08/13/virg ... toes-fined

I think there has to be more to the story then what has been written in that article. No one is going to be fined $15K for holding a private b-day party. Something is missing from this article for some reason or another.

Here's another article and it has more of the technical issues involved:

http://phoenixnetwork.us/news/va-fauqui ... ling-food/

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Government's assault on lives is on every level Read the article below . Should this poor lady have her life ruined the way it has been by the government. Is this thing really something that goes on in the US??????? WTF??? !!!

http://reason.com//blog/2012/08/13/virg ... toes-fined

I think there has to be more to the story then what has been written in that article. No one is going to be fined $15K for holding a private b-day party. Something is missing from this article for some reason or another.

Here's another article and it has more of the technical issues involved:

http://phoenixnetwork.us/news/va-fauqui ... ling-food/

This lady didn't do anything wrong. You have a natural right to see home grown food on your property to consenting customers. Just like you ought to should have a right to buy raw milk or cheese made with raw milk, or to buy an 24 oz Mountain Dew. She was treated unjustly and immorally.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Well she did do something wrong. She wasn't on top of getting proper permit after the regs changed in her area for selling produce. Like if the laws in my area change for what type of firearms I can legally have where I reside. It's my responsibility to be on top of it and if the laws change, I have to deal with it accordingly.

I can understand why they have laws in regards to selling goods and produce. Part of it has to do with tax reporting. The government needs to have some type of process in place in order for them to know accurately how much she's taking in so they can tax her accordingly. However I also understand some of the frustration as well, especially when you can purchase produce cheaper off some Mexican standing on a street corner than you can at a farm like hers. But if someone gets sick from the produce from the guy off the street, who can you go back to? Who's regulating his fruit to insure it's safe for consumption? You can't.

[slucero]

Government's assault on lives is on every level Read the article below . Should this poor lady have her life ruined the way it has been by the government. Is this thing really something that goes on in the US??????? WTF??? !!!

http://reason.com//blog/2012/08/13/virg ... toes-fined

I think there has to be more to the story then what has been written in that article. No one is going to be fined $15K for holding a private b-day party. Something is missing from this article for some reason or another.

Here's another article and it has more of the technical issues involved:

http://phoenixnetwork.us/news/va-fauqui ... ling-food/

This has been going on for a long time... The government regulates Food distribution for safety... but also to protect the compliance revenue it gets through its regulatory departments and their regulations & processes (inspections, etc.)... This is why its nearly illegal to sell dairy products unless where the process for preparing them for sale complies with government regs...

I remember a story from a year ago of a man who had a Bed and Breakfast, and he raised chickens and used the eggs as part of the meals he served to guests.. for 30 years...

Then the government stepped in and told him he couldn't do that anymore, because his egg processing wasn't compliant. His choice? buy store bought eggs....


ludicrous...

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Well she did do something wrong. She wasn't on top of getting proper permit after the regs changed in her area for selling produce. Like if the laws in my area change for what type of firearms I can legally have where I reside. It's my responsibility to be on top of it and if the laws change, I have to deal with it accordingly.

I can understand why they have laws in regards to selling goods and produce. Part of it has to do with tax reporting. The government needs to have some type of process in place in order for them to know accurately how much she's taking in so they can tax her accordingly. However I also understand some of the frustration as well, especially when you can purchase produce cheaper off some Mexican standing on a street corner than you can at a farm like hers. But if someone gets sick from the produce from the guy off the street, who can you go back to? Who's regulating his fruit to insure it's safe for consumption? You can't.

She might have violated a city code (one inflexibly and un reasonably enforced) But she didn't do any thing morally wrong. Her property, her right to engage with others who want to buy it. As far as getting sick, also Risk has always been a part of free market trading. If some-one got sick off the blue berry pie she served, she'd get bad press and no one in town would show up next time. That, and not a license is the only real incentive for her to keep her food safe.

