The Official Barack Obama Thread (pop, member, quote, teacher)

[Dr_Rez]

Originally Posted by jgd85

i believe the UN is a good thing

The idea is nice, but thats about all.

[sleepy jack]

It isn't a Keynesian at work in the case of Paulson. A key idea in Keynesian economics is the role of government in the economic world yes but it isn't just handing out blank, no strings attached, checks. It's handing out regulated and watched, or in other words GOVERNED checks to make sure they do what they're supposed to. I don't know what Paulson's economic philosophy is but I know when he left Goldman Sachs he was given a big check and that may have been his way of paying them back or getting something out. This had nothing to do with Keynesian philosophy though and everything to do with greed.

This is what Keynesian economics stops though, I should have been far more clear. Right now, though it's going away (this is mostly Under the Clinton/Bush years) we lived under a system that was described by (I think it was Nader it might have been Maher) socialism for the rich and capitalism and Reaganomics for the rest of us. The government didn't govern the economic world as it should have, they just made it easier for them to operate with bad loans, hedge funds, and ultimately increase their stock and make more money. This is what led to the bubble, it wasn't Keynesian economics. Franklin Delano Roosevelt believed in Keynes and he set up regulation. There's this great quote, by one of his economic advisers or maybe his treasury secretary I'm not sure that brilliantly explains what happened with the depression by comparing it to some game (again I can't remember the game.) Basically the gist of what he says is that capitalism can't operate when all the wealth lies in the hands of rich. This is what happened with the Great Depression and under the Bush years, when the difference in wealth became most extreme...we crashed. This is the necessity of a progressive tax system.

I admit I did contradict myself by saying we operated under a Keynesian system, we don't. I don't know what we operate under because its somewhere between Keynesian and Laissez-faire. The government hasn't done it's job redistributing wealth via taxation or making sure that your 401k isn't being stolen by some banker who then loans it to someone who can't afford to pay it back. This is the problem with saying the banks are too big to collapse, because in many ways we've already felt the repercussions of what would happen if they collapsed but there's a pretense there that it would somehow be worst, despite the fact the damage has for the most part been done.

Keynesian economics isn't about one-hundred percent regulation; that's what socialism is (something I am in favor of and as many countries have proven it doesn't bring all economic activity to a halt.) I've interacted with many people, particularly Swedish people, and I don't hear my complaints about the way their government operates and from my own ethical standpoint I see nothing wrong with sacrificing for security. I've already explained why a laissez-faire system is unfair, it leads to a more extreme version of the problems we have now in regards to corruption and the education system. A socialist system does take care of these problems as it creates equality amongst these.

As far as me basically being a Democrat...it's not true. I called myself a Pragmatic Leftist because I align myself with the Democrats (in general) since the likely opposition is less to my liking. Fiscally I'm a socialist, which is very far from the Democrats who are a capitalistic party. As far as Libertarians being the same socially...that's a lie. The War on Political Correctness (this is an issue I am a bit iffy on as well as free speech laws but that's a different arguement, I basically believe Political Correctness is a good idea gone terribly wrong,) Drugs, FCC, Smoking ban, etc all go against basically Libertarian principles and the Democrats have just as much a hand in them, if not more so, than the Republicans.

I am trying to shorten this post by only addressing key issues (the economy and my own personal philosophy, which is weird to explain consider there are some contradictions when I align myself with specifically philosophies. For instance in general I'd consider myself socially a Libertarian but there are certain things I disagree with and fiscally I'd consider myself a socialist but I wouldn't be opposed to private industry operating under the system. You could call me an extreme Keynesian economist or a pussy socialist. I don't know) but it's still pretty long, sorry =/

[Yukon Cornelius]

Thats all well and good, but he smokes, so yeah take that.

[Surell]

George Bush does cocaine. Bill Clinton got blowjobs. Abraham Lincoln didn't lie. Does that take anything away from these gentlemen as politicians? No. Well maybe the cocaine does.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Originally Posted by Surell

George Bush does cocaine. Bill Clinton got blowjobs. Abraham Lincoln didn't lie. Does that take anything away from these gentlemen as politicians? No. Well maybe the cocaine does.

I was just being stupid.... not really serious.

[boo boo]

My grandmother has an amazing talent.

We were talking about all this sh*t over that Special Olympics joke he made, she somehow changed the subject to him sending people to gas chambers for being retarded. I don't think Hannity could even do that.

I told her, "gram, you and I both make incredibly offensive jokes on a regular basis"

"Yeah but I'm not the president of the United States"

What kind of reasoning is that? Is the president required to not have a sense of humor like anyone else, or to not make the same kinds of mistakes as a regular person?

Why is it that people who joke about lynching on a regular basis suddenly become so damn offended over jokes about the retarded?

Grandma dislikes Larry the Cable Guy NOT because of his extreme racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic remarks, she thinks those jokes are funny, but because he picks on the retarded. What is so f*cking sacred about the retarded?

[sleepy jack]

What drives me insane about that comment is that anyone is reacting to a remark that was clearly meant to be humorous. Should a Head of State make facetious remarks that are borderline sardonic and politically incorrect? Yes; is it a smart move politically? No - but it doesn't affect his political ideology or policies so it's an non-issue.

Now as for the reactions to the comments...I don't know what to say. Many people have come out and said it was degrading - Sarah Palin for instance - and represented some form of bigotry (she also referred to them as the world's most precious people which is absurd seeing as placing any people on a pedestal leads to acceptance and tolerance no quicker than throwing them down the metaphorical/proverbial well) which is absurd seeing as Obama signed a stimulus package which will put billions and billions of dollars (dollars which Sarah Palin refused) into special education programs to deal with unfunded schools which don't have resources to provide for this group of kids. Barack Obama has, just by signing his signature, done more for the disabled community of America than Sarah Palin or Fox News ever has.

[Surell]

Originally Posted by Yukon Cornelius

I was just being stupid.... not really serious.

I responded nonetheless.

[boo boo]

I can't even watch f*cking tv without a an antichrist discussion with grandma.

Watching Glenn Beck (don't ask why) and suddenly we go from the new great depression to the decline of money to the mark of the beast.

This ****ing paranoia is really pissing me off.

[sleepy jack]

I don't even know what to think of Fox News anymore. I have however lost any respect I had for Ron Paul (and many other prominent figures in the Libertarian party) since they're choosing to take part and fuel this well demagoguery which guys like Beck and Hannity are assembling. What makes me laugh though is how they were complacent defenders of the Bush administration's policies and now all the sudden they're shouting "don't tread on me!" and talking about rewriting Common Sense and the need for a revolution. It's hilarious, in a slightly sickening way of course.