Rangerland Forum Information

[Hockey101]

No popular names in the debate in South Carolina, except for Ross Perot wannabe Ron Paul.

My reaction to that group (Pawlenty looked dead, Santorum uptight)....

[Hockey101]

Obama is pretty much a socialist, and universal healthcare is an act of remodeling part of the country's policies. I wouldn't go as far as saying he wants to completely change this country to his liking, also because he can't. It takes years and a lot of power within those years to do so, which is what Europe gives to its politicians. Too much time, too much power to influence, hence why you see long "regimes" there. Thankfully this country does not allow that.

The reason why the CBO made that statement is because they double counted in their report.

No argument was played out from the alternative energy discussions and we didn't necessarily touch on the cap and trade policy itself, but more like oil prices, and automobiles.

People at first liked the stimulus because Obama, and the leaders of the Dems, presented it as a plan to quickly solve issues. However, it actually DID fail as proven by the following facts:

The recovery lost momentum in the spring as growth slowed to a 2.4 percent pace, its most sluggish showing in nearly a year and too weak to drive down unemployment.

Consumers spent less, companies slowed their restocking of shelves and the nation’s trade deficit dragged more on the economy in the April-to-June quarter. In a separate report, the Commerce Department said the recession was deeper than previously estimated.

Together, the reports raise doubts about whether employers will hire enough and consumers will spend enough to invigorate the economy. As unemployment remains near double digits, Congress could feel pressure to pass more stimulus measures to speed the recovery. So far, Republicans and some Democrats have blocked additional spending because of their concerns about the size of the deficit.

Also this link will show you more facts and data as to how the stimulus did not work.

The problem with Factcheck.org is that it is basically an Obamabot because the very leftist Kathleen Jamieson runs it behind the Annenberg Public Policy Center (well connected with Obama), which controls Factcheck.org.

He extended the Bush Tax Cuts because he had to. He actually battled not to, but even his economic advisor, and a couple of them "resigned" afterwards, said it had to be done. He had to scale back on his universal healthcare plan because he did not have enough support from his own party in the first place.

You're giving the guy full credit as if he proposed these decisions trying to be bipartisan. Not even close.

[the old mole]

Obama is pretty much a socialist

Oh wait...you're serious. Why don't you ask real-life socialists what they think about Obama (or google it)?

He has been pretty goddamn pragmatic.

+1. Obama's whole MO is getting something for the democrats by giving something to the republicans. He is the very picture of bipartisan compromise. He gives an inch to get an inch, but when you give the republicans an inch they take a mile.

[Hockey101]

Oh wait...you're serious. Why don't you ask real-life socialists what they think about Obama (or google it)?
+1. Obama's whole MO is getting something for the democrats by giving something to the republicans. He is the very picture of bipartisan compromise. He gives an inch to get an inch, but when you give the republicans an inch they take a mile.

He was a member of the New Party, a socialist party. He believes in distribution of wealth, as he stated himself. Yeah...he is pretty much a socialist if you ask someone whose family decided to flee from a socialist government. (That'd be me).

Oh, and he had no choice but to give in also because his own party told him as well on certain bills passed. I don't get this sudden thought that Obama has worked down the middle. The guy has painted his administration with leftist czars that don't need to be approved. If it wasn't for a good number of smart democrats telling him that his universal healthcare plan was disastrous, he would have passed it. The only thing that he did prior to the November elections that Republicans wanted him to do was extend the Bush tax cuts, which he didn't want in the first place, but was well advised by his own economy think tank to go with it. Post November elections the budget slash deal was fair enough. His stimulus bill had minimal support from the Republican party, but he went with it anyway.

Please.... all the sudden the guy is painted as a centrist. That is the joke of the year.

This post has been edited by Hockey101: May 16 2011, 01:28 AM

[the old mole]

He was a member of the New Party, a socialist party. He believes in distribution of wealth, as he stated himself. Yeah...he is pretty much a socialist if you ask someone whose family decided to flee from a socialist government. (That'd be me).

You're also someone who is so far to the right that anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan is a socialist. And the New Party, like so many American left groups, wanted more fairness/social justice within a capitalist framework. It's a moot point, however, since Obama was never a member of said party.

What socialist government did your family flee from, and what similarities do you see between that government and Obama's policies?

Oh, and he had no choice but to give in also because his own party told him as well on certain bills passed. I don't get this sudden thought that Obama has worked down the middle. The guy has painted his administration with leftist czars that don't need to be approved. If it wasn't for a good number of smart democrats telling him that his universal healthcare plan was disastrous, he would have passed it. The only thing that he did prior to the November elections that Republicans wanted him to do was extend the Bush tax cuts, which he didn't want in the first place, but was well advised by his own economy think tank to go with it. Post November elections the budget slash deal was fair enough. His stimulus bill had minimal support from the Republican party, but he went with it anyway.