Those who will give up freedom for safety deserve neither- Ben Franklin. In this case its "food" safety. Any you are right it is all about taxes. Regulate so you can plunder a persons income. That city couldn't give 2 shits about the safety of its citizens. If it did would encourage the folks in town to go get that freshly grown food.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Yeah but laws are laws.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Yeah but laws are laws.

and ones that violate persons natural rights are unjust laws.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Yeah but laws are laws.

and ones that violate persons natural rights are unjust laws.

But there is a difference between growing food for your own personal consumption (natural rights) and growing it for the consuption of others and to sell without a license or permit (just laws).

Bathtub cheese anyone?

http://www.turnto23.com/east_county/270 ... etail.html

[The Sushi Hunter]

Who's Biden saying is going to be put back into chains? WTF!

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Yeah but laws are laws.

and ones that violate persons natural rights are unjust laws.

But there is a difference between growing food for your own personal consumption (natural rights) and growing it for the consuption of others and to sell without a license or permit (just laws).

I would dispute that there is a difference. Part of your natural property right (that comes from the fact you own your body) is to engage in contracts with other consenting individuals (without anyone restricting that right). The person who wants to consume your product has a natural property right (because he owns his body) to engage in a contract with you (without anyone restricting hat right) The permit requirement violates the rights of the seller AND the consumer. The only time the grower should be restricted from selling is in a case where he is trying to force someone to buy his goods or engaging in fraud in the transaction (that is misrepresenting what the good is, etc)

So to address your cheese situation. If the street vendor is telling folks that what he is selling is Wisconsin Dells cheddar that is fraud (not a free trade) and then he should be punished for the damage that he does to his victims. Punished severely. If folks are buying knowing what it is then you can only educate them - pointing out that viable alternatives are there - you can get other cheese at a cheaper price than 10 bucks a pound in a free market - and hope they will quit harming themselves.

[No Surprize]

Yeah but laws are laws.

and ones that violate persons natural rights are unjust laws.

But there is a difference between growing food for your own personal consumption (natural rights) and growing it for the consuption of others and to sell without a license or permit (just laws).

Bathtub cheese anyone?

http://www.turnto23.com/east_county/270 ... etail.html

Law's made so the almighty gov. can get it's hands some of the paltry pittance you made on selling 8 ears of corn. Our fucking gov. is akin to the gestapo. You earn, we seize! You sell for a dollar, we take half. If you OWN property and PAY taxes on it, why should you have to apply for 31 different fucking permits to build an addition onto a home on YOUR land that YOU have bought? Who made up this asinine bullshit? Right now there's way to much gov. in the lives of people. What we need to do is streamline congress. Why are their so many fucking congressman and what have they actually done for you? For each state, ONE congressman. Why a legislature? Is it necessary when you have 568 congressman? Hell, let half of them legislate. I know this. My kid has 2 years of high school and then off to college. After college, when he's set up, I have no desire to live in the USA anymore. Being gouged, regulated, and taxed for anything you do or buy is getting off the chain.

[The Sushi Hunter]

If there is a trade of US currency in exchange for the food, the government has the right to require permits and licensing. Not doing so, people can get sick, sickness can spread, just for starters. Now if someone's earning income doing it, the government has every right to tax them. In order to do all these things, a process has to be in place. The process is requiring licensing and permits.

You sound like a spokesperson for the legalization of prostitution. That's why prostitution is illigal in most states. Same thing, they need to keep everyone from getting sick and contracting disease from tainted goods and the money generated has to be accounted for, which with prostitution it can't be.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

[quote="The Sushi Hunter"

If there is a trade of US currency in exchange for the food, the government has the right to require permits and licensing.
no the method of trade does not determine where legal title lies or use or property right lies

Not doing so, people can get sick, sickness can spread, just for starters. Now if someone's earning income doing it, the government has every right to tax them. In order to do all these things, a process has to be in place. The process is requiring licensing and permits.
as someone who thinks taxation is theft and unjust i dont think the government has a JUST right to tax

