25 replies to this topic

[duke_Qa]

Barack Obama has set out the battles lines over the economy in this year's presidential election by proposing a budget that favours stimulus spending over austerity, and commits to the increasingly popular demand to raise taxes on the rich.

The president laid out $4tn in cuts to the deficit over the next decade as he seeks to reassure the large number of swing voters and conservative Democrats that he is serious about reining in government spending – a primary source of attack by Republican presidential contenders.

But, in a speech in Virginia in support of the proposals on Monday, Obama said a fresh wave of cuts should be delayed until the economy is in better shape to absorb them. In the meantime he proposes new investment in education, jobs and infrastructure, in part paid for by cuts to military spending with the end of the war in Iraq.

"The main idea in the budget is this: at a time when our economy is growing and creating jobs at a faster clip, we've got to do everything in our power to keep this recovery on track. Part of our job is to bring down our deficit and if Congress adopts this budget then along with the cuts we've already made then we'll be able to reduce out deficit by $4tn by the year 2022," he said. "By reducing our deficit in the long term, what that allows us to do is to invest in the things that will help grow our economy right now. We can't cut back on those things that are important for us to grow. We can't just cut our way in to growth."

I personally think its about time that the democrats stopped compromising and started pulling back, so the news that Obama is going for higher taxes on the rich and funding more infrastructure sounds good to me. We've been seeing the signs for a while though, so it shouldn't be a surprise for many that it happens now. It is more a campaign trick than a real budget, as the chances of it being passed right off the bat are minimal.

Hopefully this will turn the focus back on economic politics instead of red herrings like gay marriage, abortion, immigration and all the other things that makes "conservatives" froth around the mouth.

[Pasidon]

That's a very Republican move... So he's appearing to sway Republican minds to support him by mega taxing the rich and under taxing the poor... that's not helping him, it's making us Republicans look right and him petty enough to go against his own guns, as like Dukie said... this is for politics, not our well-being. If anything, it is showing Democrats that he's willing to betray his party's ideals to win elections. Derp. I don't pay taxes anyway, so I couldn't care less for my own shell'fish reasons.

[duke_Qa]

I think by going emotional in a progressive democratic manner he has a much bigger chance at getting voters than trying to steal fanatical republicans who believe everything they are told on Fox news. Two can play that game

If you had a taxation system that encouraged the super-rich to send their gold back into rotation through investments in American business, you might have had a good job, house and resources available to you. Instead the system encourages outsourcing and speculation with money that never gets used for anything but making their owners richer.

Edited by duke_Qa, 14 February 2012 - 10:08 PM.

[Pasidon]

Also true. But yea... I digress... it probably will end up getting him more popular than hated since people (voters) can't always see the political ramifications of things people wearing suits do.

[duke_Qa]

I sure hope people are more aware of what the people in suits are doing today than what they were aware back in 2007, or even back in 2000.

[Pasidon]

I think people are trying to become more aware of politics these days, but in the end the majority won't vote logically, thus wasting the time of those who do actually follow the debates and weigh the true darkness of people's souls. Mystic. That's why I said like 4 years ago that they should force voters to answer simple questions about the candidates in order to be intelligible to vote. Who cares if you're a citizen... if you know nothing about the candidates, you have no value to the decision of choosing one.

[duke_Qa]

I guess when you have been taught to slap your hands over your ears and go "lalala" whenever someone talks politics that your family/friends don't "believe" in, you get that kinda logic. When you use religious mind-control in a political setting, you are asking for trouble. I just hope them internets are strong enough to stop this glacial movement. If not, we can just wait for the machines to rise up and kill us all

[Pasidon]

Neh... Commander Shepard will end up saving us. Uptight jerk...

I think even when people are trying to pay attention to politics, they end up voting wrong anyway. AKA they listen but they intend to vote for a particular person right off the bat regardless of what the other picks say.

[Ash]

It's never going to change, though. Even if politicians do throw up a list of policies which, by and large, a voter agrees with, you can bet your arse that next to none of those policies will ever be enacted, even in a watered-down form.

[duke_Qa]

Never say never

I'm a pessimistic guy, and that is usually the string I hold onto. There's always some sort of chance of something big happening, black swan events and so forth.
People aren't designed to live the same way for hundreds of years. Once a system becomes so calcified it hampers society through its rigidness, something goes boom.

But on the topic of budgets like that going through, I totally agree. its nothing but a message, but its a positive message. "We won't play by your rules anymore" kinda thing.

