(if you voted for obama) do you still think it was a good idea?

Forum Options:	my.neoforum register members prefs search faq

Topic: (if you voted for obama) do you still think it was a good idea? Options: Print subscribe remove NeoPM
Threads List « Next Newest Next Oldest »
timmy21 I hold the key, but what do you hold? starting to like it total posts: 65 since: Jan 2012	Dec 04, 12 at 6:42am ^ (if you voted for obama) do you still think it was a good idea?
	Log in to remove this sponsored message if you could do it over again would you still vote for obama. ME? I have no regrets.(never voted for Obama in the first place:kirby:) ------------------- timmy 2-1-0
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
The Blazing Shadow s-e-e-k-e-r total posts: 1837 since: Jun 2007	Dec 04, 12 at 7:03am ^ re: (if you voted for obama) do you still think it was a good idea?
	I didn't vote, but I was hoping that Obama would win. I have seen many things about him that I didn't see before and I don't think of him as all that, anymore, but I'm still glad that he is president. I would much rather have him than Romney any day.
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
harbin Legendary Seeker since: Aug 2006	Dec 04, 12 at 7:18am ^ re: (if you voted for obama) do you still think it was a good idea?
	For a Thinker's Lounge thread, was hoping there'd be better discussion in this thread. Being a UK citizen living in the UK, I would've voted for Obama given the chance, he commands a greater respect worldwide than Romney (who made millions of gaffes I wasn't sure if he was really that thick or just doing it on purpose) which makes diplomacy better since the leader is one that people are willing to work with. The problem that Obama has to work with is that he hasn't got complete control of the House of Senate (or Representatives, not sure since I don't fully follow US politics), which makes passing laws harder.
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
D Ray Silva Still Seekin' total posts: 3963 since: May 2002	Dec 04, 12 at 7:30am ^ re: (if you voted for obama) do you still think it was a good idea?
	I didn't vote, as I don't think it would have mattered. It was either "Black Obama" or "White Obama." I wanted Ron Paul! (I still want Ron Paul )
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Lazzara #riseabovehate 4 lyf Permanently Plugged In total posts: 13219 since: Mar 2004	Dec 04, 12 at 7:51am ^ re: (if you voted for obama) do you still think it was a good idea?
	quote harbin For a Thinker's Lounge thread, was hoping there'd be better discussion in this thread. Being a UK citizen living in the UK, I would've voted for Obama given the chance, he commands a greater respect worldwide than Romney (who made millions of gaffes I wasn't sure if he was really that thick or just doing it on purpose) which makes diplomacy better since the leader is one that people are willing to work with. The problem that Obama has to work with is that he hasn't got complete control of the House of Senate (or Representatives, not sure since I don't fully follow US politics), which makes passing laws harder. yes, because total control of a party is clearly a good thing. might as well impeach the supreme justices that oppose the democrats and let obama choose his supreme court! ------------------- i will stand, take my stand at the back the motherbleeping bus cuz im a proud ass bleep ✪ Fandango Crew ✪
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
harbin Legendary Seeker since: Aug 2006	Dec 04, 12 at 7:54am ^ re: (if you voted for obama) do you still think it was a good idea?
	quote Lazzara quote harbin For a Thinker's Lounge thread, was hoping there'd be better discussion in this thread. Being a UK citizen living in the UK, I would've voted for Obama given the chance, he commands a greater respect worldwide than Romney (who made millions of gaffes I wasn't sure if he was really that thick or just doing it on purpose) which makes diplomacy better since the leader is one that people are willing to work with. The problem that Obama has to work with is that he hasn't got complete control of the House of Senate (or Representatives, not sure since I don't fully follow US politics), which makes passing laws harder. yes, because total control of a party is clearly a good thing. might as well impeach the supreme justices that oppose the democrats and let obama choose his supreme court! What's with Republican's taking everything way out of context By complete control, I meant a majority.
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Lazzara #riseabovehate 4 lyf Permanently Plugged In total posts: 13219 since: Mar 2004	Dec 04, 12 at 8:04am ^ re: (if you voted for obama) do you still think it was a good idea?
	quote harbin What's with Republican's taking everything way out of context By complete control, I meant a majority. I'm not american, how can I be a republican? though i know more about american politics more than average british. the president is a democrat. the majority of the senate is fom democratic party. you're telling me that if house of representatives were dominated by the democrats would be more ideal? if that was the case, executive branch and legislative branch would then be dominated by the democrats... and if they appointed obama's supreme justice, the supreme court would end up being pro-democrat. so much for separation of powers when the executive, legislative and supreme court are pro-democrat lol Edit: Dec 04, 12 8:17am ------------------- i will stand, take my stand at the back the motherbleeping bus cuz im a proud ass bleep ✪ Fandango Crew ✪
