Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 08 Jul '14 02:50 / 3 edits
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americans-are-down-on-america-190304928.html

    Since 2008, the election of Barak Obama, only two countries in the world have seen a sharper decline in regards to the positive outlook of their country. Those two countries are Syria and Afghanistan.

    You can see it everywhere. All hope is gone.
  2. 08 Jul '14 03:05 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americans-are-down-on-america-190304928.html

    Since 2008, the election of Barak Obama, only two countries in the world have seen a sharper decline in regards to the positive outlook of their country. Those two countries are Syria and Afghanistan.

    You can see it everywhere. All hope is gone.
    Check out Gallup for an accurate, reputable opinion poll. Democratic presidents, in general, seem to fair better in opinion polls.

    As for the article posted by Whody, eight years of Bush brought the US a terrible war and took the the nation to the brink of a depression. It is the Republicans in congress that have created an economic climate where the middle class is disappearing while the top 1% continue to get wealthier. Obama is president, not king. If we had all three branches under GOP control, we'd be in the depths of a depression instead of emerging from a deep recession.


    http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx
  3. 08 Jul '14 11:21
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americans-are-down-on-america-190304928.html

    Since 2008, the election of Barak Obama, only two countries in the world have seen a sharper decline in regards to the positive outlook of their country. Those two countries are Syria and Afghanistan.

    You can see it everywhere. All hope is gone.
    perhaps americans are entitled, whiny panzies? did you think of that?


    or do you think you can compare what americans think of their country during obama years with what ukrainians think of theirs?
  4. 08 Jul '14 11:42 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Phranny
    Check out Gallup for an accurate, reputable opinion poll. Democratic presidents, in general, seem to fair better in opinion polls.

    As for the article posted by Whody, eight years of Bush brought the US a terrible war and took the the nation to the brink of a depression. It is the Republicans in congress that have created an economic climate where the mid ...[text shortened]... ep recession.


    http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx
    I make no distinction between "W" and Obama, you do.

    What the article does say though is that many Americans do make the distinction, because approval ratings fell off a cliff after 2008.

    I think when Americans look at Iraq going to hell in a hand basket, after spending trilions and giving thousands of American lives to capture it, they wonder why? Why does the US nation build in places like South Korea and leave thousands of troops behind for over half a century, but then pull out of Iraq?

    i don't really agree with either of these wars, but it gets people thinking. What makes Korea more important than Iraq?

    And yes, the Progressives have led us to a place where the rich keep getting richer, while demagoguing that the rich need to pay more. How long do you reckon this tactic will work? After all, it's not like the Tea Party has been in charge. It's been progressives like "W" and Obama who expand government, wage wars overseas, deficate on our rights with legislation like the NDAA and Patriot Act, ignrore illegal immigration, raise massive debt, pass massive entitlements, and then wonder why their approval numbers tank in the 30's after two terms.

    May they all burn in Hades.
  5. 08 Jul '14 11:50
    Here is another telling article.

    https://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/tag/freedom-of-the-press/

    America ranks in the 40's when it comes to freedom of the press. The US dropped 13 points since 2013, which puts it right above Haiti.
  6. 08 Jul '14 13:30
    Originally posted by whodey
    Here is another telling article.

    https://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/tag/freedom-of-the-press/

    America ranks in the 40's when it comes to freedom of the press. The US dropped 13 points since 2013, which puts it right above Haiti.
    Looks like the top of that list is quite "statist"-heavy.
  7. 08 Jul '14 16:43 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Phranny
    Check out Gallup for an accurate, reputable opinion poll. Democratic presidents, in general, seem to fair better in opinion polls.

    As for the article posted by Whody, eight years of Bush brought the US a terrible war and took the the nation to the brink of a depression. It is the Republicans in congress that have created an economic climate where the mid ...[text shortened]... ecession.




    http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx
    "As for the article posted by Whody, eight years of Bush brought the US a terrible war and took the the nation to the brink of a depression. It is the Republicans in congress that have created an economic climate where the middle class is disappearing while the top 1% continue to get wealthier. Obama is president, not king. If we had all three branches under GOP control, we'd be in the depths of a depression instead of emerging from a deep recession."

    You deal in speculation not facts. True the Bush administration fought 8 years of war, a terrible war. It is also true that September of 2008 began the worst depression/recession since the first great depression. Both events had multiple causes beyond the control of the Bush43 administration. Would you care to argue that ww1, ww2, Korea, and Vietnam were totally the responsibility of the Democratic Presidents in power when they flamed up?

    Just what has the Republican controlled House done to create an economic climate of uncertainty? I agree that they haven't done enough, but nearly everything they have tried has been pronounced DOA by Obama.

