NationStates Jolt Archive

Welcome! I've recently written a paper about president-elect Barack Obama. Pretty much, this paper is all about why I think Barack Obama will fail as the president of the United States. It goes into his economical and social beliefs. I point out his lies, socialist tendencies, and how his policies will (probably) fail. I'm going to attempt to get it published and hopefully gain some credibility as a writer from this. I hope you like it.

NOTE: This is the rough draft and has a lot of problems. You'll find grammatical problems and even spelling errors. I'm going to get it cleaned up in the next few days. Just know that this is the rough draft.

I'm not going to paste the paper here, for it is 15 pages long. If you are truly interested in reading it and want to comment or critisize, please telegram me your e-mail address. I'll e-mail you the paper and you can comment on it! Thanks!

Stop it.

You're making newbies look bad.

I'm serious. I really think America is headed in the wrong direction with Obama. I don't want to argue it here - you can read my E-Mail and we can debate privately.

I really think this situation is important and want to spread my paper and show my predictions. I pray that they are wrong and he does succeed, but I find it very unlikely.

he's not going to fail. he is smart enough to know that we are in deep shit that has to be fixed before any "socialist" plan can be implemented.

maybe in his second term he will turn into a miserable failure...

Don't...

You calling Obama a socialist is getting me all giddy and optimistic.

he's not going to fail. he is smart enough to know that we are in deep shit that has to be fixed before any "socialist" plan can be implemented.

maybe in his second term he will turn into a miserable failure...


If you disagree, telegram me. My paper outlines certain economic failure.

If you disagree, telegram me. My paper outlines certain economic failure....And the whole thing about the US being in a recession since 2007 has nothing to do with it, right? It's going to be Obama's fault? :rolleyes:

If you disagree, telegram me. My paper outlines certain economic failure.
im not interested in your paper.

he cant do any worse than has already been done with the economy.

Welcome! I've recently written a paper about president-elect Barack Obama. Pretty much, this paper is all about why I think Barack Obama will fail as the president of the United States. It goes into his economical and social beliefs. I point out his lies, socialist tendencies, and how his policies will (probably) fail. I'm going to attempt to get it published and hopefully gain some credibility as a writer from this. I hope you like it.

NOTE: This is the rough draft and has a lot of problems. You'll find grammatical problems and even spelling errors. I'm going to get it cleaned up in the next few days. Just know that this is the rough draft.

I'm not going to paste the paper here, for it is 15 pages long. If you are truly interested in reading it and want to comment or critisize, please telegram me your e-mail address. I'll e-mail you the paper and you can comment on it! Thanks!

You mean the President Obama who will never lie to us, lol. The President Obama change we can believe in, lol. His own clever campaign slogan to mean all things to all persons, lol.

Welcome! I've recently written a paper about president-elect Barack Obama. Pretty much, this paper is all about why I think Barack Obama will fail as the president of the United States. It goes into his economical and social beliefs. I point out his lies, socialist tendencies, and how his policies will (probably) fail. I'm going to attempt to get it published and hopefully gain some credibility as a writer from this. I hope you like it.

NOTE: This is the rough draft and has a lot of problems. You'll find grammatical problems and even spelling errors. I'm going to get it cleaned up in the next few days. Just know that this is the rough draft.

I'm not going to paste the paper here, for it is 15 pages long. If you are truly interested in reading it and want to comment or critisize, please telegram me your e-mail address. I'll e-mail you the paper and you can comment on it! Thanks!

Maybe you can get a job working for Rush Limbaugh. SOrt of the republican demagogue version of a porn fluffer. :)

...And the whole thing about the US being in a recession since 2007 has nothing to do with it, right? It's going to be Obama's fault? :rolleyes:

He sure as hell isn't going to help as he claims. I have my own opinions on how to fix the economy. But I don't talk about that - I simply show how Obama's policies won't help and will in fact make things much worse.

If you disagree, telegram me. My paper outlines certain economic failure.

If you knew anything about economics, you'd know that nothing is ever certain, espescially in the long run. And your talk about Obama's "socialist" agenda makes me laugh.

But I'm game. I'll read it.

Maybe you can get a job working for Rush Limbaugh. SOrt of the republican demagogue version of a porn fluffer. :)


:p I am Republican, Conservative, and obviously Southern-based and belief-raised. However, this paper is serious and the situation is very important. I am biased in the paper, but that's the point. I don't use false imformation and state all my sources. Limbaugh does neither.

I'm serious. I really think America is headed in the wrong direction with Obama. I don't want to argue it here - you can read my E-Mail and we can debate privately.

I really think this situation is important and want to spread my paper and show my predictions. I pray that they are wrong and he does succeed, but I find it very unlikely.

America is circling the drain, how worse a direction could he lead us in?

Don't...

You calling Obama a socialist is getting me all giddy and optimistic.

lolz. You do realise socialist policies in this economy would ruin us, yes?

If anyone wants to read this, they need to telegram me! I can't telegram all of you individually, and I'm already getting loads of telegrams. IF YOU WANT TO READ IT, TELEGRAM ME YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS!

America is circling the drain, how worse a direction could he lead us in?

By destroying the upper "rich" levels of income, by overtaxing them and shortening the economic gap and following the policies of egalitarianism, Obama will ruin the base of the stock market.

It's all in my paper. :)

lolz. You do realise socialist policies in this economy would ruin us, yes?

Increased social spending in a recession is a good thing. That's the "standard" for "socialist" policies for most Americans, but anyone who a basic background in economics calls them Keynesian economic policies.