You sound like a spokesperson for the legalization of prostitution. That's why prostitution is illigal in most states. Same thing, they need to keep everyone from getting sick and contracting disease from tainted goods and the money generated has to be accounted for, which with prostitution it can't be.[/quote]
I really don't recommend anyone go to the whorehouse- its unhealthy physically and spiritually (And as for me as Vince of Motley Crue sings I, I get it for free ) .But no I don't support making prostitution illegal as long as the seller isn't co-erced.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Well if you don't like the way the US Government's policies are in regards to the policies and licensing to selling produce and reporting taxes, you can always move to places such as Somalia and the likes of any other third world country. Over there they grow and sell as they please, and sickness and disease is at epidemic proportions too, along with a severely broke dick country.

Yeah but laws are laws.

and ones that violate persons natural rights are unjust laws.

But there is a difference between growing food for your own personal consumption (natural rights) and growing it for the consuption of others and to sell without a license or permit (just laws).

Bathtub cheese anyone?

http://www.turnto23.com/east_county/270 ... etail.html

Law's made so the almighty gov. can get it's hands some of the paltry pittance you made on selling 8 ears of corn. Our fucking gov. is akin to the gestapo. You earn, we seize! You sell for a dollar, we take half. If you OWN property and PAY taxes on it, why should you have to apply for 31 different fucking permits to build an addition onto a home on YOUR land that YOU have bought? Who made up this asinine bullshit? Right now there's way to much gov. in the lives of people. What we need to do is streamline congress. Why are their so many fucking congressman and what have they actually done for you? For each state, ONE congressman. Why a legislature? Is it necessary when you have 568 congressman? Hell, let half of them legislate. I know this. My kid has 2 years of high school and then off to college. After college, when he's set up, I have no desire to live in the USA anymore. Being gouged, regulated, and taxed for anything you do or buy is getting off the chain.

[The Sushi Hunter]

If no one paid taxes, where would that leave the US? How could the country function? The US would be a third, fourth, fifth, etc. world country in that case, no way to defend itself, no way to maintain a high quality of living for it's citizens.

[Seven Wishes2]

Do you people really believe that reducing taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations will improve the economy by making more money available for investment? Money is not invested unless companies believe that there is a market (i.e. consumers wanting to purchase) for its goods and services.

Corporate America is presently sitting on a more than two trillion dollars of cash that it could invest in plant facilities and hiring people - but it doesn't see a return on investment because it doesn't see consumer demand due to high unemployment and, for many people, reduced or stagnant wages.

Real investment does not include buying stocks of existing companies or investment in stock funds - that's just recycling money, and it surely doesn't include depositing money in the bank, here at home, and surely not overseas. Job creation does not happen merely as a result of lowering rich people's taxes by means of lowering their tax rates.

[Memorex]

Do you people really believe that reducing taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations will improve the economy by making more money available for investment? Money is not invested unless companies believe that there is a market (i.e. consumers wanting to purchase) for its goods and services.

Corporate America is presently sitting on a more than two trillion dollars of cash that it could invest in plant facilities and hiring people - but it doesn't see a return on investment because it doesn't see consumer demand due to high unemployment and, for many people, reduced or stagnant wages.

Real investment does not include buying stocks of existing companies or investment in stock funds - that's just recycling money, and it surely doesn't include depositing money in the bank, here at home, and surely not overseas. Job creation does not happen merely as a result of lowering rich people's taxes by means of lowering their tax rates.

Well then if the government has no plan and no success at creating jobs, why should people keep sending in more taxes? Sounds like wasted money to me.

[slucero]

Do you people really believe that reducing taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations will improve the economy by making more money available for investment? Money is not invested unless companies believe that there is a market (i.e. consumers wanting to purchase) for its goods and services.