    Bush43 undoubtedly made mistakes. No President hasn't. However at some point Obama supporters can't blame all of his failures on Bush, get away with speculations that it might have been worse.
  8. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    08 Jul '14 17:07
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americans-are-down-on-america-190304928.html

    Since 2008, the election of Barak Obama, only two countries in the world have seen a sharper decline in regards to the positive outlook of their country. Those two countries are Syria and Afghanistan.

    You can see it everywhere. All hope is gone.
    I have seen this situation in the last 2-3 years of W's 2nd term as well. I'm not sure if this is anger at the President alone, or at the system in general. One thing we can all be sure of though: If our situation gets worse, Whodey will insist it's because of Obama, if things improve, Whodey will insist it's despite Obama. There's no winning that game!
  9. 08 Jul '14 17:53
    Originally posted by normbenign
    "As for the article posted by Whody, eight years of Bush brought the US a terrible war and took the the nation to the brink of a depression. It is the Republicans in congress that have created an economic climate where the middle class is disappearing while the top 1% continue to get wealthier. Obama is president, not king. If we had all three branches ...[text shortened]... n't blame all of his failures on Bush, get away with speculations that it might have been worse.
    After two terms, Clinton left us in the black. After two terms Bush left us devastated. The GOP controlled Congress has just deepened the ditch. The most economically solvent and strong countries are the social democracies in Scandinavia and Northern Europe.
  10. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    08 Jul '14 18:03
    Originally posted by Phranny
    After two terms, Clinton left us in the black. After two terms Bush left us devastated. The GOP controlled Congress has just deepened the ditch. The most economically solvent and strong countries are the social democracies in Scandinavia and Northern Europe.
    Ahhhh...the voice of reason. If only they'd learn!
  11. 08 Jul '14 18:17
    Originally posted by Phranny
    After two terms, Clinton left us in the black. After two terms Bush left us devastated. The GOP controlled Congress has just deepened the ditch. The most economically solvent and strong countries are the social democracies in Scandinavia and Northern Europe.
    Again you are totally mistaken.

    "After two terms, Clinton left us in the black."

    The national debt at the end of the Clinton administration was $5.7 trillion.
    The national debt at the end of the Bush43 administration was $10.0 trillion.
    The national debt after 4 years of Obama's administration was $16 trillion.

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

    Clinton controlled the budget deficit for part of two quarters in peacetime but most people don't understand the difference between debt and deficit. Debt is real money you borrow and owe. Deficits are a budgetary guess at how much you may borrow above the revenues you collect and what you spend.

    It turns out that the Clinton surpluses (the opposite of deficits) were not real, as the debt (real money owed) increased every year in his two terms.

    You are free to consider Bush43's terms disastrous. I think he could have done much better, but as profligate a spender as he was, he was a cheapskate compare to Obama. How the GOP controlled Congress (they control half, the Democrats run the Senate) deepened the ditch is up to conjecture. They ought to have had some cahones and refused to allow the President to operate without a budget.