:p I am Republican, Conservative, and obviously Southern-based and belief-raised. However, this paper is serious and the situation is very important. I am biased in the paper, but that's the point. I don't use false imformation and state all my sources. Limbaugh does neither.

I defy labels, but I tend toward social libertarianism with a few notable points of contention(like my approval of the death penalty), I believe in Christ, but not christianity and unless you're a penguin, I don't see how lattitude plays a role in politics.

Obama is a politician, nothing more nothing less. He's no different than any major party politician except in a couple important respects: He is extremely intelligent and driven. He is under incredible pressure to succeed and has a huge magnifying glass over him. These are good things.

Increased social spending in a recession is a good thing. That's the "standard" for "socialist" policies for most Americans, but anyone who a basic background in economics calls them Keynesian economic policies.

Keynes was a tool. Spurring economic growth with tax cuts is good in a recession, not racking up debt.

meh...The Recession is helping Biloxi greatly...Im hoping he keeps ruining it...

And if he does...Ill vote for him again next Time...

And I think he will John McCain wouldnt lie to me :p

Welcome! I've recently written a paper about president-elect Barack Obama. Pretty much, this paper is all about why I think Barack Obama will fail as the president of the United States. It goes into his economical and social beliefs. I point out his lies, socialist tendencies, and how his policies will (probably) fail. I'm going to attempt to get it published and hopefully gain some credibility as a writer from this. I hope you like it.

NOTE: This is the rough draft and has a lot of problems. You'll find grammatical problems and even spelling errors. I'm going to get it cleaned up in the next few days. Just know that this is the rough draft.

I'm not going to paste the paper here, for it is 15 pages long. If you are truly interested in reading it and want to comment or critisize, please telegram me your e-mail address. I'll e-mail you the paper and you can comment on it! Thanks!

Having seen the quality of your arguments on a debate forum, when there were other opinions to temper your worst mistakes...

...I think I'll opt out, thanks.

Welcome! I've recently written a paper about president-elect Barack Obama. Pretty much, this paper is all about why I think Barack Obama will fail as the president of the United States. It goes into his economical and social beliefs. I point out his lies, socialist tendencies, and how his policies will (probably) fail. I'm going to attempt to get it published and hopefully gain some credibility as a writer from this. I hope you like it.

NOTE: This is the rough draft and has a lot of problems. You'll find grammatical problems and even spelling errors. I'm going to get it cleaned up in the next few days. Just know that this is the rough draft.

I'm not going to paste the paper here, for it is 15 pages long. If you are truly interested in reading it and want to comment or critisize, please telegram me your e-mail address. I'll e-mail you the paper and you can comment on it! Thanks!

What's with all the n00bs recently?

deep, i hope you realize that by sending out this paper it WILL end up here quoted and mocked....

i r serious thinker. this am serious paper!

deep, i hope you realize that by sending out this paper it WILL end up here quoted and mocked....

If he's lucky.

It's always possible that a mod passing close by will read the OP and decide that a thread that opens by declaring it will be content-free is 'A Bad Thing'.

What's with all the n00bs recently?

My theory is Embittered Busheviks Scrabbling For The Slightest Pretense To Declare Obama A Failure Even Before He's Sworn Into Office.

deep, i hope you realize that by sending out this paper it WILL end up here quoted and mocked....
It's only a first draft. Ultimate get-out clause.

My theory is Embittered Busheviks Scrabbling For The Slightest Pretense To Declare Obama A Failure Even Before He's Sworn Into Office.

sounds like another name for FOX News....

Keynes was a tool. Spurring economic growth with tax cuts is good in a recession, not racking up debt.

Yep. You want to encourage the flow of cash.

It's only a first draft. Ultimate get-out clause.
yeah but if i were a cruel person that would make me all the more eager to get my hands on it so i could tear apart bad sentences.

My theory is Embittered Busheviks Scrabbling For The Slightest Pretense To Declare Obama A Failure Even Before He's Sworn Into Office.

Seems likely.

Yep. You want to encourage the flow of cash.

...down the shitter.

If he's lucky.

It's always possible that a mod passing close by will read the OP and decide that a thread that opens by declaring it will be content-free is 'A Bad Thing'.
he should be so lucky. no one can post in a closed thread.

Yep. You want to encourage the flow of cash.
Uhu... and since this recession is largely about middle and lower class people trying to live in the short-term beyond their means, won't giving them a stack of cash at one stage and then taking more off them in a couple of years just feed into this very problem all over again?

...down the shitter.

No, you just want it to move. The best thing to do during a recession is to spend.

No, you just want it to move. The best thing to do during a recession is to spend.

..to spend money to get more shitters to throw your money down...

Uhu... and since this recession is largely about middle and lower class people trying to live in the short-term beyond their means, won't giving them a stack of cash at one stage and then taking more off them in a couple of years just feed into this very problem all over again?

DONT SAY THINGS LIKE THAT!!!

Then how am i going to get my big stack of cash!? :eek2:;)

Uhu... and since this recession is largely about middle and lower class people trying to live in the short-term beyond their means, won't giving them a stack of cash at one stage and then taking more off them in a couple of years just feed into this very problem all over again?

No, this time the wealth will trickle down. It never did before, but this time will be different. ;)

No, this time the wealth will trickle down. It never did before, but this time will be different. ;)
Good call. God bless the free market.

Uhu... and since this recession is largely about middle and lower class people trying to live in the short-term beyond their means...

Bullshit.

I'll bet it's replete with unconnected examples, as in...

'Barack Obama wants universal healthcare yet we can see, in the example of Belgium in the 14th Century, that universal healthcare caused the black plague, as outlined by by Professor Mike McMad, renegade historian at the University of Scientology. Regardless, in the bible it says God will provide us with universal healthcare so it's really money down the drain'.

