Patriot_Nikhil Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 What happened in Arizona? Did Jan Brewer win? Yes, thanks in no small amount to the illegal immigration bill...
Clarke Posted November 4, 2010 Author Posted November 4, 2010 I would be glad to give you a "one word answer" when Obama's term ends. PS - Its a bit like comparing past players with current ones... Let the guy finish a term and then we have better opinions... Initial assessment ? You can change your opinion later as Obama's decisions and policies change, its not forbidden. Ofcourse, hindsight is 20/20 vision, but the vast majority of people have an opinion and that counts on election day.
punjabi_khota Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 Yes' date=' thanks in no small amount to the illegal immigration bill...[/quote'] Talking about illegal immigration, what about Meg Whitman and Sharon Angle :hysterical::hysterical:
Patriot_Nikhil Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 Initial assessment ? You can change your opinion later as Obama's decisions and policies change, its not forbidden. Ofcourse, hindsight is 20/20 vision, but the vast majority of people have an opinion and that counts on election day. Initial assessment - I disagree with the majority. I think Obama is better, because he is "smarter" than Bush. Duuh. But the smart piece also includes a degree of conceit and deceit. Obama, Biden and Pelosi vs Bush, Cheney - I prefer Bush & co.
Patriot_Nikhil Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 Talking about illegal immigration' date=' what about Meg Whitman and Sharon Angle :hysterical::hysterical:[/quote'] Yeah they lost... TBH Im not that disappointed that Brown won, I honestly think he is a good guy... Sharon Angle - well replace her with any candidate from the Republican establishment as opposed to the Tea Party faction, Harry Reid loses... Again, Im not that disappointed that Angle lost, but def that Reid won... Still gotta give it to him, tough as nails...
yoda Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 Initial assessment - I disagree with the majority. I think Obama is better, because he is "smarter" than Bush. Duuh. But the smart piece also includes a degree of conceit and deceit. Obama, Biden and Pelosi vs Bush, Cheney - I prefer Bush & co. You prefer dropping bombs on Baghdad to fixing the National health care :winky:
Patriot_Nikhil Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 You prefer dropping bombs on Baghdad to fixing the National health care :winky: :hysterical: Make no mistake, Obamacare does not "fix" much... Yes, Iraq was/is a mistake... I dont think anyone could say otherwise... But Obamacare will result in more spending than what we have spent/will spend in Iraq...
punjabi_khota Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 :hysterical: Make no mistake, Obamacare does not "fix" much... Yes, Iraq was/is a mistake... I dont think anyone could say otherwise... But Obamacare will result in more spending than what we have spent/will spend in Iraq... The non-partisan congressional budget committee doesn't think so. It concluded that Obamacare will reduce health care costs in long run. Bush tax cuts cost 4 trillion.
yoda Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 :hysterical: Make no mistake, Obamacare does not "fix" much... Yes, Iraq was/is a mistake... I dont think anyone could say otherwise... But Obamacare will result in more spending than what we have spent/will spend in Iraq... Not to mention the numerous people who will die due to people having to get approval for medical procedures from Obama himself. :hehe:
Patriot_Nikhil Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 The non-partisan congressional budget committee doesn't think so. It concluded that Obamacare will reduce health care costs in long run. Bush tax cuts cost 4 trillion. The CBO as both of us know, takes into account PLENTY of assumptions when plotting the long term costs, most of which are cuckko based on historical evidence... Also, the very same CBO also released a report where it said that most of the projected cost savings from Obamacare will never come to fruition in addition to saying that Obamacare in all likelihood will also cost the Americans almost 750,000 jobs... Not exactly something that is required at this time, would you agree... Bush's tax cuts - It gave people their own money back PK... Its impact on consumer spending and fueling the GDP is well documented... Until the impact of the recession took over... Heck, even 33 democrats in the current congress are in favor of extending it for all...
Patriot_Nikhil Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 Not to mention the numerous people who will die due to people having to get approval for medical procedures from Obama himself. :hehe: My comparison was a simple cost comparison Yoda. Yes, incomparable amount of human lives were lost due to the war while Obamacare will save some lives... But the question remains - at what cost?
Ram Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 Btw, what sort of effed up political system is it, when the President is from one party, his party has a majority in Senate but cannot get anything done because of the filibuster rule, while the opposition controls the Congress? If you sat together and told each other ‘Ok, lets think about a political framework that can ensure that nothing EVER gets done..’, it would probably be the US system. :hahaha:
Patriot_Nikhil Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 Btw' date=' what sort of effed up political system is it, when the President is from one party, his party has a majority in Senate but cannot get anything done because of the filibuster rule, while the opposition controls the Congress? If you sat together and told each other ‘Ok, lets think about a political framework that can ensure that nothing EVER gets done..’, it would probably be the US system. :hahaha:[/quote'] At the time it was conceived, it was the best system, prevents abuse of power by one party... I guess they hoped or rather expected that the politicians from different parties would work together since they all had the nation's good at heart... Couldnt have been farther from today's reality sadly...
yoda Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 At the time it was conceived' date=' it was the best system, prevents abuse of power by one party... I guess they hoped or rather expected that the politicians from different parties would work together since they all had the nation's good at heart... Couldnt have been farther from today's reality sadly...[/quote'] On the contrary it works very well even now. With a divided government, all parties move closer towards the center, which is better for the people than any leftist or rightist policy. Look for compromises in the tax cuts now from both sides. Health care will be a war as Repubs try to repeal it. I expect Obama and Repubs in house to work together now and get more things passed in the next 2 years as both want to look like they deserve another chance.
cowboysfan Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 they were not thinking about bringing everybody closer when they made congress so powerful.they were paranoid about the president getting too much power after they just got rid of the king.they gave congress enough power to even bypass the presidential veto.
yoda Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 they were not thinking about bringing everybody closer when they made congress so powerful.they were paranoid about the president getting too much power after they just got rid of the king.they gave congress enough power to even bypass the presidential veto. That is true, being forced to work together is just a by-product of a divided government.
Kriterion Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 At the time it was conceived' date=' it was the best system, prevents abuse of power by one party... I guess they hoped or rather expected that the politicians from different parties would work together since they all had the nation's good at heart... Couldnt have been farther from today's reality sadly...[/quote'] mutiple party systems are all doomed to these "failings". anytime more than one party exists, people have a choice. obviously they will support the party they believe shares their ideals. because these ideals are personal (religion, finances/economics, job security, social issues) they are not something one readily compromises. as a result, people's primary allegiance is to their party, because the party is viewed to be in the best interest of the state.
Patriot_Nikhil Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 mutiple party systems are all doomed to these "failings". anytime more than one party exists, people have a choice. obviously they will support the party they believe shares their ideals. because these ideals are personal (religion, finances/economics, job security, social issues) they are not something one readily compromises. as a result, people's primary allegiance is to their party, because the party is viewed to be in the best interest of the state. That is correct, however I doubt if the framers of the constitution envisioned how divided the parties would eventually become...
(8).thumb.jpeg.0752419e01d6cfbfc0be0f4eedb85663.jpeg)
Recommended Posts