CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
President Obama has stepped in it a few times recently. Do you think he will recover from the events of the last 18 months or will he exit the office as one of the worst presidents to have ever graced the White House?
People judge others by the most recent thing they saw. And while its true that his recent actions may not be something pleasant to look at, it is sad to think that people do not see is that Obama was actually one of the best presidents of all time.
This maybe abit long but please bear with me. This is a list of his achievements
1. Passed Health Care Reform: After five presidents over a century failed to create universal health insurance, signed the Affordable Care Act (2010). It will cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014 and mandates a suite of experimental measures to cut health care cost growth, the number one cause of America’s long-term fiscal problems.
2. Passed the Stimulus: Signed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 to spur economic growth amid greatest recession since the Great Depression. Weeks after stimulus went into effect, unemployment claims began to subside. Twelve months later, the private sector began producing more jobs than it was losing, and it has continued to do so for twenty-three straight months, creating a total of nearly 3.7 million new private-sector jobs.
3. Passed Wall Street Reform: Signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) to re-regulate the financial sector after its practices caused the Great Recession. The new law tightens capital requirements on large banks and other financial institutions, requires derivatives to be sold on clearinghouses and exchanges, mandates that large banks provide “living wills” to avoid chaotic bankruptcies, limits their ability to trade with customers’ money for their own profit, and creates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (now headed by Richard Cordray) to crack down on abusive lending products and companies.
4. Ended the War in Iraq: Ordered all U.S. military forces out of the country. Last troops left on December 18, 2011.
5. Began Drawdown of War in Afghanistan: From a peak of 101,000 troops in June 2011, U.S. forces are now down to 91,000, with 23,000 slated to leave by the end of summer 2012. According to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the combat mission there will be over by next year.
6. Eliminated Osama bin laden: In 2011, ordered special forces raid of secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in which the terrorist leader was killed and a trove of al-Qaeda documents was discovered.
7. Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry: In 2009, injected $62 billion in federal money (on top of $13.4 billion in loans from the Bush administration) into ailing GM and Chrysler in return for equity stakes and agreements for massive restructuring. Since bottoming out in 2009, the auto industry has added more than 100,000 jobs. In 2011, the Big Three automakers all gained market share for the first time in two decades. The government expects to lose $16 billion of its investment, less if the price of the GM stock it still owns increases.
8. Recapitalized Banks: In the midst of financial crisis, approved controversial Treasury Department plan to lure private capital into the country’s largest banks via “stress tests” of their balance sheets and a public-private fund to buy their “toxic” assets. Got banks back on their feet at essentially zero cost to the government.
9. Repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: Ended 1990s-era restriction and formalized new policy allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military for the first time.
10. Toppled Moammar Gaddafi: In March 2011, joined a coalition of European and Arab governments in military action, including air power and naval blockade, against Gaddafi regime to defend Libyan civilians and support rebel troops. Gaddafi’s forty-two-year rule ended when the dictator was overthrown and killed by rebels on October 20, 2011. No American lives were lost.
11. Told Mubarak to Go: On February 1, 2011, publicly called on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to accept reform or step down, thus weakening the dictator’s position and putting America on the right side of the Arab Spring. Mubarak ended thirty-year rule when overthrown on February 11.
12. Reversed Bush Torture Policies: Two days after taking office, nullified Bush-era rulings that had allowed detainees in U.S. custody to undergo certain “enhanced” interrogation techniques considered inhumane under the Geneva Conventions. Also released the secret Bush legal rulings supporting the use of these techniques.
13. Improved America’s Image Abroad: With new policies, diplomacy, and rhetoric, reversed a sharp decline in world opinion toward the U.S. (and the corresponding loss of “soft power”) during the Bush years. From 2008 to 2011, favorable opinion toward the United States rose in ten of fifteen countries surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, with an average increase of 26 percent.
14. Kicked Banks Out of Federal Student Loan Program, Expanded Pell Grant Spending: As part of the 2010 health care reform bill, signed measure ending the wasteful decades-old practice of subsidizing banks to provide college loans. Starting July 2010 all students began getting their federal student loans directly from the federal government. Treasury will save $67 billion over ten years, $36 billion of which will go to expanding Pell Grants to lower-income students.
15. Created Race to the Top: With funds from stimulus, started $4.35 billion program of competitive grants to encourage and reward states for education reform.
16. Boosted Fuel Efficiency Standards: Released new fuel efficiency standards in 2011 that will nearly double the fuel economy for cars and trucks by 2025.
17. Coordinated International Response to Financial Crisis: To keep world economy out of recession in 2009 and 2010, helped secure from G-20 nations more than $500 billion for the IMF to provide lines of credit and other support to emerging market countries, which kept them liquid and avoided crises with their currencies.
18. Passed Mini Stimuli: To help families hurt by the recession and spur the economy as stimulus spending declined, signed series of measures (July 22, 2010; December 17, 2010; December 23, 2011) to extend unemployment insurance and cut payroll taxes.
19. Began Asia “Pivot”: In 2011, reoriented American military and diplomatic priorities and focus from the Middle East and Europe to the Asian-Pacific region. Executed multipronged strategy of positively engaging China while reasserting U.S. leadership in the region by increasing American military presence and crafting new commercial, diplomatic, and military alliances with neighboring countries made uncomfortable by recent Chinese behavior.
20. Increased Support for Veterans: With so many soldiers coming home from Iraq and Iran with serious physical and mental health problems, yet facing long waits for services, increased 2010 Department of Veterans Affairs budget by 16 percent and 2011 budget by 10 percent. Also signed new GI bill offering $78 billion in tuition assistance over a decade, and provided multiple tax credits to encourage businesses to hire veterans.
21. Tightened Sanctions on Iran: In effort to deter Iran’s nuclear program, signed Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (2010) to punish firms and individuals who aid Iran’s petroleum sector. In late 2011 and early 2012, coordinated with other major Western powers to impose sanctions aimed at Iran’s banks and with Japan, South Korea, and China to shift their oil purchases away from Iran.
22. Created Conditions to Begin Closing Dirtiest Power Plants: New EPA restrictions on mercury and toxic pollution, issued in December 2011, likely to lead to the closing of between sixty-eight and 231 of the nation’s oldest and dirtiest coal-fired power plants. Estimated cost to utilities: at least $11 billion by 2016. Estimated health benefits: $59 billion to $140 billion. Will also significantly reduce carbon emissions and, with other regulations, comprises what’s been called Obama’s “stealth climate policy.”