No, you just want it to move. The best thing to do during a recession is to spend.

No, the best thing to do during a recession is to give the poor and unemployed decent high wage jobs so they'll have money to spend.

I'll bet it's replete with unconnected examples, as in...

'Barack Obama wants universal healthcare yet we can see, in the example of Belgium in the 14th Century, that universal healthcare caused the black plague, as outlined by by Professor Mike McMad, renegade historian at the University of Scientology. Regardless, in the bible it says God will provide us with universal healthcare so it's really money down the drain'.
but not spelled so well with all that fancy-dancy punctuation and subordinate clause shit.

Bullshit.
How is it not?

Sorry, whoops, as a bit of a socialist I should have said "aye it was those bastard fat cats". Now I remember -_-

No, this time the wealth will trickle down. It never did before, but this time will be different. ;)

"They're being trickled upon. But not by wealth."

but not spelled so well with all that fancy-dancy punctuation and subordinate clause shit.

What do elves have to do with this?

No, the best thing to do during a recession is to give the poor and unemployed decent high wage jobs so they'll have money to spend.

And where are these jobs going to come from? And why would they be given to the poor?

What do elves have to do with this?

The bit about universal elfcare?

Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer.

What do elves have to do with this?
who do you think does the trickling?

How is it not?

Sorry, whoops, as a bit of a socialist I should have said "aye it was those bastard fat cats". Now I remember -_-

Recession is inherent in our economic model. It is the counterbalance relationship between boom cycle and bust cycle.

In the case of THIS recession, it has been exacerbated far more pronouncedly by the price of oil, and it's knock-on effects, than by sub-prime controversy.

I'll bet it's replete with unconnected examples, as in...

'Barack Obama wants universal healthcare yet we can see, in the example of Belgium in the 14th Century, that universal healthcare caused the black plague, as outlined by by Professor Mike McMad, renegade historian at the University of Scientology. Regardless, in the bible it says God will provide us with universal healthcare so it's really money down the drain'.
Yes, but that's just supporting material to the main point, which is his explanation of how his friend, the Nigerian prince, needs our help to get his money out of the failed banks that Obama has driven into the ground.

If anyone wants to read this, they need to telegram me! I can't telegram all of you individually, and I'm already getting loads of telegrams. IF YOU WANT TO READ IT, TELEGRAM ME YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS!

You're just a poorly made bot harvesting email addresses aren't you?

And where are these jobs going to come from?

New businesses given government subsidies to build and rebuild ailing infrastructures like roads and the national energy grid.

And why would they be given to the poor?

Because there are a lot of em and the rich don't need jobs.

Recession is inherent in our economic model. It is the counterbalance relationship between boom cycle and bust cycle.
Oh I really did not know this. Thank you for enlightening me on this fact that I previously did not know, cough cough.

This is not a counter-argument.
In the case of THIS recession, it has been exacerbated far more pronouncedly by the price of oil, and it's knock-on effects, than by sub-prime controversy.
Pretty sure that depends where you live. In the UK, the banking system losing vast sums of money is far more important than slightly more overexpensive petrol.

You're just a poorly made bot harvesting email addresses aren't you?

That would improve my opinion of him. :)

New businesses given government subsidies to build and rebuild ailing infrastructures like roads and the national energy grid.



Because there are a lot of em and the rich don't need jobs.
and the poor will take the money they earn and spend it immediately. its great for the economy.

Pretty sure that depends where you live. In the UK, the banking system losing vast sums of money is far more important than slightly more overexpensive petrol.

Whereas over here, the Vastly cut down price of Gas has helped us considerably...

Especially our family, My Dad's a Truck Driver...

New businesses given government subsidies to build and rebuild ailing infrastructures like roads and the national energy grid.



Because there are a lot of em and the rich don't need jobs.

Why exactly is your economy dependant on the poor?

Here we go

Small businesses are key to a successful democratic economy. Obama claims to support small businesses. However, what he doesn’t tell you is that for most small businesses he’ll actually be raising taxes. A 2006 survey by Salary.com shows the average income for a small business in the United States is $258,400 (Jared Jost).

Define your terms, please. In order for any of this to meaningful, I need to know what defines a small business according to your sources, because small businesses are a diverse lot.

This, for an economy to thrive, is totally unacceptable. Raising taxes on small businesses and such peoples would diminish and destroy the hope of living out the American Dream. Isn’t that interesting? Mr. Hope wants to make it less likely for small business owners and those with such dreams to become successful.

This is a baseless assumption that you're making. You're completely ignoring scale in making this argument. The change in taxation level for these businesses is not going to be drastic. Corporate income tax is only assessed on profits anyway, so is unlikely to affect the bottom line.

This continues to show Obama’s lack of experience and it’s clear through many of his policies that he’s not ready, at least as of now, to run our great country.

Your evidence you site from the Brookings Institute (good choice, btw) doesn't really back up your claim. You're taking their critique out of context, and using it to build a straw man about Obama's economic policies.

In fact, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, “Senator Obama’s plan would substantially increase the deficit compared with current law and would add nearly $3.3 trillion to the national debt over ten years. Top marginal income tax rates would increase to their pre-2001 levels,” and “top capital gains tax rates would be higher.” So how exactly is Obama going to decrease the deficit and help the U.S. economy? By taxing our citizens more and increasing the national debt? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Your claim rides on one assumption: that all of Obama's proposals will be enacted. Even if everything goes stunningly well for Obama, this is nearly impossible. Furthermore, you're confusing two different issues here: the deficit and the health of the economy. Given the recession, there is no way to solve both. Obama has never made any definitive statement about the budget deficit, so I think it is safe to assume his primary concern is the state of the US economy.