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
D I O S I am the god of tits and wine (moderator) Football (Soccer) total posts: 10040 since: Jul 2008	Dec 04, 12 at 8:07am ^ re: (if you voted for obama) do you still think it was a good idea?
	He didn't say that would be good, he said it's harder for Obama to do things. Which it is. ------------------- Four for you, Glen Coco. You go Glen Coco.
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Lazzara #riseabovehate 4 lyf Permanently Plugged In total posts: 13219 since: Mar 2004	Dec 04, 12 at 8:13am ^ re: (if you voted for obama) do you still think it was a good idea?
	quote D I O S He didn't say that would be good, he said it's harder for Obama to do things. Which it is. That's what it's always been, though. Obama found it harder to do things because some of his plans are simply not sustainable. Could you blame the congress for trying to be fiscally responsible? lol. ------------------- i will stand, take my stand at the back the motherbleeping bus cuz im a proud ass bleep ✪ Fandango Crew ✪
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Whoosh true seeker total posts: 1062 since: Sep 2004	Dec 04, 12 at 8:31am ^ re: (if you voted for obama) do you still think it was a good idea?
	it's pretty early in his second term to tell if it was a good idea. 50-100 years from now they'll write about him in the history books and i think they'll assess his presidency better than me.
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
wildfire The Mourning Star (moderator) Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate wiki leader monsterhunter total posts: 1639 since: Aug 2011	Dec 04, 12 at 8:48am ^ re: (if you voted for obama) do you still think it was a good idea?
	quote Lazzara hat's what it's always been, though. Obama found it harder to do things because some of his plans are simply not sustainable. Could you blame the congress for trying to be fiscally responsible? lol. In a recession isn't it better for the government to increase spending and lower taxes? Being fiscally responsible should be a priority when the country and deal with. Consumer spending + business investments + Government spending + (X - M) = GDP ; Consumer spending accounts for 1/3 of GDP. The government lowers taxes to increase consumer spending, and starts spending more... There's a lot of other things that they can do. It was the Republicans who fought him to whole way. A government that doesn't do anything really isn't a very effective government, but who do they blame? Obama. It's his fault for everything. They blame him for excessive government spending when they've done it in the past (maybe not to his extent). Bush did spend a lot, but he's not as bad because he didn't spend as much? How's that logic? His budget still went over the line... In my opinion, Obama came to power wanting to accomplish something, but then the economy went bad. What do the people do when they start to loose their houses and big banks are on the verge of collapse? They look to the president for help. It's not the presidents fault that none of his plans got through in one piece or quickly enough he's only one part of the government, and I wish people would start to realize that. He can't instantly make laws that make life go away. Some people think that President Herbert Hoover would've been a great president if not for the Great depression. He was a no government Republican, and felt that the economy would've recovered on it's own. His inaction was his fault, and no one at the time or now doubts that. Obama on the other hand thinks he can help America, but the republican party is in the way. All that said, I probably would've voted for Obama. It does make me wonder though, what would america be like if Romney was elected. Who would you have voted for, Lazzara? ------------------- Read Retribution \| Monster hunter 3 U \| Thinker's Lounge
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Lazzara #riseabovehate 4 lyf Permanently Plugged In total posts: 13219 since: Mar 2004	Dec 04, 12 at 10:31am ^ re: (if you voted for obama) do you still think it was a good idea?
	quote wildfire In a recession isn't it better for the government to increase spending and lower taxes? Being fiscally responsible should be a priority when the country and deal with. yeah, that's automatic stabilizers. quote Consumer spending + business investments + Government spending + (X - M) = GDP ; Consumer spending accounts for 1/3 of GDP. The government lowers taxes to increase consumer spending, and starts spending more... There's a lot of other things that they can do. but with fiscal cliff consumer wouldn't be able to spend as much (increasing tax), and investment wouldn't want to invest either. fiscal cliff also dictates that government spending will be lowered. since tax is increasing, price for goods and services would also be increasing. in turn, consumers would rather buy import goods, which means net export will be greater in negative thus lower GDP don't get me wrong, fiscal cliff is a great idea to lower debt... but when you add something like obamacare, then it's efficiency is debatable. quote