23. Passed Credit Card Reforms: Signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act (2009), which prohibits credit card companies from raising rates without advance notification, mandates a grace period on interest rate increases, and strictly limits overdraft and other fees.
24. Eliminated Catch-22 in Pay Equality Laws: Signed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009, giving women who are paid less than men for the same work the right to sue their employers after they find out about the discrimination, even if that discrimination happened years ago. Under previous law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the statute of limitations on such suits ran out 180 days after the alleged discrimination occurred, even if the victims never knew about it.
25. Protected Two Liberal Seats on the U.S. Supreme Court: Nominated and obtained confirmation for Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic and third woman to serve, in 2009; and Elena Kagan, the fourth woman to serve, in 2010. They replaced David Souter and John Paul Stevens, respectively.
26. Improved Food Safety System: In 2011, signed FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, which boosts the Food and Drug Administration’s budget by $1.4 billion and expands its regulatory responsibilities to include increasing number of food inspections, issuing direct food recalls, and reviewing the current food safety practices of countries importing products into America.
27. Achieved New START Treaty: Signed with Russia (2010) and won ratification in Congress (2011) of treaty that limits each country to 1,550 strategic warheads (down from 2,200) and 700 launchers (down from more than 1,400), and reestablished and strengthened a monitoring and transparency program that had lapsed in 2009, through which each country can monitor the other.
28. Expanded National Service: Signed Serve America Act in 2009, which authorized a tripling of the size of AmeriCorps. Program grew 13 percent to 85,000 members across the country by 2012, when new House GOP majority refused to appropriate more funds for further expansion.
29. Expanded Wilderness and Watershed Protection: Signed Omnibus Public Lands Management Act (2009), which designated more than 2 million acres as wilderness, created thousands of miles of recreational and historic trails, and protected more than 1,000 miles of rivers.
30. Gave the FDA Power to Regulate Tobacco: Signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (2009). Nine years in the making and long resisted by the tobacco industry, the law mandates that tobacco manufacturers disclose all ingredients, obtain FDA approval for new tobacco products, and expand the size and prominence of cigarette warning labels, and bans the sale of misleadingly labeled “light” cigarette brands and tobacco sponsorship of entertainment events.
31. Pushed Federal Agencies to Be Green Leaders: Issued executive order in 2009 requiring all federal agencies to make plans to soften their environmental impacts by 2020. Goals include 30 percent reduction in fleet gasoline use, 26 percent boost in water efficiency, and sustainability requirements for 95 percent of all federal contracts. Because federal government is the country’s single biggest purchaser of goods and services, likely to have ripple effects throughout the economy for years to come.
32. Passed Fair Sentencing Act: Signed 2010 legislation that reduces sentencing disparity between crack versus powder cocaine possessionfrom100 to1 to 18 to1.
33. Trimmed and Reoriented Missile Defense: Cut the Reagan-era “Star Wars” missile defense budget, saving $1.4 billion in 2010, and canceled plans to station antiballistic missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic in favor of sea-based defense plan focused on Iran and North Korea.
34. Began Post-Post-9/11 Military Builddown: After winning agreement from congressional Republicans and Democrats in summer 2011 budget deal to reduce projected defense spending by $450 billion, proposed new DoD budget this year with cuts of that size and a new national defense strategy that would shrink ground forces from 570,000 to 490,000 over the next ten years while increasing programs in intelligence gathering and cyberwarfare.
35. Let Space Shuttle Die and Killed Planned Moon Mission: Allowed the expensive ($1 billion per launch), badly designed, dangerous shuttle program to make its final launch on July 8, 2011. Cut off funding for even more bloated and problem-plagued Bush-era Constellation program to build moon base in favor of support for private-sector low-earth orbit ventures, research on new rocket technologies for long-distance manned flight missions, and unmanned space exploration, including the largest interplanetary rover ever launched, which will investigate Mars’s potential to support life.
36. Invested Heavily in Renewable Technology: As part of the 2009 stimulus, invested $90 billion, more than any previous administration, in research on smart grids, energy efficiency, electric cars, renewable electricity generation, cleaner coal, and biofuels.
37. Crafting Next-Generation School Tests: Devoted $330 million in stimulus money to pay two consortia of states and universities to create competing versions of new K-12 student performance tests based on latest psychometric research. New tests could transform the learning environment in vast majority of public school classrooms beginning in 2014.
38. Cracked Down on Bad For-Profit Colleges: In effort to fight predatory practices of some for-profit colleges, Department of Education issued “gainful employment” regulations in 2011 cutting off commercially focused schools from federal student aid funding if more than 35 percent of former students aren’t paying off their loans and/or if the average former student spends more than 12 percent of his or her total earnings servicing student loans.
39. Improved School Nutrition: In coordination with Michelle Obama, signed Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act in 2010 mandating $4.5 billion spending boost and higher nutritional and health standards for school lunches. New rules based on the law, released in January, double the amount of fruits and vegetables and require only whole grains in food served to students.
40. Expanded Hate Crimes Protections: Signed Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2009), which expands existing hate crime protections to include crimes based on a victim’s sexual orientation, gender, or disability, in addition to race, color, religion, or national origin.
41. Avoided Scandal: As of November 2011, served longer than any president in decades without a scandal, as measured by the appearance of the word “scandal” (or lack thereof) on the front page of the Washington Post.
42. Brokered Agreement for Speedy Compensation to Victims of Gulf Oil Spill: Though lacking statutory power to compel British Petroleum to act, used moral authority of his office to convince oil company to agree in 2010 to a $20 billion fund to compensate victims of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico; $6.5 billion already paid out without lawsuits. By comparison, it took nearly two decades for plaintiffs in the Exxon Valdez Alaska oil spill case to receive $1.3 billion.
43. Created Recovery.gov: Web site run by independent board of inspectors general looking for fraud and abuse in stimulus spending, provides public with detailed information on every contract funded by $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Thanks partly to this transparency, board has uncovered very little fraud, and Web site has become national model: “The stimulus has done more to promote transparency at almost all levels of government than any piece of legislation in recent memory,” reports Governing magazine.
44. Pushed Broadband Coverage: Proposed and obtained in 2011 Federal Communications Commission approval for a shift of $8 billion in subsidies away from landlines and toward broadband Internet for lower-income rural families.
45. Expanded Health Coverage for Children: Signed 2009 Children’s Health Insurance Authorization Act, which allows the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to cover health care for 4 million more children, paid for by a tax increase on tobacco products.
46. Recognized the Dangers of Carbon Dioxide: In 2009, EPA declared carbon dioxide a pollutant, allowing the agency to regulate its production.