The increase that Obama plans to enact on your capital gains taxes, payroll taxes, and more will be going directly into the hands of the unemployed, no strings attached...That is totally and fully unacceptable.

What? Far be it from me to stop Obama helping the needy, but when has ever said anything even remotely to this effect? There's no citation in your paper for this claim.

So what's unacceptable here? An alleged lack of conditions, or the fact that he's increasing social spending? Why does either bother you so, given the incredibly cavalier way that US government spends hundreds of billions subsidising wealthy corporations every year.

I can hear you liberals shouting now: “That’s not socialism!” I was hoping it didn’t have to come to this, but it’s time to find the definition. Socialism is “a broad set of economic theories of social organization [...] advocating the creation of an egalitarian society.”... (editors note: I am not amused by the omission of the bolded -Trotsky)

You're going to hear it from a bona fide socialist now: that is not socialism. Your citation of wikipedia makes me want to hurl. Not only did you cite wikipedia (which can be altered by anyone) rather than referring to the primary source cited by Wiki, you also committed plagirism.

The full definition according to wiki is "Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society." You blatantly left out the bolded to redefine socialism to suit your agenda. If I did this on a paper at Uni, I'd get kicked out.

Not only would the increased taxes on the rich be essentially socialist, it’s also a clearly stupid and irresponsible decision for the next president to make. The wealthiest persons often spend a portion of their extra funds by investing in the stock market; an easy and effective way to keep the economy flowing and successful.

Has it ever occurred to you that the government does more with tax money than burn it? From an economic standpoint, it does not matter whether private actors or the state spends the money. What matters is where it is spent.

Increasing wealth polarization leads to overinvestment and underconsumption, which leads to recessions. Hmm, I think I heard something about a bubble leading to a pretty severe recession recently...

If I get over being angry about your plagiarism, I might look at the non-economic portions of your paper. But untill then, I need to cool down.

Why exactly is your economy dependant on the poor?

Because theyre cheaper than slaves....

Why exactly is your economy dependant on the poor?
Because they make up the vast, vast majority of the public and indeed the workforce?

No, the best thing to do during a recession is to give the poor and unemployed decent high wage jobs so they'll have money to spend.

Not to mention that it actually increases the velocity of cash flow a bit more than with the wealthy since the less wealthy are more like to spend their money more quickly.

Because they make up the vast, vast majority of the public and indeed the workforce?

That's disturbing.

Not to mention that it actually increases the velocity of cash flow a bit more than with the wealthy since the less wealthy are more like to spend their money more quickly.

But, how is this going to give the Upper Class more Money? :p

Why exactly is your economy dependant on the poor?

Because they are the largest drain on it. The poor contribute the least taxes and use the most social spending. By making them productive and increasing their incomes, not only are you rebuilding infrastructure, you are increasing the tax base, the availability of spendable wealth and decreasing tax expenditures on social services.

The full definition according to wiki is "Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society." You blatantly left out the bolded to redefine socialism to suit your agenda. If I did this on a paper at Uni, I'd get kicked out.


Silly Trotsky, if we went with the real definition of socialism, we couldnt call Obama a socialist.

But, how is this going to give the Upper Class more Money? :p
Trickle-up economics. You know, the working trickle.

Trickle-up economics. You know, the working trickle.

Psh, thatll never work...You and Your Logic....:rolleyes:

Silly Trotsky, if we went with the real definition of socialism, we couldnt call Obama a socialist.

You know, I hear doing that actually angers a shit-load of Actual members of the Socialist Party of America...

Silly Trotsky, if we went with the real definition of socialism, we couldnt call Obama a socialist.

Exactly. By time you realise what socialism actually is, it'll be too late! :tongue:

My vast army of co-conspirators are slowing taking over America, one Women's Studies classroom at a time. And if it weren't for those meddling Republicans, we'd have succeeded by now!

Define your terms, please. In order for any of this to meaningful, I need to know what defines a small business according to your sources, because small businesses are a diverse lot.

even worse, there is some rather obvious slight of hand here with 'average'. we all know (or should) that wealth is distributed in anything but a bell curve. the ridiculous amounts on the richest end seriously drag up averages, even while the overwhelming majority of particular businesses fall well below that.


edit: he should also make clear that he is talking about ceo compensation specifically.
http://www.salary.com/aboutus/layoutscripts/abtl_default.asp?tab=abt&cat=cat012&ser=ser041&part=Par545

Here we go
I'll be honest, if I used wiki as a source at uni, they'd have my guts for garters.

Here we go



Define your terms, please. In order for any of this to meaningful, I need to know what defines a small business according to your sources, because small businesses are a diverse lot.



This is a baseless assumption that you're making. You're completely ignoring scale in making this argument. The change in taxation level for these businesses is not going to be drastic. Corporate income tax is only assessed on profits anyway, so is unlikely to affect the bottom line.



Your evidence you site from the Brookings Institute (good choice, btw) doesn't really back up your claim. You're taking their critique out of context, and using it to build a straw man about Obama's economic policies.



Your claim rides on one assumption: that all of Obama's proposals will be enacted. Even if everything goes stunningly well for Obama, this is nearly impossible. Furthermore, you're confusing two different issues here: the deficit and the health of the economy. Given the recession, there is no way to solve both. Obama has never made any definitive statement about the budget deficit, so I think it is safe to assume his primary concern is the state of the US economy.



What? Far be it from me to stop Obama helping the needy, but when has ever said anything even remotely to this effect? There's no citation in your paper for this claim.