Corporate America is presently sitting on a more than two trillion dollars of cash that it could invest in plant facilities and hiring people - but it doesn't see a return on investment because it doesn't see consumer demand due to high unemployment and, for many people, reduced or stagnant wages.

Real investment does not include buying stocks of existing companies or investment in stock funds - that's just recycling money, and it surely doesn't include depositing money in the bank, here at home, and surely not overseas. Job creation does not happen merely as a result of lowering rich people's taxes by means of lowering their tax rates.

Well then if the government has no plan and no success at creating jobs, why should people keep sending in more taxes? Sounds like wasted money to me.

The government does not create jobs..... the last report I read regarding the "cost" of the government directly funding "job creation" put the cost per job at about $200K... PER JOB...

What the government does and should do is make sure there is a fair playing field for business creation... via good regulation/legislation... then they need to get the fuck outta the way and let people innovate and create businesses...


Up until 1913 (when the Federal Reserve, and the IRS were created) the federal government was largely funded through via tariffs on imports... after 1913, the burden fell to Joe American via taxation...

[No Surprize]

If there is a trade of US currency in exchange for the food, the government has the right to require permits and licensing. Not doing so, people can get sick, sickness can spread, just for starters. Now if someone's earning income doing it, the government has every right to tax them. In order to do all these things, a process has to be in place. The process is requiring licensing and permits.

You sound like a spokesperson for the legalization of prostitution. That's why prostitution is illigal in most states. Same thing, they need to keep everyone from getting sick and contracting disease from tainted goods and the money generated has to be accounted for, which with prostitution it can't be.

Your missing the point, but I agree to a point. 1 permit is ALL you should need. If you want to put a fence up, 1 permit. If you want a pool, 1 permit. If you want to build your shrine to Michael Jackson that you always dreamed about, 1 permit. Just one. Get it? Here's another way your property appraiser fucks you on your property taxes. You put up a fence, on your property, that YOU OWN, your property taxes rise. You put a shed on your property, your property taxes rise. You add a paved driveway to your home, they rise. You plant a sapling to beautify your yard, they rise, j/k there, but if they could tax you on that they would and I'm sure their hard at work trying to figure out a loop hole to do just that. And by the way, I'm all for prostitution. A girl needs to make a living and who has a right to tell ANYONE how they make an honest living? The Netherlands seem to be doing just fine.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Well if you don't like the way the US Government's policies are in regards to the policies and licensing to selling produce and reporting taxes, you can always move to places such as Somalia and the likes of any other third world country. Over there they grow and sell as they please, and sickness and disease is at epidemic proportions too, along with a severely broke dick country.ml

I am not an anarchist, I realize that some government is necessary for to defend individuals against fraud and violence. But that should be the limit of government.

Having said that most things can be done without government. The reason that places like Somalia are in tatter is because there is no standard of law,
and no concept respect for private property (a.k.a. the free market ) Standards of law, conduct, quality, and private property can all exist independent of government.

Take a look at licensing. When you buy a new brand of toothpaste you flip the box over and look for the ADA seal of approval. You know its a good product because dental health experts tested it. If it were crap they wouldn't want to give it the thumbs up and then take the flak when everyone's teeth got infected - it would inpune their professional reputation. A lot more trust worthy than the FDA - they have to keep their lobbyists and senators paid by lobbyists happy.

Why not have more of these private licenses schemes instead of licensing?
Our farmer from the example a few posts above could get the local agricultural association or some such body to come and put a sticker in the window that says "this lady's melons are firm and wholesome, and she is really hygenic" . Wouldn't take govt funds to run the scheme, and the lady's neighbor couldn't bribe the city council officials to shut her down (licensing schemes and permits on the local level are susceptible to public officials being bribed)

Same thing with the legal system. Many more disputes could be handled by private professional neutral abritration bodies (e.g. like the chambers of commerce do ) . If you got the government out of these things it would need less money and the important things that the govt does do can be paid for by user fees.