47. Expanded Stem Cell Research: In 2009, eliminated the Bush-era restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, which shows promise in treating spinal injuries, among many other areas.
48. Provided Payment to Wronged Minority Farmers: In 2009, signed Claims Resolution Act, which provided $4.6 billion in funding for a legal settlement with black and Native American farmers who the government cheated out of loans and natural resource royalties in years past.
49. Helped South Sudan Declare Independence: Helped South Sudan Declare Independence: Appointed two envoys to Sudan and personally attended a special UN meeting on the area. Through U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, helped negotiate a peaceful split in 2011.
50. Killed the F-22: In 2009, ended further purchases of Lockheed Martin single-seat, twin-engine, fighter aircraft, which cost $358 million apiece. Though the military had 187 built, the plane has never flown a single combat mission. Eliminating it saved $4 billion.
There has been plenty of myths about Obama circulating the internet like saying he has been spending too much and taking more vacations than any other presidents. All of which were proven false
It is true that his recent actions maybe sagging. But compared to the previous presidents, he was ranked as the 5th greatest president of all times.
Do you think that everyone agrees that ObamaCare is a good thing? No, why do you think the gov't shutdown? Just about everyone will be paying different costs, except the people who abuse the system... who will, of course, get it for free. Rather than finding a solution to the problem, he presented a way for them to further abuse the system. On top of that, ObamaCare will decrease the debt by a few billion, that is true... but it will also increase the debt by over a trillion... so you do the math. I personally don't support expanding gov't control and I also don't support forcing people to pay for something, whether they want it or not.
2. Passed the Stimulus
First off, the national debt increased more under Obama in his first three years than it did Bush's entire eight years in office. Now we're almost at Obama's sixth year in office and the debt continues to grow. Second, the long-term unemployment rate has doubled under Obama. The black unemployment rate is now twice the white rate. This wasn't the case during Bush's presidency. Unemployment has dropped under Obama, I'll give you that, but only by 0.5% of what it was under Bush... and keep in mind that unemployment was at 7.8% when Bush left office, it rose to 10% under Obama.
3. Passed Wall Street Reform
A lot of the regulations haven't even been written, nor have they been enforced.
4. Ended the War in Iraq
The war wasn't even with Iraq, it was with al Qaeda. We're still at war!
5. Began Drawdown of War in Afghanistan
He began bringing home some of the troops that he sent over there. The amount of soldiers sent to Afghanistan tripled under Obama.
6. Eliminated Osama bin laden
Obama didn't kill Bin Laden. He didn't find Bin Laden's location. He did nothing except give the order to eliminate him. The CIA and other organizations had been looking for Bin Laden's location ever since 9/11, after years of work they finally found him and it just happened to occur while Obama was president.
7. Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry
I'll give him that, but it did come with a cost. Taxpayers ended up losing over $9 billion.
8. Recapitalized Banks
By borrowing money from other countries and printing more. It'll likely lead to problems down the road.
9. Repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Oh, wooow... Obama's buddy, Bill Clinton, is the one who implemented it in the first place. It wasn't such a big deal in the first place, but I'll give it to him.
10. Toppled Moammar Gaddafi
This is similar to the Bin Laden incident. Obama had little say so in this... and if I remember correctly, it was the rebels that ended up capturing Gaddafi. All of that cost us billions of dollars and I don't know if you've noticed, but the situation in Libya hasn't improved much. Arguably the biggest controversy in Obama's entire presidency so far, occurred in Benghazi, Libya.
11. Told Mubarak to Go
What? LOL! How in the hell did that make the list? He told him to go? Wow, do you remember who came next? Morsi, which ended up resulting in even more protests. They were so bad that the military had to remove him from power after just a month in office.
12. Reversed Bush Torture Policies
You really believe that they aren't still torturing terrorists? Ha! Keep dreaming...
13. Improved America’s Image Abroad
WHAT!? Have you been watching the news? Everyone's pissed off about our gov't spying on them.
14. Kicked Banks Out of Federal Student Loan Program, Expanded Pell Grant Spending
I don't know much about this, so alright.
15. Created Race to the Top
Not many people support that one. Not only was it a waste of money, but it promotes excessive standardized testing... which was seen as a problem before-hand.
16. Boosted Fuel Efficiency Standards
We'll see how that goes...
17. Coordinated International Response to Financial Crisis
Obama's economic/financial record is not good, if you haven't noticed.
18. Passed Mini Stimuli
And now there's a controversy about where that money really went.
19. Began Asia “Pivot”
Began? Two years later and not a single marine is over there.
20. Increased Support for Veterans
Yet more veterans supported Romney than Obama. I wonder why?
21. Tightened Sanctions on Iran
And they're now creating new ones, which aren't going very well.
22. Created Conditions to Begin Closing Dirtiest Power Plants
There's good and bad in that. It's better for the environment, but it's also costing jobs.
23. Passed Credit Card Reforms
I don't know much about this one, so alright.
24. Eliminated Catch-22 in Pay Equality Laws
Alright, I'll give him that.
25. Protected Two Liberal Seats on the U.S. Supreme Court
That's only impressive to other liberals.
26. Improved Food Safety System
Okay, but on another note, the food stamp program is being abused big time.
27. Achieved New START Treaty
You think they're keeping to their agreement? I doubt it.
28. Expanded National Service
Eh, I'll give it to him.
29. Expanded Wilderness and Watershed Protection
Not that big of a deal, but alright.
30. Gave the FDA Power to Regulate Tobacco
Obama's a smoker himself. This isn't a very big change.
31. Pushed Federal Agencies to Be Green Leaders
Okay... ya know, if this is the stuff that you think makes him qualified to be named "one of the greatest presidents of all time", then I'm not impressed.
32. Passed Fair Sentencing Act
You could look at it two ways, he's helping criminals get out of jail sooner (which he is) or he's saving tax payer dollars. The question is, do you like the fact that this helps criminals?
33. Trimmed and Reoriented Missile Defense
And bombed the shit out of people during his presidency. Hell, he was planning on blowing up Syria's chemical weapons, if you don't remember that discussion we had not too long ago.
34. Began Post-Post-9/11 Military Builddown
He's a hypocrite. He's been sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East.
35. Let Space Shuttle Die and Killed Planned Moon Mission
People are proud of that? NASA is practically dead because of him. Now our astronauts have to catch a ride with Russia whenever they need to go to the ISS.
36. Invested Heavily in Renewable Technology
Spend, spend, spend... he just keeps increasing the debt.