So what's unacceptable here? An alleged lack of conditions, or the fact that he's increasing social spending? Why does either bother you so, given the incredibly cavalier way that US government spends hundreds of billions subsidising wealthy corporations every year.



You're going to hear it from a bona fide socialist now: that is not socialism. Your citation of wikipedia makes me want to hurl. Not only did you cite wikipedia (which can be altered by anyone) rather than referring to the primary source cited by Wiki, you also committed plagirism.

The full definition according to wiki is "Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society." You blatantly left out the bolded to redefine socialism to suit your agenda. If I did this on a paper at Uni, I'd get kicked out.



Has it ever occurred to you that the government does more with tax money than burn it? From an economic standpoint, it does not matter whether private actors or the state spends the money. What matters is where it is spent.

Increasing wealth polarization leads to overinvestment and underconsumption, which leads to recessions. Hmm, I think I heard something about a bubble leading to a pretty severe recession recently...

If I get over being angry about your plagiarism, I might look at the non-economic portions of your paper. But untill then, I need to cool down.
isnt this stuff a slight retread of the pre-election republican talking points against obama?

Oh I really did not know this. Thank you for enlightening me on this fact that I previously did not know, cough cough.

This is not a counter-argument.


No, that wasn't a counter-argument. It was illustration of the fact that - despite popular terminology like 'what caused this recession' (which I'm not accusing you of using), recession is not being 'caused', although it can be precipitated.

You suggested that this recession is being precipitated by extraordinary credit burdens.


Pretty sure that depends where you live. In the UK, the banking system losing vast sums of money is far more important than slightly more overexpensive petrol.

The economy is global. Just because you didn't see the price at the pump increase to 450% (as (some places in) the US did) in the UK, doesn't mean that the UK economy wasn't effected by global oil prices, and their knock-on effects.

I'll be honest, if I used wiki as a source at uni, they'd have my guts for garters.

I did a speech on the accuracy of Wikipedia for public speaking....

I got a 98 on it...although I didnt use Wiki as a source, lol...

isnt this stuff a slight retread of the pre-election republican talking points against obama?

slight?

Small businesses are key to a successful democratic economy. Obama claims to support small businesses. However, what he doesn’t tell you is that for most small businesses he’ll actually be raising taxes. A 2006 survey by Salary.com shows the average income for a small business in the United States is $258,400 (Jared Jost).

Is Barack Obama raising taxes on businesses with income over $250, 000, income is not the same as profit or earnings as such, there's outgoing expenses, this and more... just for clarification.

slight?
slight as in slight changes not as in slightly the same

Is Barack Obama raising taxes on businesses with income over $250, 000, income is not the same as profit or earnings as such, there's outgoing expenses, this and more... just for clarification.

Well, the way it was worded in his "Blue Print For Change" I think he was taxing those who Netted more than $250000, as opposed to just that much income...

Like we make over $250000 but we only net about $11 :( lol

My main question with the whole socialism thing is...

Even if it was (but its not), so what? Thats what the people voted for. Why do you hate democracy?


And I highly, highly suggest you take Wiki out as a source if you want to be taken seriously. Not plagiarizing will help too.

In fact, just intellectual honosty in general is usually looked highly upon.

I'll be honest, if I used wiki as a source at uni, they'd have my guts for garters.

Mine too. I hope this kid is just a plucky high school student.

isnt this stuff a slight retread of the pre-election republican talking points against obama?

Like Free Soviets said, slight?

My main question with the whole socialism thing is...

Even if it was (but its not), so what? Thats what the people voted for. Why do you hate democracy?


And I highly, highly suggest you take Wiki out as a source if you want to be taken seriously. Not plagerising will help too.

Same here, I hold many Socialist beliefs and am proud of them...

And I actually think the Majority of Americans do, just the word Socialism has been demonized...

Like, for example, Ill be talkin to my dad, who is very anti socialist, and he'll be agreeing with everything i say, till i tell him i quoted it from Marx...then he goes on a tangent about hammers&sickles and Commies, lol...Its actually pretty funny...

My main question with the whole socialism thing is...

If it is, so what? Thats what the people voted for. Why do you hate democracy?

Americans have been conditioned to associate "socialism" with communist dictatorships, and plenty of horror story pictures of Hard Working Honest People Having Their Money Taken Away And Given To Fat, Lazy Welfare Leeches.

Of course, most fail to realize this is already the case. Except we have names for the Fat, Lazy Welfare Leeches. Such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, et cetera et cetera.

It's only Dirty Socialism if the average consumer gets the free handout instead of corporate entities.

Keynes was a tool. Spurring economic growth with tax cuts is good in a recession, not racking up debt.

Which is why the Bush tax cuts helped prevent this, right?

I'll be honest, if I used wiki as a source at uni, they'd have my guts for garters.I'll be honest, I wish the authors of some of the papers I'm checking for errors for my uni had had the decency to go to Wikipedia and make the minimal effort of finding out how "Trajan" or "Theodoric" are spelled in English.

He sure as hell isn't going to help as he claims. I have my own opinions on how to fix the economy. But I don't talk about that - I simply show how Obama's policies won't help and will in fact make things much worse.

Dude! Can I borrow your time machine?

I mean, clearly you have one if you know how something as sporadic and highly variable-dependent as how a government or economy works (Let alone together) in the future. The only way is that you must have seen it, with your time machine! So give it up!

And by the way, because you're spouting nothing but your own conjecture, you are in fact talking about your own opinions. So you just spouted bullshit. How can I take your paper seriously if you can't even follow along a simple semantic truth and convey it to us?