It was the Republicans who fought him to whole way. A government that doesn't do anything really isn't a very effective government, but who do they blame? Obama. It's his fault for everything. They blame him for excessive government spending when they've done it in the past (maybe not to his extent). Bush did spend a lot, but he's not as bad because he didn't spend as much? How's that logic? His budget still went over the line... government spending is needed. bush signed $700 billion bailout, so to blame Obama for the economic catastrophe is stupid. However, Obama's stimulus package promised to raise GDP and increase unemployment. But what happened was, while GDP was increasing, unemployment rate also went up. It's not really about how much did he spend where the problem lies, but more about where the money is distributed. quote In my opinion, Obama came to power wanting to accomplish something, but then the economy went bad. What do the people do when they start to loose their houses and big banks are on the verge of collapse? They look to the president for help. Economy was bad before he took over. When banks are on the verge of collapse, government shouldn't really intervene if we're to rely on capitalism, if the banks had to die, then let them be. But we know that's not what happened. quote It's not the presidents fault that none of his plans got through in one piece or quickly enough he's only one part of the government, and I wish people would start to realize that. He can't instantly make laws that make life go away. it's not. But as a ceremonial head of nation, president is the one to blame for the mess. It's always been this way lol. Bush was blamed for turning surplus into deficit, Clinton was blamed for variables that lead to the deficit, etc. quote Some people think that President Herbert Hoover would've been a great president if not for the Great depression. He was a no government Republican, and felt that the economy would've recovered on it's own. His inaction was his fault, and no one at the time or now doubts that. Obama on the other hand thinks he can help America, but the republican party is in the way. economy would've recovered on it's own is the essence of capitalism, though. republican party is in the way? of course they are, that's the point of checks and balances. would you rather greater budget deficit, greater debt, etc? and that's the point of democracy, you'd want to make sure that people's voices are heard. if republican wasn't on democrat's way, who are going to represent the voice of people who identify themselves as republicans? quote All that said, I probably would've voted for Obama. It does make me wonder though, what would america be like if Romney was elected. Who would you have voted for, Lazzara? Romney offers better financial proposal, but his foreign policy and social issues are questionable at best. But surely economy should be the priority for now? ------------------- i will stand, take my stand at the back the motherbleeping bus cuz im a proud ass bleep ✪ Fandango Crew ✪
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
wildfire The Mourning Star (moderator) Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate wiki leader monsterhunter total posts: 1639 since: Aug 2011	Dec 04, 12 at 11:37am ^ re: (if you voted for obama) do you still think it was a good idea?
	quote Lazzara yeah, that's automatic stabilizers. Not sure if srs >.> quote Lazzara but with fiscal cliff consumer wouldn't be able to spend as much (increasing tax), and investment wouldn't want to invest either. fiscal cliff also dictates that government spending will be lowered. since tax is increasing, price for goods and services would also be increasing. in turn, consumers would rather buy import goods, which means net export will be greater in negative thus lower GDP don't get me wrong, fiscal cliff is a great idea to lower debt... but when you add something like obamacare, then it's efficiency is debatable. And unfortunately not a good idea to implement when the economy is recovering. You're doing a really good job with your counterargument . Thanks, I'm trying to do a crash course in politics and it's helping a lot. I'm not going to pretend to know what the president's economic policy is . quote Lazzara government spending is needed. bush signed $700 billion bailout, so to blame Obama for the economic catastrophe is stupid. However, Obama's stimulus package promised to raise GDP and increase unemployment. But what happened was, while GDP was increasing, unemployment rate also went up. It's not really about how much did he spend where the problem lies, but more about where the money is distributed. Is that really what happened? It's probably due in part to employers having to cut losses before GDP went back up and while they were making money they had to compensate for the downturn. I know 'faith' can either be a blessing or curse. If people are afraid to spend more than they have too, the economy suffers. quote Lazzara Economy was bad before he took over. When banks are on the verge of collapse, government shouldn't really intervene if we're to rely on capitalism, if the banks had to die, then let them be. But we know that's not what happened. I'm not arguing against capitalism, and I agree with you. Obama was probably trying to advert disaster because banks who go bankrupt have a huge negative impact on