37. Crafting Next-Generation School Tests
That's nice. The site you got this list from couldn't even come up with fifty accomplishments, so they included part of an achievement they already listed... which as a pointed out earlier, isn't popular.
38. Cracked Down on Bad For-Profit Colleges
That hasn't been going too well.
39. Improved School Nutrition
Child obesity is still rising... so was that really worth billions of dollars in spending?
40. Expanded Hate Crimes Protections
Okay, but was it worth $680 billion? All of this spending isn't improving our economy.
41. Avoided Scandal
LOL! That's the biggest bullshit on this entire list. What would you call Benghazi or the NSA incident?
42. Brokered Agreement for Speedy Compensation to Victims of Gulf Oil Spill
There's still controversy surrounding that incident.
Created Recovery.gov
Uhhh... so what?
44. Pushed Broadband Coverage
95% of the nation has broadband coverage and it keeps growing... and Obama pushed for more? A plan to put us even further in debt.
45. Expanded Health Coverage for Children
Well, we've addressed ObamaCare already.
46. Recognized the Dangers of Carbon Dioxide
Well, that's old news. I'm glad he finally "recognized" that it's a problem.
47. Expanded Stem Cell Research
Whether this is good or not is debatable.
48. Provided Payment to Wronged Minority Farmers
I don't know anything about it, other than it cost us billions of dollars.
49. Helped South Sudan Declare Independence
The situation has been getting worse since their independence.
50. Killed the F-22
Well, good. He did something to save money, for once.
There has been plenty of myths about Obama circulating the internet like saying he has been spending too much and taking more vacations than any other presidents. All of which were proven false
Ha! Wow... that's a load of bullshit.
It is true that his recent actions maybe sagging. But compared to the previous presidents, he was ranked as the 5th greatest president of all times.
Oh, give me a break! There is no way that he's the fifth greatest president of all time.
1.Do you think that everyone agrees that ObamaCare is a good thing?
It has nothing to do with ObamaCare. It was an idea that has been proposed so many times but only achieve success in 2010.
2. First off, the national debt increased more under Obama in his first three years than it did Bush's entire eight years in office
The purpose of this is to ensure that the economy will continue to prosper despite the recession. I can understand if you are afraid of the growing debt but since the money was well used...no pain no gain, I guess
3. A lot of the regulations haven't even been written, nor have they been enforced.
Rome wasnt built in a day. Trial and error comes first
4-5
I lack research here. You won this time
6. Obama didn't kill Bin Laden.
He funds the right operations, selects the right officers and takes responsibilities for their actions. History remembers the leaders, not the soldiers
10. This is similar to the Bin Laden incident.
He allowed the trade of weaponries and signed business with the rebels. Its not his victory. But it is his assistance that strenghtened their foundations
11. How in the hell did that make the list? He told him to go?
The voice of the USA is a major influence. If you gained the approval of the US president, it is the same as making friends with half of the world. If you gain the president's frown, then it is best if you leave.
But yeah, its a shame the leader that followed wasnt a good one. (Still worth a shot, though)
12. You really believe that they aren't still torturing terrorists? Ha! Keep dreaming...
At least this time, they better not be found
13. WHAT!? Have you been watching the news? Everyone's pissed off about our gov't spying on them.
This is the international view on USA. Not Americans to their people
17. Obama's economic/financial record is not good, if you haven't noticed.
Yeah, it was reported that most of Obamas problems was inherited from the previous administration. Still, he is doing a good job.
20. Yet more veterans supported Romney than Obama. I wonder why?
Having a more favored opponent doesnt make Obama look bad, does it?
32. You could look at it two ways, he's helping criminals get out of jail sooner (which he is) or he's saving tax payer dollars. The question is, do you like the fact that this helps criminals?
Justice abused isnt justice at all. The trial court is everything that decides whether a government cruel or not.
35. People are proud of that? NASA is practically dead because of him. Now our astronauts have to catch a ride with Russia whenever they need to go to the ISS.
It was a painful choice. If this was allowed, the damage on the economy will be fatal.
36. Spend, spend, spend... he just keeps increasing the debt.
A money well spent is never wasted. A suitable Renewable energy source will prove as a critical energy source in the long run
39. Child obesity is still rising... so was that really worth billions of dollars in spending?
Child Obesity is the fault of the parents. Child Hunger, thats a responsibility of the government. And that is the purpose of the "Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act"
41. LOL! That's the biggest bullshit on this entire list. What would you call Benghazi or the NSA incident?
It has nothing to do with NSA.
43. Uhhh... so what?
It is a site that allows citizens to freely view the spendings of the government. It is important to know where your taxes goes and it is rare for a government to provide this much transparency.
(Not like people even go there anyway)
45. Well, we've addressed ObamaCare already.
It has nothing to do with ObamaCare. It is "Children’s Health Insurance Authorization Act, "
48. I don't know anything about it, other than it cost us billions of dollars.
It is an act that provides funding for a legal settlement with black and Native American farmers who the government cheated out of loans and natural resource royalties in years past.
49. The situation has been getting worse since their independence.
It has nothing to do with ObamaCare. It was an idea that has been proposed so many times but only achieve success in 2010.
Seriously? The Affordable Care Act IS ObamaCare.
The purpose of this is to ensure that the economy will continue to prosper despite the recession. I can understand if you are afraid of the growing debt but since the money was well used...no pain no gain, I guess
Look at the economy. Do you see improvement?
Rome wasnt built in a day. Trial and error comes first
That doesn't hide the fact that they should have been written and should be enforced by now. You do realize that it's been a few years since he passed the reform, right?
He funds the right operations, selects the right officers and takes responsibilities for their actions. History remembers the leaders, not the soldiers
What are you talking about? The gov't had been searching for Bin Laden before Obama was even elected. They found Bin Laden while Obama was in office and the place they found him at, they had been monitoring during the Bush administration. Our government funds our military operations in general. If McCain was president, he would have gotten credit. The CIA and the military are the ones who deserve your praise, not Obama.
He allowed the trade of weaponries and signed business with the rebels. Its not his victory. But it is his assistance that strenghtened their foundations
That's all Obama really does, isn't it? Signs papers. Look up Libya. Do you see much improvement?
The voice of the USA is a major influence. If you gained the approval of the US president, it is the same as making friends with half of the world. If you gain the president's frown, then it is best if you leave.
The situation got worse after Obama told him to "go"... so how is that labeled as a positive defining moment in Obama's "great" presidency?