And beyond that as well, your unwillingness to partake in open and public debate in regards to your paper bugs me. So it's fifteen pages long, that's no excuse. I'd post my 40 page long paper on the history of Soviet tanks I did for my honors Soviet history course two years ago if I felt like it, it's opinionated too, but I'm willing to bet it's more grounded in fact then your paper (Especially after reading some of the responses to it here).

Dude! Can I borrow your time machine?

I mean, clearly you have one if you know how something as sporadic and highly variable-dependent as how a government or economy works (Let alone together) in the future. The only way is that you must have seen it, with your time machine! So give it up!

And by the way, because you're spouting nothing but your own conjecture, you are in fact talking about your own opinions. So you just spouted bullshit. How can I take your paper seriously if you can't even follow along a simple semantic truth and convey it to us?

And beyond that as well, your unwillingness to partake in open and public debate in regards to your paper bugs me. So it's fifteen pages long, that's no excuse. I'd post my 40 page long paper on the history of Soviet tanks I did for my honors Soviet history course two years ago if I felt like it, it's opinionated too, but I'm willing to bet it's more grounded in fact then your paper (Especially after reading some of the responses to it here).

Owned.

Owned.

And so thoroughly too. It's a beautiful thing.

I'm tempted to ask for the paper and then post it here, but I just can't bring myself to care enough.

This is quite brilliant. Allow me to translate...

'Obama will fail. I've written a paper that proves it. I'm clearly ignorant of what 'socialism' means, and I'm not actually even going to post any of my arguments, as you'd all laugh at my total lack of knowledge. But as you can't read the paper, you can't prove my arguments are wrong. And as none of you are stupid enough to send your email address to some guy you don't know, I won't be called on it. SO I WIN THE DEBATE'

Fail.

By the way I've just written a paper showing that rainbows are made out of unicorn urine, Belgium is nothing more than an optical illusion caused by the curvature of the Earth, and Keanu Reeves can act. Send me your email address and I'll send the paper. Oh, and remember. Its a draft, so you can't justly criticize any errors even if you do bother getting me to send it to you.

I believe that like any other politician, Obama uses other people to get ahead. He used Rev. Wright to gain religious cred within the black community. He knew Ayers well enough to use him to get some lefty cred. He certainly used Code Pink to get votes. He got everyone excited, thinking that he's going to give them exactly what they want, and more.

The trouble is, he's a politician. Pretty smart, and fairly pragmatic. A good organizer and planner. It's obvious now that all of those excited Daily Kos people and Code Pink types are going to get the same treatment he gave Rev. Wright.

He was after the Presidency, and his plan to get there worked very well.

Don't expect him to be some socialist lefty - he's now trying to straddle the center as hard as he can so he can accomplish something (keep in mind that the "something" is probably not the nightmare that Republicans expect, and not the lefty paradise that some of his supporters were expecting).

A good planner, and someone willing to work compromises in order to get something done. Someone who is a pragmatists who can appeal to idealists long enough to get them to buy in to whatever he's doing.

Isn't that the hallmark of an effective politician?

If anyone wants to read this, they need to telegram me! I can't telegram all of you individually, and I'm already getting loads of telegrams. IF YOU WANT TO READ IT, TELEGRAM ME YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS!
No. YOU telegram me YOUR email address first. Then I'll know you're kosher.
And then I'll pass it onto scientology, dick-enlarging sites and this great bunch of guys in Nigeria.


so it's 15 pages long. Big deal. If it really was a serious analysis, it would have an introduction and a conclusion/summary of main points. Post that at least. We can do with some chuckles.

A good example of Obama's pragmatism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04military.html?_r=1

I bet Code Pink has their panties in a bunch.

A good example of Obama's pragmatism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04military.html?_r=1

I bet Code Pink has their panties in a bunch.
isnt the withdrawal from iraq pretty much a done deal? the iraqi parliament signed off on the deal that has us troops confined to bases by the middle of next year and out by '11.

what is there for obama to do?

No. YOU telegram me YOUR email address first. Then I'll know you're kosher.
And then I'll pass it onto scientology, dick-enlarging sites and this great bunch of guys in Nigeria.


so it's 15 pages long. Big deal. If it really was a serious analysis, it would have an introduction and a conclusion/summary of main points. Post that at least. We can do with some chuckles.

Or upload it to something like rapidshare or megaupload and let us lol at our own leisure without getting an inbox full of unwanted cocks.

isnt the withdrawal from iraq pretty much a done deal? the iraqi parliament signed off on the deal that has us troops confined to bases by the middle of next year and out by '11.

what is there for obama to do?

His "promise" would have had them out earlier. The last step in Iraqi approval comes next year with the public referendum on the deal.

He's very pragmatic. He probably sees it as essentially done and over, so there are other things to pay attention to that are far more important.

Like the economy.

socialist

Why do the word "socialism" and its deritatives get used like a two-dollar whore in America? -_-

Why do the word "socialism" and its deritatives get used like a two-dollar whore in America? -_-

It's a free market, of it wants to sell itself that cheap, then it's damned well got the right to!

That's disturbing.
Why the hell is that disturbing?

The poor tend to make up the majority of a country's population, unless you live somewhere like Monaco.

It's a free market, of it wants to sell itself that cheap, then it's damned well got the right to!

You see, it DOESN'T want to sell itself cheap. People hijack it and use it for slave-wages at their bad-argument-factories!

His "promise" would have had them out earlier. The last step in Iraqi approval comes next year with the public referendum on the deal.

He's very pragmatic. He probably sees it as essentially done and over, so there are other things to pay attention to that are far more important.