[Hostile]

I think people are trying to become more aware of politics these days, but in the end the majority won't vote logically, thus wasting the time of those who do actually follow the debates and weigh the true darkness of people's souls. Mystic. That's why I said like 4 years ago that they should force voters to answer simple questions about the candidates in order to be intelligible to vote. Who cares if you're a citizen... if you know nothing about the candidates, you have no value to the decision of choosing one.

This is why there is a electoral college because the founding fathers knew people in large groups vote emotionally and are basically idiots.

[Pasidon]

The founding fathers prevail in logic yet again, even though people (Democrats) claim them to be outdated by 2 centuries. Derp.

And about the whole 'people can't change!' stance... I might have to disagree with that. The majority of people will always be idiots, but by what standards? 1000 years ago, people were electing officials on less info than today, and I like to say people got politically smarter in the past 1000 years... but they were electing better officials than us in some cases. People tend to promote military gods to office, and in the cases of George Washington and Julius Caesar, they turned out fairly good leaders. Now we look at character and merit, but that's still not enough. The fact people have improved and will be forced to improve even more when more bad leaders are elected is reason enough to have some optimistic view of how people will get to a point of intelligence to get it right for once.

[duke_Qa]

This io9 article from yesterday touched the topic a bit("Why don't Americans elect scientists to office").

As Neil deGrasse Tyson said when he was asked what he would do as president: "Tyson ultimately concludes that our government doesn't work — not because of our politicians, but because of the "dysfunctional voters" who put them in office. "My goal, then," he writes, "is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.""

adjusting the election system so that people couldn't buy the anger of those idiots would be a good start.

Pasidon: I dunno if the US constitution is the big star anymore, more like Angelina Jolie resigning to age I'd say. Research and statistics show that its popularity as the primary inspiration for new democracies have fallen rapidly the last 50 years, and even a US supreme judge told Egyptians that it would be better to reference South-African and Canadian constitutions these days(damn hard to find a objective link on that one apparently, but eh, the basic info is there, it just riled up the right-wing).

Edited by duke_Qa, 16 February 2012 - 10:10 PM.

[Pasidon]

You'd be slapped with a wet fish in almost any state if you compared the Constitution to a screwy-faced celebrity... bold words. But regardless... the Constitution isn't as outdated as you think. If it was, Republicans would be out of business (aka ethics would be out of business). Sure, anarchy sounds like fun, but anywho... you have things in the Constitution like 'soldiers can't take your stupid house in times of war' that seem silly to have today. Is it silly? No... it's a stance of ethics that would even be ethical to state today. Every piece of legislature, even small, builds up to a system that won't allow our government to become our masters instead of our protectors. That's what the founding fathers put their lives into trying to accomplish, and in a way they did... but only for their future generations to disregard the small, seemingly silly things and actually let government decide most things for them, which is dangerous if you discover how incompetent and selfish most of them are today. And considering the Supreme Court is pretty much all Democrats, no dip they would have trust in any other document. Heck, Democrats would lick the Articles of Confederation and stick it to their heads if they could, just to slander the Constitution. Although it is true we could live without the Constitution perfectly well, but we wouldn't be safe leaving modern day politicians deciding their own code of conduct... I wouldn't even want a good Republican making that decision.

We basically trust our founding fathers more than Obama since their lives were actually at steak when writing it, not just their money and reputation. Never underestimate what a few brilliant terrorists can accomplish.

[duke_Qa]

I might, but then I'd point out that Thomas Jefferson himself said that constitutions should be remade every 19 years, to reflect the current generation("Jefferson thought the dead should not rule the living, thus constitutions should expire frequently"). Average constitutional age in Europe is 32 years, Latin-America 12 years. Not all changes are good/peaceful of course, but I do believe some are constructive. Most of the rights you mentioned are included in more modern constitutions around the world, and most do have even more human rights in them. also they usually are much easier to modify to adjust for the times and trouble.

Having a 200 year old constitution just because its old smells like theocracy to me . Or sitting at home playing pong while all the cool kids are playing red alert 1 or something vaguely modern.

Edited by duke_Qa, 16 February 2012 - 10:20 PM.

[Pasidon]

I could have swore James Wilson said something of a re-draft every-so often... but yea, at the time it would seem like a good idea when we're starting a new country based on primitivisim rather than modernisim, meaning we're not in it just for money, but for accomplishment and pride, and all that old age nonsense. But redrafting is so dangerous, it's a good thing we don't. I would disagree with myself if we lived in an age of better men, but we ain't. But the fact you can amend the constitution is just as dangerous, but it works since those ancient principles that keep politicians in line still stand. It doesn't matter how old the concept is, the principles still stand. But it would surprise me if Europeans shared my founding father's thoughts when they specifically designed a system to break away and prevent the corruptions of a European system.