a nation. Bank loans help to create money, and without banks and loans our economy couldn't get back up as quickly as people in America would like. Who would be to blame? The president for inaction. He was probably trying not to repeat history. The Great Depression began when the banks started closing and nobody could get their money (bank Runs; there was no FDIC back then either). quote Lazzara economy would've recovered on it's own is the essence of capitalism, though. republican party is in the way? of course they are, that's the point of checks and balances. would you rather greater budget deficit, greater debt, etc? and that's the point of democracy, you'd want to make sure that people's voices are heard. if republican wasn't on democrat's way, who are going to represent the voice of people who identify themselves as republicans? They won't compromise is what I mean, and in the mean time they bash the president every time they get a chance. They act a lot like children >.> . I suppose the democrats aren't any better.... quote Lazzara Romney offers better financial proposal, but his foreign policy and social issues are questionable at best. But surely economy should be the priority for now? Not over the next 4 years... Out of all the candidates for president, who was the best in your opinion? ------------------- Read Retribution \| Monster hunter 3 U \| Thinker's Lounge
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Tashur Astur The Scourge threadnought total posts: 639 since: Oct 2009	Dec 04, 12 at 11:54am ^ re: (if you voted for obama) do you still think it was a good idea?
	Jon Stewart 2016 I can see it coming.
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Lazzara #riseabovehate 4 lyf Permanently Plugged In total posts: 13219 since: Mar 2004	Dec 04, 12 at 1:34pm ^ re: (if you voted for obama) do you still think it was a good idea?
	quote wildfire Not sure if srs >.> huh? automatic stabilizers pretty much describes recession = cutting tax + more government spending (to increase overall spending and more transfer payment due to job cut) expansion = increasing tax + less government spending those are the things that will happen automatically without government's approval.not sure what you were implying there tbh quote Is that really what happened? It's probably due in part to employers having to cut losses before GDP went back up and while they were making money they had to compensate for the downturn. GDP has risen in comparison to the first time Obama took over, and yet unemployment rate is slightly higher. Obviously unemployment was much higher somewhere in between, but it signifies that stimulus does help to generate more revenue- but not necessarily helps people to find jobs. and it is important to note that unemployment is higher doesn't necessarily mean people finally find jobs. those people who gave up and those who went back to school instead (thus not looking full time jobs) are also the variables that "help" to decrease the unemployment rate. quote I'm not arguing against capitalism, and I agree with you. Obama was probably trying to advert disaster because banks who go bankrupt have a huge negative impact on a nation. Bank loans help to create money, and without banks and loans our economy couldn't get back up as quickly as people in America would like. Who would be to blame? The president for inaction. He was probably trying not to repeat history. The Great Depression began when the banks started closing and nobody could get their money (bank Runs; there was no FDIC back then either). i think the bank bail out was signed by Bush, obama eventually reduced it to $400 billion when he took over. Bank loans create money, yes. But keep in mind that the bailout also exaggerates the nation's debt. If it wasn't because of fiscal cliff, your national debt will reach 90% of your GDP by 2025. So he's in a pickle, really. It's either increasing taxes + decreasing government spending (effectively stunting economic growth) or choose not to change anything but national debt will only get severe. quote They won't compromise is what I mean, and in the mean time they bash the president every time they get a chance. They act a lot like children >.> . I suppose the democrats aren't any better.... not sure where'd you get they won't compromise? it might take a while, but american government is relatively quick when it comes to making a decision. there's a case of filibuster here and there, but both democrats and republicans eventually come to an agreement. quote Not over the next 4 years... Out of all the candidates for president, who was the best in your opinion? romney would've been a better choice simply because he's more financially responsible. most people were against romney due to his personal beliefs + his party affiliation. what people seems to forget is the fact that (i) separation of church exists (ii) social issues (such as abortion, gay marriage, etc) can be regulated in state level. ------------------- i will stand, take my stand at the back the motherbleeping bus cuz im a proud ass bleep ✪ Fandango Crew ✪
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
[All dates in (PST) time]	Threads List « Next Newest Next Oldest »

Thread title	From	Last replied
Now searching...

Hobbies

Sports

Skills

Chat and Lounges

Game Platforms

Mobile Platforms

Top Core Games

Top Portable Games

Top Communities