Like the economy.
i am very happy with the direction obama is going. if the far left nutcases cant accept that this is not the time to push expensive new programs and policies, then i guess they better vote for a stupid man next time.

we're in crisis. that must be dealt with first.

not that it should stop such obvious changes like closing gitmo, but some thing will just have to wait.

Welcome! I've recently written a paper about president-elect Barack Obama. Pretty much, this paper is all about why I think Barack Obama will fail as the president of the United States. It goes into his economical and social beliefs. I point out his lies, socialist tendencies, and how his policies will (probably) fail. I'm going to attempt to get it published and hopefully gain some credibility as a writer from this. I hope you like it.

hello

lies, hmm well if you were to look at the republican camp I'm sure you'd find just as many although probably more.

You say socialistic tendencies like it's a bad thing, and by the way Obama does not come close to a socialist. In most of Europe he would probably be standing for the more conservative parties or new labour.

His policies can't fail any worse/be worse for society than the existing governments. at least he attempts to redistribute wealth to where it is needed instead of slowly eroding civil liberties in the name of defence.

This is quite brilliant. Allow me to translate...

'Obama will fail. I've written a paper that proves it. I'm clearly ignorant of what 'socialism' means, and I'm not actually even going to post any of my arguments, as you'd all laugh at my total lack of knowledge. But as you can't read the paper, you can't prove my arguments are wrong. And as none of you are stupid enough to send your email address to some guy you don't know, I won't be called on it. SO I WIN THE DEBATE'

Fail.

By the way I've just written a paper showing that rainbows are made out of unicorn urine, Belgium is nothing more than an optical illusion caused by the curvature of the Earth, and Keanu Reeves can act. Send me your email address and I'll send the paper. Oh, and remember. Its a draft, so you can't justly criticize any errors even if you do bother getting me to send it to you.



what a perfectly demolished argument

Gotta love how someone can predict certain economic disaster in...what'd you say, 15 pages? Especially by someone who doesn't know what "socialist" means

Fuck, my college thesis was 87.

Hell, I don't even want to know your paper, I just want to know what sources you used. Can you give me a bibliography and list of in text citations and quotations at least?

Gotta love how someone can predict certain economic disaster in...what'd you say, 15 pages? Especially by someone who doesn't know what "socialist" means

Fuck, my college thesis was 87.

*is thankful that the longest written work he's ever done for a class was 35 page of novel-in-progress*

There are 4,120,000 hits on google for "Obama socialist," two years of every right wing pundit falling over themselves to out do each other bleating about Obama's 'destructive socialism' and McCain's month long final campaign push trying to paint Obama as a socialist.

Why on Earth would I want to read your fifteen page diatribe on the subject? Why can't I just save time and say, "Heard it, I remain unconvinced," and have a snack?

I'm tempted to ask for the paper and then post it here, but I just can't bring myself to care enough.

You could end up spraining something if you try too hard. :)

Why can't I just save time and say, "Heard it, I remain unconvinced," and have a snack?

I give you permission. :)

Keynes was a tool. Spurring economic growth with tax cuts is good in a recession, not racking up debt.

Cutting taxes in a recession is a keynesian policy. It also racks up debt since sources of taxation are down and expenditures are up.

even worse, there is some rather obvious slight of hand here with 'average'. we all know (or should) that wealth is distributed in anything but a bell curve. the ridiculous amounts on the richest end seriously drag up averages, even while the overwhelming majority of particular businesses fall well below that.


edit: he should also make clear that he is talking about ceo compensation specifically.
http://www.salary.com/aboutus/layoutscripts/abtl_default.asp?tab=abt&cat=cat012&ser=ser041&part=Par545

your own link has the total median cash compensation for them (CEO's) at 290,300, which is above the average, so in actuality, there are simply a few dragging the average down, and the majority is higher, unless he was using average base salaries (i would assume not the link doesn't seem to specify). While, what you said is true of incomes in general, it doesn't seem to be the case for CEO's

Yeah the whole chicken little thing about how Obama is a socialist/communist/Muslim/terrorist/terrorist sympathizer/pals around with terrorists/looks kind of like terrorists/has BO/name sounds like both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden/alien clown monster...

...is old.

Yeah the whole chicken little thing about how Obama is a socialist/communist/Muslim/terrorist/terrorist sympathizer/pals around with terrorists/looks kind of like terrorists/has BO/name sounds like both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden/alien clown monster...

...is old.

So are Survivor, Big Brother and the Idol shows but people still buy into them time and time again. It just goes to show how people are fascinated by ultimately empty visuals and audio that excites them.

Look forward to even minor and understandable missteps by the Obama administration to be amplified and shot out by loyal Busheviks as a colossal error that will destroy the United States over the next four years. And keep in mind these are the same people who are seriously considering a 2012 Caribou Barbie Presidential Run.

Hell, I don't even want to know your paper, I just want to know what sources you used. Can you give me a bibliography and list of in text citations and quotations at least?

Ill call it right now.

Wikipedia (which Trosky shows he missquoted), Heritage Foundation, Sean Hannity, and John McCain's election campaign website.

This is quite brilliant. Allow me to translate...

'Obama will fail. I've written a paper that proves it. I'm clearly ignorant of what 'socialism' means, and I'm not actually even going to post any of my arguments, as you'd all laugh at my total lack of knowledge. But as you can't read the paper, you can't prove my arguments are wrong. And as none of you are stupid enough to send your email address to some guy you don't know, I won't be called on it. SO I WIN THE DEBATE'

Fail.

By the way I've just written a paper showing that rainbows are made out of unicorn urine, Belgium is nothing more than an optical illusion caused by the curvature of the Earth, and Keanu Reeves can act. Send me your email address and I'll send the paper. Oh, and remember. Its a draft, so you can't justly criticize any errors even if you do bother getting me to send it to you.