This is the international view on USA. Not Americans to their people
How did he improve the American people's image? The gov't is supposed to represent the people. Typically, if the World doesn't trust our gov't, then they'll usually phrase that as they "don't trust America".
Yeah, it was reported that most of Obamas problems was inherited from the previous administration. Still, he is doing a good job.
A good job? Obama has increased the debt more than any president in the history of the United States. All of that spending you keep mentioning as "pain and gain" contributed to the debt.
Having a more favored opponent doesnt make Obama look bad, does it?
Yes.
Justice abused isnt justice at all. The trial court is everything that decides whether a government cruel or not.
That didn't really answer my question. The reason for that act was to decrease the sentence of "crack-heads". Do you agree with that?
It was a painful choice. If this was allowed, the damage on the economy will be fatal.
NASA isn't entirely dead.
A money well spent is never wasted. A suitable Renewable energy source will prove as a critical energy source in the long run
We'll see...
Child Obesity is the fault of the parents. Child Hunger, thats a responsibility of the government. And that is the purpose of the "Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act"
What? We're talking about the school lunch reform.
It has nothing to do with NSA.
Yes it does! Benghazi and the NSA spying are his two biggest scandals so far.
It is a site that allows citizens to freely view the spendings of the government. It is important to know where your taxes goes and it is rare for a government to provide this much transparency.
Do you really think that they're showing all of their expenditures? Pssh, yeah right!
It has nothing to do with ObamaCare. It is "Children’s Health Insurance Authorization Act, "
You do know how Obamacare works, right? One of the things it does, is it extends CHIP (that's what you're actually talking about) and funds it. That was one of the reasons why some people didn't want to see ObamaCare get defunded.
That doesn't hide the fact that they should have been written and should be enforced by now. You do realize that it's been a few years since he passed the reform, right?
Theres too many things that the government are busy with. It takes time
What are you talking about? The gov't had been searching for Bin Laden before Obama was even elected.
He is aware of the operations, secret informations and approves of it. I agree that he did not do much and the CIA did everthing. But since he was the head, it is unavoidable to include him on the victory
That's all Obama really does, isn't it? Signs papers. Look up Libya. Do you see much improvement?
It isnt just signing. It is about reading the informations, deciding whether it will be a good idea. If its a good one, it will be signed. If not, to the trash it goes. But the problem is that Black and White fallacy does not work in the congress. Every single act is questionable. Meetings will be held, debates will be imposed, votings will be gathered and so on.
It is the job of the president to have a good judgement over this.
The situation got worse after Obama told him to "go"... so how is that labeled as a positive defining moment in Obama's "great" presidency?
No one saw that the situation will go worse. The only thing that everyone saw was the fact that they are now free and ready to rebuild. (Such shame the outcome didnt make up for the dear cost)
How did he improve the American people's image?
Beats me. You gotta ask the foreigners of what America did for them
A good job? Obama has increased the debt more than any president in the history of the United States. All of that spending you keep mentioning as "pain and gain" contributed to the debt.
Debts are one thing. But the fact that the money are being spent wisely negates the arguments. Or at least it should have.
That didn't really answer my question. The reason for that act was to decrease the sentence of "crack-heads". Do you agree with that?
The definition of criminal and crack heads will be debatable. But since it promotes fair trial, my answer would be a Yes
What? We're talking about the school lunch reform.
The act was to feed children. Why are you linking it with Child Obesity?
Do you really think that they're showing all of their expenditures? Pssh, yeah right!
We wont know until wise men actually investigated the site.
Maybe... even though the stimulus put us further in debt.
Theres too many things that the government are busy with. It takes time
Really? Like what? You don't think it should have been ready at least a few months after he passed it? A few years is a long time.
He is aware of the operations, secret informations and approves of it. I agree that he did not do much and the CIA did everthing. But since he was the head, it is unavoidable to include him on the victory
Approves it, yes. Any president would have approved of it. Should it really be listed as one of his accomplishments?
It is the job of the president to have a good judgement over this.
I was being a smartass, but as you can tell... his judgment isn't very good.
No one saw that the situation will go worse. The only thing that everyone saw was the fact that they are now free and ready to rebuild.
Obama supported Morsi. He didn't want him to leave office. How is that an achievement for Obama?
Beats me. You gotta ask the foreigners of what America did for them
Yeah, I asked them. They're pissed.
Debts are one thing. But the fact that the money are being spent wisely negates the arguments. Or at least it should have.
The money isn't being spent wisely. The fact that we have to keep raising our debt ceiling should be proof of that.
The definition of criminal and crack heads will be debatable. But since it promotes fair trial, my answer would be a Yes
Okay, and as you probably already know... that is debatable. Some find it to be good thing, others don't. It's only an achievement in the eyes of people who support it.
The act was to feed children. Why are you linking it with Child Obesity?
It was an attempt to make school lunches healthier and prevent childhood obesity.
I can only argue a few more then you can treat it as your victory :)
Really? Like what? You don't think it should have been ready at least a few months after he passed it? A few years is a long time.
I agree.But you dont want him to sacrifice his focus on other more important things than this one. Now do you?
Obama supported Morsi. He didn't want him to leave office.
He didnt want him to leave because another change in leadership will give a bad impression for their country.
It was an attempt to make school lunches healthier and prevent childhood obesity.
No matter how healthy school lunches are, if a kid still eats unhealthy foods outside without any parental supervision, obesity is unavoidable. You cant blame Obama for the fault of the parents
I agree.But you dont want him to sacrifice his focus on other more important things than this one. Now do you?
If he spends billions of dollars (in this case, I think it was trillions... but I'm not entirely sure), then he better keep his word and jump on it pretty quick. You listed almost fifty things he spent money on. A lot of that occurred after this, do you think all of that stuff was more important?
He didnt want him to leave because another change in leadership will give a bad impression for their country.
Morsi represented the Muslim Brotherhood. He was kind of a weird candidate for an American president to support in the first place. The people were rioting and killing each other over Morsi being in office. The protests were giving off a bad impression, not so much the change in leadership.
No matter how healthy school lunches are, if a kid still eats unhealthy foods outside without any parental supervision, obesity is unavoidable. You cant blame Obama for the fault of the parents
Michelle Obama was really the big advocate for this. I'm not entirely sure of the impact it has had on school lunches since then.
If he spends billions of dollars (in this case, I think it was trillions... but I'm not entirely sure), then he better keep his word and jump on it pretty quick.
You cant demand something impossible
Morsi represented the Muslim Brotherhood. He was kind of a weird candidate for an American president to support in the first place.
Thats a clarification than a dispute, isnt it?