    The oft cited successes of the social democracies of northern Europe ought to be balanced against the failed economies of southern Europe, and consider that it often looks to the outsider that a household is doing very well spending heavily. Eventually the piper has to be paid. In terms of nations, the European social democracies are young, and living on credit. Wait a while.
  12. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    08 Jul '14 19:00 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    ...And yes, the Progressives have led us to a place where the rich keep getting richer, while demagoguing that the rich need to pay more. How long do you reckon this tactic will work? After all, it's not like the Tea Party has been in charge. It's been progressives like "W" and Obama who expand government, wage wars overseas, deficate on our rights with le ...[text shortened]... er why their approval numbers tank in the 30's after two terms. ... May they all burn in Hades.
    the Progressives have led us to a place
    This requires a definition of "Progressive" that can embrace both 'W' and Obama. Similarly, I can think of a definition of neoliberal that embraces both.
    where the rich keep getting richer, while demagoguing that the rich need to pay more.
    Only the first part of this formula can apply to Bush of course, but I agree that both parts apply to Obama, since the top centile (The 1% ) have continued to enjoy escalating control of wealth and income in the US economy since 2008.
    it's not like the Tea Party has been in charge.
    Of course not - the 1% are in charge of American politics. The Tea Party have had a huge impact all the same and certainly drive the Republican agenda. The hymn sheet they sing from is ideological and written for them by the very wealthy, notably the Koch brothers.
    It's been progressives like "W" and Obama who expand government,
    You clearly see part of the solution being to reduce the role of government and its associated costs. That is in line with neoliberal thinking of course. Koch approval is assured. You must explain though how the economy will prosper when there is a reduced investment in education, health and infrastructure. You might also explain where the spending power to fuel an economy comes from when a growing proportion of the people have insecure and very low paid jobs, at best.
    wage wars overseas,
    Now military spending is a huge part of the US budget and vastly excessive by any rational standard. Reductions on a huge scale are available to a rational government and would of course reduce spending in areas of high technology manufacturing where the US is protected against foreign competition and has as a result massive competitive advantages. So it will be interesting to observe the economic impact when military spending is eventually brought under better control. The trouble with turning guns into ploughshares is that the Japanese and Chinese make ploughshares more cheaply.
    defecate on our rights with legislation like the NDAA and Patriot Act,
    Civil liberties certainly take a back seat when ideological war is afoot and it is evident that the main parties in American politics have a shared inclination to continue in this path.
    ignore illegal immigration
    Alas, the hordes of foreigners are infinitely large and this battle will be fought for as along as the US sustains its grasp of global resources at the expense of other nations. The US is of course a nation of immigrants and that is what made the US so creative and so energetic; it is notable that as the ladder has been pulled up against new generations of immigrants, the economy has passed its peak and set about a long term continual decline, associated with a persistent increase in the concentration of wealth in the hands of the 1%. That decline is relative, because it was inevitable over time that other countries and regions of the world would catch up from their backward position. What is absolute is the growth of inequality to levels seen nowhere else in the world. The very wealthy have not got rich by making America rich. They have got rich while America has stalled, because they are thieving the wealth and Americans have been made more poor by their activity.
    raise massive debt,
    This is nursery school economics of course, par for the course, but sadly neglects the reality that no government in history has ever reduced let alone paid off its debt by means of balancing government budgets let alone using a surplus. The Clinton administration certainly did not reduce budget deficits to zero - just to a level below the rate of growth in the economy, which is a very different concept and a very effective way to manage and reduce debt.
    pass massive entitlements,
    Another sad lack of logic. Having complained at the start of this particular diatribe that the rich keep getting richer, it is argued that measures to redistribute that wealth ought to be jettisoned. The escalating concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich will be further facilitated by such policies. Notice that the poorer 50% of the population (in the US and in the world) have virtually no wealth and have never benefited from economic "progress" at any time in history or in any country.
  13. 08 Jul '14 21:56
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Again you are totally mistaken.

    "After two terms, Clinton left us in the black."

    The national debt at the end of the Clinton administration was $5.7 trillion.
    The national debt at the end of the Bush43 administration was $10.0 trillion.
    The national debt after 4 years of Obama's administration was $16 trillion.

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/ ...[text shortened]... erms of nations, the European social democracies are young, and living on credit. Wait a while.
    "The oft cited successes of the social democracies of northern Europe ought to be balanced against the failed economies of southern Europe, and consider that it often looks to the outsider that a household is doing very well spending heavily. Eventually the piper has to be paid. In terms of nations, the European social democracies are young, and living on credit. Wait a while."

    If you are going to lump all European countries together, then lump all the countries of North America: Canada, the U.S., Mexico and all of Central America. Europe looks lots better. The northern European social democracies have been going strong and growing since the end of WWII. In terms of nations, Northern European countries are far, far older than the U.S.
  14. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    08 Jul '14 22:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    ...
    The oft cited successes of the social democracies of northern Europe ought to be balanced against the failed economies of southern Europe, and consider that it often looks to the outsider that a household is doing very well spending heavily. Eventually the piper has to be paid. In terms of nations, the European social democracies are young, and living on credit. Wait a while.
    The military dictatorship of Greece, the Fascist dictatorships of Franco's Spain, or Salazar's Portugal - these were certainly not a great success. All backed by America. The social democracies that replaced them quite recently are indeed fragile under the pressure of neo liberal economics but they have a lot of protection from their fellow European states.

    Germany, France, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden - oh they get by somehow as the most successful economies in the World. And really need advice from the basket case USA. Daily peril of collapse otherwise I should imagine.

    The U.K.? Selling its soul to the Finance industry and desperate to emulate America for reasons that other Europeans find weird. Let's see what the Scots have to say about this in September when they can vote for independence and restore perhaps the old alliance with France against the English.

    In terms of nations, the European social democracies are young, and living on credit. Wait a while.
    What a laughable, tedious spit of meaningless drivel that quote really is.

    PS: Germany 7 Brazil 1 !!!!! USA eliminated long ago.
  15. 08 Jul '14 22:56
    Originally posted by Phranny
    "The oft cited successes of the social democracies of northern Europe ought to be balanced against the failed economies of southern Europe, and consider that it often looks to the outsider that a household is doing very well spending heavily. Eventually the piper has to be paid. In terms of nations, the European social democracies are young, and living on cr ...[text shortened]... end of WWII. In terms of nations, Northern European countries are far, far older than the U.S.
    I did not lump all European countries together.

    I specifically noted the southern and northern Euros which are dramatically differently.

    Wait awhile. As Marguerite Thatcher quipped, socialism works quite well until you run out of other people's money to spend.