[Hostile]

There is only one simple question. Where would you rather live?

Wherever that is, is the constitution that you need to be worried about. Don't worry about the US constitution. It doesn't affect you any more than yours affects us.

If you have a great constitution, than I support you continuing to live in your country. I'm not here questioning your constitution so why do you question mine?

You shouldn't try to change the US into Europe, it took us hundreds of years to get away from the Europeans only to be consistently drawn back into YOUR affairs.

Go look into your constitutional mirror and see the problems of your own you should be addressing. Some of the US greatest mistakes came from following the European model for ANYTHING. Especially world politics and social programs.

So you finally have a US President that acts like a socialist, "let's have a meeting to discuss when we're gonna discuss this meeting about..." and so on.

At least Bush knew when to draw his sword and hold it high yelling "ride on motherfuckers!" Unfortunately he didn't have a drivers license...

[Pasidon]

I'd back Bush for 2012.

[duke_Qa]

If you have a great constitution, than I support you continuing to live in your country. I'm not here questioning your constitution so why do you question mine?

I do watch my constitution with eagle eyes(looks at the pickle jar of eagle eyes standing on top of a copy of the constitution). It is getting old in the writing style, almost Danish to be honest. Just because I "criticize" your constitution does not mean I find mine flawless.
Also, having the "best" constitution means jack-shit if people aren't abiding to it. South Africa is mentioned as one of the most modern constitutions in a western style, but India is the one that gets upheld as the best combo-constitution. And considering the massive amounts of corruption, religious terror and caste separation India has(probably caused a bit by the 1billl citizens), it sort of proves that constitutions doesn't mean jack shit if they aren't honored.

Also, that sentence is typical rhetoric of someone on the defensive. If we are not able to observe the flaws in ourselves and our nations, how are we to adjust accordingly and improve it? As mentioned above, slapping hands over your ears and going "lalala" is not a way to get out of a crisis. And I do criticize the US because it is the largest economy and the biggest western power to influence all other western powers. If you want influence over the world, expect the world to return the favor. Just look at Saudi Arabia for malicious examples. What I do here is nano-pennies compared to that

Go look into your constitutional mirror and see the problems of your own you should be addressing. Some of the US greatest mistakes came from following the European model for ANYTHING. Especially world politics and social programs.

So you finally have a US President that acts like a socialist, "let's have a meeting to discuss when we're gonna discuss this meeting about..." and so on.

I'd like to hear more specific examples where the blame of it can be placed squarely at "socialistic" thinking and methods. Closest thing I can recall must be the healthcare system you've had, where the privatized version costs twice as much as the average European healthcare system. World politics under Obama seems to be smoother than Bush. I think I recall Bush starting two wars within

And I suspect the president have gotten tired of trying to please the right-wing now, so there will be fewer meetings for them to try to manipulate him further right without him getting anything back for it. America has been so biased to the right the last 30 years because the left has been left incompetent and with no base. "leftist" politics works best when they keep their hands out of ethical questions and focus on worker rights and law polish. Once they start fighting the cause for immigrants and minorities and environmentalists, the unions and average workers say "fuck that shit, I just want my rights as a worker to be preserved" and bail out.

I'd back Bush for 2012.

I am surprised no attacks on the republicans have come yet with a bush == X, but I guess they are saving that attack for the last months

Edited by duke_Qa, 17 February 2012 - 08:09 AM.

[Hostile]

50% of the US votes one way, 50% votes the other. I like that. But you should worry about your sector of the planet not mine. Don't worry about why I don't want socialism. I know why. I want less government because government are by nature run by people who are not accountable to the normal citizen.

Therefore limit the government as much as possible. Let people fend for themselves, they are smarter than you think and are very resilient.

AND stop worrying about the US, worry about Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Italy.

Worry about your side of the pond, not mine. Mine is already broke and broken. Let us deal with that. Unless we go to war, than you can feel free to criticize us for reducing our military budget and for letting Iran run away with the nuclear prize they so cherish,

Think about this, do you really think the targets were only Iraq and Afgan... Isn't oddly convenient that they both lie east and west of Iran. Who is the real target?

There will be a war or a skirmish with Iran.