Michelle Obama was really the big advocate for this. I'm not entirely sure of the impact it has had on school lunches since then.
We cant tell. But I still dont get why you are making Obama responsible for the obese children.
We cant tell. But I still dont get why you are making Obama responsible for the obese children.
I'm not making Obama responsible for childhood obesity, I'm pointing out that the act he signed isn't preventing it. In other words, it hasn't shown any success... so how can it be considered an achievement?
ObamaCare will decrease the debt by a few billion, ... but it will also increase the debt by over a trillion
The projected NET impact of ObamaCare is a reduction in the deficit. (Here is a CBO projection for how much repealing ObamaCare would cost.)
I also don't support forcing people to pay for something, whether they want it or not
If you don't want an iPad, you don't pay for an iPad and you don't get an iPad, however with healthcare, you can obtain it without paying for it (via emergency rooms). We either have to remove the ability for everyone to get emergency care without proof of insurance/ability to pay, or we need to pay for that care - in this case via a requirement of insurance enforced through a tax/fee.
2) Stimulus
the national debt increased more under Obama in his first three years than it did Bush's entire eight years in office
Jan/2001 Debt = $5,716,071M ref (the month Bush took office)
Jan/2009 Debt = $10,632,080M ref (the month Obama took office)
Difference = $4,916,009M (an increase of 87.5% under 8 years of Bush)
Jan/2012 Debt = $15,356,140M ref (3 years after Obama took office)
Difference = $4,724,060M (an increase of 44.9% under 3 years of Obama)
So in actual dollars you are incorrect by about $200 billion (and would be more incorrect if adjusted for inflation). And in percentage growth it is not even close.
Also, and more importantly, you seem to be ignoring the financial collapse in 2008 which dramatically reduced receipts while simultaneously increasing demand on unemployment and welfare programs. The collapse was not the result of Obama policies.
unemployment was at 7.8% when Bush left office, it rose to 10% under Obama
unemployment is a lagging indicator of the economy - it reached 10% in Oct 2009 (ref) and the private sector has had 44 straight months of private sector job growth since then. Additionally, Obama has proposed several measures to increase job growth but has been blocked on political grounds since many of the ideas are things Republicans have agreed with in the past.
Note 1: as of January 7, 2009 (2 weeks before Obama took office) the projected 2009 deficit was estimated at $1.2 Trillion ref
the deficit for FY2013 (which just ended on Sept 30th) was $680 billion - a reduction of 44% without even accounting for inflation
The deficit to GDP ratio under Obama has fallen from 10.1% to 4% - the fastest reduction since World War II ref (The deficit to GDP ratio at this point in Regan's presidency was over 5% ref
Note 2: Under Reagan unemployment was over 10% even further into his presidency and for 10 straight months, and the debt went from $934,073M ref to 2,697,957M ref - a growth of 189%
3) Passed Wall Street Reform
A lot of the regulations haven't even been written
Therefore it doesn't count at all?? Many of the regulations are written and in place and the taxpayer bailouts that happened in 2008 are currently illegal. There is a ton of lobbying happening by Wall Street which is slowing the process down, but is also having a positive effect on court challenges for the regulations that are in place.
4) Iraq
The war wasn't even with Iraq
Tell that to President Bush and Saddam Hussein and the more than 4,400 military personnel who were deployed under Operation Iraqi Freedom that didn't come home.
5) Afghanistan
According to their campaigns McCain and Romney would not be leaving Iraq nor Afghanistan anytime soon. refref
6) Osama bin laden
Bush closed the Osama Bin Laden unit in the CIA (Alec Station) in 2005 and said he doesn't know where he is and he just doesn't spend that much time on him refrefref
If things had gone wrong, you know where the blame would have went. Obama gave credit to military and counterterrorism professionals, allies, etc. and took credit only for working with intelligence officials and giving the order - the credit to which he was entitled. ref
Some decisions (e.g. whether to use a drone strike or Seal team, etc.) are made at the President's level.
I'll give him that, but it did come with a cost. Taxpayers ended up losing over $9 billion
What would the lost tax revenue be if nearly the whole of the American auto industry would have collapsed? How much would have been spent on unemployment and welfare costs while new auto companies and suppliers tried to start from scratch? All the while bolstering foreign manufacturers.
8) Recapitalized Banks
It'll likely lead to problems down the road
Problems down the road which may not even come to fruition are better than immediate bank failures.
9) Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Bill Clinton, is the one who implemented it in the first place
At the time it was better than the existing outright ban of gay people in the military.
10) Moammar Gaddafi
Obama had little say so in this
As commander in chief, Obama had the ultimate say so in this - he decided whether and how we would get involved. Republicans and some Democrats were ardently against military intervention in Libya and against him having NATO lead the effort. But he did, and the result was Gaddafi gone with no American lives lost.
2.So in actual dollars you are incorrect by about $200 billion (and would be more incorrect if adjusted for inflation). And in percentage growth it is not even close.
Also, and more importantly, you seem to be ignoring the financial collapse in 2008 which dramatically reduced receipts while simultaneously increasing demand on unemployment and welfare programs. The collapse was not the result of Obama policies.
You are proud that Obama was able to fall short of Bush by 200 billion in 3/8 the amount of time?
3.Therefore it doesn't count at all??
Yes, he didn't actually pass the reform if it isn't written down.
2) You are proud that Obama was able to fall short of Bush by 200 billion in 3/8 the amount of time?
An assertion of fact was made an I showed that it was not true and that percentage-wise he is on par with the Bush record.
The greatest recession since the Great Depression happened very shortly before he took office and it is disingenuous to blame Obama for its impact.
I am more proud that when he came into office, the country was losing about 8000,000 jobs a month and yet we've now had 44 straight months of private sector job growth. Also of note is that the unemployment rate would be a good deal less if we maintained the public sector pratices of prior administrations during recessions ref
And a growth of 144% in the stock market
And a reduction in the deficit by nearly half.
And turning GDP growth from -8.9% in Q4 of 2008 to +4% in Q4 of 2009
etc.
3) he didn't actually pass the reform if it isn't written down.
That is just a plainly false statement. Passed through Congress and Signed by President and half of the mandated rules in place and the rest in-process is obviously different than not passed at all.
There are several parts to the bill other than mandated rule-making that took effect upon enactment.
When it comes to rules affecting the financial markets, I prefer that some prudence be taken rather than hastily written rules leading to unintended consequences and being fought in court and more often being overturned.
An assertion of fact was made an I showed that it was not true and that percentage-wise he is on par with the Bush record.