Please.... all the sudden the guy is painted as a centrist. That is the joke of the year.

What do you mean, "all of the sudden"? Left-wing critics of Obama have been calling him a centrist since before the election. I think the fact that you dislike him and I dislike him is a testament to his frustratingly bipartisan, centrist presidency.

[Hockey101]

You're also someone who is so far to the right that anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan is a socialist. And the New Party, like so many American left groups, wanted more fairness/social justice within a capitalist framework. It's a moot point, however, since Obama was never a member of said party.

What socialist government did your family flee from, and what similarities do you see between that government and Obama's policies?
What do you mean, "all of the sudden"? Left-wing critics of Obama have been calling him a centrist since before the election. I think the fact that you dislike him and I dislike him is a testament to his frustratingly bipartisan, centrist presidency.

Not really. I couldn't say enough good things on Democrat Evan Bayh. Moderate democrats don't really bother me. So, the assumption you make on me thinking that anyone to the left of Reagan is a socialist is flat out wrong. As for the New Party, look into this.

The socialist government in Italy was filled with "i sessantottini", translated "the 68's". In 1968 there was a big communist movement in Italy. Many of these activists entered politics as socialists and since we have a lot of parties in Italy, we have "allied" parties. The socialist parties and communists parties changed Italy a lot, for the worse, and we lost a lot of invested money. Everyone in Italy knows that the reason why the country does not, and will not, advance economically is that all of the money taken by the government go into the pockets of politicians, and go to the south. North Italy and South Italy are basically two different countries. The North is industrial, commercial, economically sound, advanced. The South is pretty much a third world country. Unemployment high, and the demand for social benefits from the government was high, and it will keep increasing. So, the government tends to take the money from the north, where we had investments in, and distributes it to the south. It got to the point that when we moved to NJ, we got lucky to get a mortgage.

Now....obviously it's not how the US works and will ever work. However, i have my very good reasons not to like socialists and be very critical of them. It's tough to compare Obama's policies to that of Italy's because the political systems are different. The main one was Obama original plan of universal healthcare, and his campaign on redistribution of wealth, which Biden even talked about to i forget who saying something along the lines of "it's time to give", with that freaky, evilish, smile of his. So...for me...anyone who says such and believes in such, and wants to act on them, it raises a red flag.

In terms of all of the sudden with Obama. I think i criticized him as spineless when he extended the Bush tax cuts. I was harsh, because i knew he did not want to, but he did it anyway. Yet, i think that the guy almost had no choice but to do it. I think Obama entered such a bad era in US history (in terms of modern day economy) that he is nearly handcuffed on what he really wanted to do because reality kicked in and he realized that himself. There is not much that he can do as a liberal president, because he can't. He had to pass a very watered down version of his healthcare reform, why? Because not even the non-liberal Democrats supported his original plan of universal healthcare.

Also there is general data believed to state that about 20% of Americans are liberal. If 80% of Americans are not liberal, then it's not easy to expect the president to do what possibly 80% of Americans may not like. (edit: very generally speaking) So, i don't think that Obama has wanted to do certain things that he's already done. My opinion is that he had to do them.

This post has been edited by Hockey101: May 16 2011, 12:11 PM

[Nilan 666]

Also there is general data believed to state that about 20% of Americans are liberal. If 80% of Americans are not liberal, then it's not easy to expect the president to do what possibly 80% of Americans may not like. (edit: very generally speaking) So, i don't think that Obama has wanted to do certain things that he's already done. My opinion is that he had to do them.

Could you specify this data then? Also on the whole redistribution of wealth the GOP does it too. Just because you behave like a dyslexic Robin Hood does not mean you aren't redistributing wealth.

[Hockey101]

Could you specify this data then? Also on the whole redistribution of wealth the GOP does it too. Just because you behave like a dyslexic Robin Hood does not mean you aren't redistributing wealth.

I guess this is an indicator.

I wouldn't consider this as hard data because such a survey is very hard to conduct, the margin of error should be fairly high, and it is such a general....nationwide poll. It's not as specific as other polls. But, it is consistent with previous polls. So, the general idea is that about 20% of Americans consider themselves as liberals. Let's say it could be 30%, though. Even if so..., then liberal policies may not be supported by 70%.

And i already said we have redistribution of wealth in this country (regardless of political parties). Our taxes are used to fund certain programs. This is why we are a mixed economy, and not fully emerged into capitalism. I find that fair. What i do not like, however, is an increased interest in redistribution of wealth from the leaders of our government.