Already called him on his bluff. It's a big steaming pile of... propaganda

your own link has the total median cash compensation for them (CEO's) at 290,300, which is above the average, so in actuality, there are simply a few dragging the average down, and the majority is higher, unless he was using average base salaries (i would assume not the link doesn't seem to specify). While, what you said is true of incomes in general, it doesn't seem to be the case for CEO's

i would assume its the other way around, since they specify 'salary' rather than 'total cash compensation' in the bit about the average.

but yeah, my complaint is mitigated to some extent by the fact that the cited figure was actually talking about ceo pay rather than 'small business income'

:p I am Republican, Conservative, and obviously Southern-based and belief-raised.
Four excellent reasons to assume you don't have anything worthwhile to say :tongue:

He used Rev. Wright to gain religious cred within the black community.

He was going for the 20-year plan, eh?

Don't expect him to be some socialist lefty - he's now trying to straddle the center as hard as he can so he can accomplish something (keep in mind that the "something" is probably not the nightmare that Republicans expect, and not the lefty paradise that some of his supporters were expecting).

I keep hearing a great deal about how Obama has "moved center". Call me crazy, but I just don't see it. He was always a pragmatist and always seemed to be pretty center. Maybe I just dug deeper than most?

your own link has the total median cash compensation for them (CEO's) at 290,300, which is above the average, so in actuality, there are simply a few dragging the average down, and the majority is higher, unless he was using average base salaries (i would assume not the link doesn't seem to specify). While, what you said is true of incomes in general, it doesn't seem to be the case for CEO's

Of course, CEOs != small businesses, so I don't see what the point of using that number was in the first place.

I'm tempted to ask for the paper and then post it here, but I just can't bring myself to care enough.

Hello. I like your argument and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

I think NSG needs a weekly quota for stupid threads about the president elect.

I think NSG needs a weekly quota for stupid threads about the president elect.

How many there CAN be, or are we trying to reach a goal? lol

I keep hearing a great deal about how Obama has "moved center". Call me crazy, but I just don't see it. He was always a pragmatist and always seemed to be pretty center. Maybe I just dug deeper than most?

Plus, let's not forget that he is not president yet. He hasn't DONE anything. How could he move to center when he's had no capacity to sign a single bill?

Sure, his cabinet posts might be not the most left leaning bunch taken as a whole, but you can't use that as an indication of his own personal philosophies. I guess the right wing has gotten so used to the administration stacking the ranks with yes men who exist only to validate the president's personal point of view that they can't possibly comprehend that someone might actually have an adviser that does not always agree with him.

Which is kind of the POINT of an adviser, as opposed to, say, a tape recorder.

Plus, let's not forget that he is not president yet.
you and your technicalities. i, for one, am shocked by how badly this government is doing on just day -47 of its reign. this is not the change that was promised!

I think NSG needs a weekly quota for stupid threads about the president elect.

quotas were ruled unconstitutional

quotas were ruled unconstitutional

NSg is not based in the US:p


So there.

Plus, let's not forget that he is not president yet. He hasn't DONE anything. How could he move to center when he's had no capacity to sign a single bill?

Sure, his cabinet posts might be not the most left leaning bunch taken as a whole, but you can't use that as an indication of his own personal philosophies. I guess the right wing has gotten so used to the administration stacking the ranks with yes men who exist only to validate the president's personal point of view that they can't possibly comprehend that someone might actually have an adviser that does not always agree with him.

Which is kind of the POINT of an adviser, as opposed to, say, a tape recorder.

I think these people are really just rehearsing their rants for when he actually is president and does something. We'll hear variations on the same rant regardless of what he winds up doing.

It's not just the right-wing who seems to think having a bunch of yes-man is acceptable or at least, traditional or somehow more effective. I guess in a way it's the intuitive answer. You don't have people who are "opposed to you" hanging out in your living room after all, or hang out with people you intensely dislike if you can help it.

But yeah the least these people could do is wait til he's the bloody president before pronouncing his presidency a failure.

Plus, let's not forget that he is not president yet. He hasn't DONE anything. How could he move to center when he's had no capacity to sign a single bill?

Sure, his cabinet posts might be not the most left leaning bunch taken as a whole, but you can't use that as an indication of his own personal philosophies. I guess the right wing has gotten so used to the administration stacking the ranks with yes men who exist only to validate the president's personal point of view that they can't possibly comprehend that someone might actually have an adviser that does not always agree with him.

Which is kind of the POINT of an adviser, as opposed to, say, a tape recorder.

Indeed. Lincoln appointed some of his harshest critics to his cabinet.

I would say Obama is more interested in competence than ideological agreement.

Welcome! I've recently written a paper about president-elect Barack Obama. Pretty much, this paper is all about why I think Barack Obama will fail as the president of the United States. It goes into his economical and social beliefs. I point out his lies, socialist tendencies, and how his policies will (probably) fail. I'm going to attempt to get it published and hopefully gain some credibility as a writer from this. I hope you like it.

NOTE: This is the rough draft and has a lot of problems. You'll find grammatical problems and even spelling errors. I'm going to get it cleaned up in the next few days. Just know that this is the rough draft.

I'm not going to paste the paper here, for it is 15 pages long. If you are truly interested in reading it and want to comment or critisize, please telegram me your e-mail address. I'll e-mail you the paper and you can comment on it! Thanks!

Dude, you might want to leave before the lynch mob shows up.

(Sees his broken, beaten, and scarred remains)

Man, I miss all the fun.