THAT IS HORRIBLE. If Obama raises the national debt by the same percentage as Bush he will definitely be the worst of all time. It is a compounded percentage.
The greatest recession since the Great Depression happened very shortly before he took office and it is disingenuous to blame Obama for its impact.
It is also disingenuous to use the fact that he barely fell short of Bush in 3/8 the time as a good thing.
I am more proud that when he came into office, the country was losing about 8000,000 jobs a month and yet we've now had 44 straight months of private sector job growth. Also of note is that the unemployment rate would be a good deal less if we maintained the public sector pratices of prior administrations during recessions
He doesn't control the private sector, what did he do to help private companies create jobs?
And a growth of 144% in the stock market
Probably not because of him.
And a reduction in the deficit by nearly half.
Awesome, he got us to half as much bleeding, which means we still bleed to death.
And turning GDP growth from -8.9% in Q4 of 2008 to +4% in Q4 of 2009
Also, probably not because of him, what did he do to get this?
I am not saying that he didn't accomplish something by the economy improving the way you describe, I am just a little upset that you bring that up to cover up the debt issue.
That is just a plainly false statement.
He half passed it.
When it comes to rules affecting the financial markets, I prefer that some prudence be taken rather than hastily written rules leading to unintended consequences and being fought in court and more often being overturned.
If he did it that way, and if he did it the quick and dirty way you would think that was the right way like with the gulf relief.
You are proud that Obama was able to fall short of Bush by 200 billion in 3/8 the amount of time?
He gave me numbers from 2012. Based off of numbers from October 2013, Obama has increased the debt more in five years than Bush did his entire eight years in office.
Part of it is because he is "nice." Bush started wars, Obama has only screwed up the economy. As long as you don't count Libya. Which is more of an ending to a war than starting one, am I right? ;)
"Nice"... lol. Whatever. He's a mess is what he is. He might be a nice guy, he's just not a good president. Kind of like Carter... he's a nice dude, he has the same initials as Jesus... but he wasn't a very good president.
Yeah, that's all I can come up with. Or it is just that he is a Democrat and you hear all of the Democrats trying to say he is great. I felt a lot of Republicans defended Bush like crazy.
Holy shit! You aren't going to believe this... but I just typed up a long response (I was almost finished!), clicked one of your links, read it, clicked back and my entire argument disappeared. Dammit! I should have copied it before clicking a link... anyways, I'm going to try and make this short and simple.
The projected NET impact of ObamaCare is a reduction in the deficit. (Here is a CBO projection for how much repealing ObamaCare would cost.)
So, during the fist ten years, repealing Obamacare will cost us $109 billion... but the cost OF Obamacare will be around $1.3 trillion during that same period. Hmm...?
We either have to remove the ability for everyone to get emergency care without proof of insurance/ability to pay, or we need to pay for that care - in this case via a requirement of insurance enforced through a tax/fee.
In other words, we still have to pay? The price of Obamacare varies from person to person. If you don't want Obamacare, then tough shit. Either you pay for Obamacare or you pay the fine.
So in actual dollars you are incorrect by about $200 billion (and would be more incorrect if adjusted for inflation). And in percentage growth it is not even close.
Actually, no I'm not... because it's not 2012 anymore. As of October 2013, the debt was $16.75 trillion. That's an increase of about 57% since Obama took office. So, in the five years that Obama has been president, he has increased the debt more than Bush did his entire eight years.
Therefore it doesn't count at all?? Many of the regulations are written and in place and the taxpayer bailouts that happened in 2008 are currently illegal. There is a ton of lobbying happening by Wall Street which is slowing the process down, but is also having a positive effect on court challenges for the regulations that are in place.
It's not that it doesn't count, it's just not the astounding achievement that it's being portrayed as.
Tell that to President Bush and Saddam Hussein and the more than 4,400 military personnel who were deployed under Operation Iraqi Freedom that didn't come home.
Do I need to say that the war was WITH Iraq rather than IN Iraq in order for their service to mean something? No! They served their country and deserve recognition, but the War in Iraq was part of the War on Terror. The enemies were the Sunni, the Shia, the Taliban and al Qaeda. Saddam and his regime was overthrown, that's true... but the war is still going on. We remained in Iraq for as long as we did because we were watching for al Qaeda. They appeared to have moved out of Iraq, so we moved on as well... and that is part of the reason why more soldiers were sent to Afghanistan. The war isn't over.
According to their campaigns McCain and Romney would not be leaving Iraq nor Afghanistan anytime soon.
What's your point? I supported Obama in '08. I didn't care much for Romney either, I just knew that I didn't want Obama in office any longer.
Bush closed the Osama Bin Laden unit in the CIA (Alec Station) in 2005 and said he doesn't know where he is and he just doesn't spend that much time on him
Here's a quote from your NY Times article: "The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."
Bin Laden watched American news. We have video of that... so, Bush may have said those things as an attempt to draw Bin Laden out of hiding. What we do know now, is that despite what Bush said, the government was still looking for Bin Laden.
If things had gone wrong, you know where the blame would have went.
Yep... and we also know from this list where a lot of the credit is going.
Some decisions (e.g. whether to use a drone strike or Seal team, etc.) are made at the President's level.
Seems like a pretty easy decision when the target in question is Bin Laden.
As commander in chief, Obama had the ultimate say so in this - he decided whether and how we would get involved. Republicans and some Democrats were ardently against military intervention in Libya and against him having NATO lead the effort. But he did, and the result was Gaddafi gone with no American lives lost.
That really depends on if you think Benghazi was a result of a video or not.
You think I want to click a link from a pompous dickhead like you? Ha! Nah... I'll take my chances. If you want to debate with me civilly and stop trying to insult me, then that's fine... otherwise, move on to someone who gives a shit.
Why chose an activity dependent upon curiosity and knowledge, etc. if you prefer to remain in ignorance?
The point is that the CBO estimate is directed at a subset of provisions of the Act, not the entire thing; the CBO estimate itself states explicitly (on Page 2):
"Those amounts do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA because that legislation has many other provisions, including some that will cause significant reductions in Medicare spending and others that will generate added tax revenues, relative to what would have occurred under prior law. CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period;"
It would be like saying the cost of playing the PowerBall is $2 therefore the net impact of winning the PowerBall jackpot would be ‑$2
The truth is you were already paying. About 60% of bankruptcies are related to medical costs and result in uncompensated care. The medical industry passes those costs along to paying customers through higher costs/insurance premiums.
Yeah... I guess I was wrong, but the core of that argument isn't, which is that Obama has already accumulated more debt than Bush did his entire eight years. Do you disagree?
Bush turned a surplus into the greatest recession since the Great Depression. The loss in revenue and increase in outlays for unemployment and welfare related to the recession are far more attributable to Bush policies than Obama policies.
Obama is slowly, with intentional impedance from Congress, reversing the trend.
Cutting the deficit that existed before he took office by nearly half is certainly a step in the right direction, wouldn't you agree?
In order to get the tax change that produced much of the revenue which is shrinking the deficit, the government had to again be on the precipice of shutdown.
Obama wanted a bigger stimulus, more infrastructure spending, and several other agenda items that would have improved the economy, but only had a filibuster-proof majority for 132 days (and that included 38 weekend days plus the Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year holidays). ref
How much blame for the debt do you honestly think can be apportioned to Obama given the circumstances?
Are you seriously trying to assert that item 4 "Ended the War in Iraq" doesn't count as an accomplishment because the heading uses the word War instead of something like Presence?
A few notes:
The exposition given: "Ordered all U.S. military forces out of the country. Last troops left on December 18, 2011." is plainly true.
I wish you had the same desire for preciseness when it comes to your understanding of why went went into Iraq and why we left.
The enemies were the Sunni, the Shia, the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Sunni and Shia were our enemies?? - Stupendously wrong.
Taliban did not exist in Iraq at the time.
al-Qaeda:
The Pentagon Inspector General concluded that Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith's office "developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaeda relationship," with "conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community"
"We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."
I'll debate more civilly with you - partly I was debating you and Cartman at the same time and I no longer feel the need for civility towards his arguments, and partly I was just shocked at how wrong someone could be so wrong on something as important as Iraq.
Much of the issue was belied by your attempt argue the semantics of the heading (War in Iraq) rather than the well understood intent. You can argue that the Washington Monthly was imprecise to use the word War, but by that same measure there was no Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, etc.
There were distinct operations in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn) which Obama brought to a close. Indications are that Romney would not have, thus the contention that it is an Obama accomplishment. Why people are trying so hard to score points based on semantics rather than really discuss the substance eludes me.
Before going into Iraq, there were no Taliban in Iraq, and Sunni and Shia were not listed anywhere as our enemies. Additionally, "[w]e remained in Iraq for as long as we did because we were watching for al Qaeda. They appeared to have moved out of Iraq, so we moved on as well..." is not even in the ballpark of why we stayed there or why we left - thus my frustration. 1000's of people actually died and so few know or even care why.
I'll debate more civilly with you - partly I was debating you and Cartman at the same time and I no longer feel the need for civility towards his arguments, and partly I was just shocked at how wrong someone could be so wrong on something as important as Iraq.
I was just throwin' some stuff out there. It won't all be gold. I also am not fond of debating with links, because that kind of takes away the point of arguing.
"I think such and such"
"No, you're wrong! Here's a link to prove it!"
"Okay... debate over"
My Iraq comment was more of an assumption, as you can tell. It just seemed a likely possibility since troops left Iraq and more were sent to Afghanistan. You don't need to comment on that, by the way. I don't need to read another repeat.
Much of the issue was belied by your attempt argue the semantics of the heading (War in Iraq) rather than the well understood intent. You can argue that the Washington Monthly was imprecise to use the word War, but by that same measure there was no Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, etc.
Oh... maybe you need some fresh air or something.
There were distinct operations in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn) which Obama brought to a close. Indications are that Romney would not have, thus the contention that it is an Obama accomplishment. Why people are trying so hard to score points based on semantics rather than really discuss the substance eludes me.
I don't understand the Obama cheerleading. He brought Iraq to a close, good... but he sent more to Afghanistan, which he also said he would bring to a close. I don't understand having pride in a politician who sucks just as bad as all the rest. Can't we just all agree that career-politicians running the country is doing us more harm than good?
Before going into Iraq, there were no Taliban in Iraq, and Sunni and Shia were not listed anywhere as our enemies.
Sunni and Shia extremists... which is what I meant in the first place, but they mainly fall under al Qaeda and Taliban.
Additionally, "[w]e remained in Iraq for as long as we did because we were watching for al Qaeda. They appeared to have moved out of Iraq, so we moved on as well..." is not even in the ballpark of why we stayed there or why we left - thus my frustration. 1000's of people actually died and so few know or even care why.
Yeah... you said that already. Maybe you should take a break from the internet if shit like that frustrates you.
I'll give you this - it takes an impressive amount of chutzpah to not know much about why the government went into, stayed, or left Iraq and then feel comfortable going onto a debate site to make matter-of-fact assertions about it only to admit you were just 'throwin' some stuff out there'.
"Okay... debate over"
Wouldn't it be just as easy to say:
No, that's wrong because....
I don't need to read another repeat.
Right. You need to read a book.
He brought Iraq to a close, good...
See how much time you could have saved both of us
he sent more to Afghanistan, which he also said he would bring to a close.
Indeed. Why would people post Obama's accomplishments at a site dedicated to debating ideas under a debate related to Obama? confounding....
Can't we just all agree that career-politicians running the country is doing us more harm than good?
The alternative being?
just as bad as all the rest
only in some people's imaginations. He is smart, moral, and pragmatic; I wouldn't rate him as the best president ever, but certainly closer to the best than the worst. Mostly I think he just needs to use the bully pulpit better to sell his ideas and cajole Congress into cooperating/compromising. Much of his policy agenda has been blocked by partisanship, yet people still blame him for not changing the mess the last guy left fast enough.
Maybe you should take a break
Maybe you should take some time to know something before debating it.
I'll give you this - it takes an impressive amount of chutzpah to not know much about why the government went into, stayed, or left Iraq and then feel comfortable going onto a debate site to make matter-of-fact assertions about it only to admit you were just 'throwin' some stuff out there'.
I'll take that as a compliment.
Wouldn't it be just as easy to say:
No, that's wrong because....
Well, it hasn't made this debate any more fun lol.
Right. You need to read a book.
On what? Iraq? I clearly don't want to read that.
Obama has consistently said that he would refocus our attention on Afghanistan and increase troops there in order for us to bring it to a close in 2014, and he is still on track to do so. Or, did you not know any of that either?
You truly are wasting your time looking for all of those links... and I knew that, doesn't mean he's going to keep to his word.
Indeed. Why would people post Obama's accomplishments at a site dedicated to debating ideas under a debate related to Obama? confounding....
Exactly.
The alternative being?
People with some real-world experience.
only in some people's imaginations. He is smart, moral, and pragmatic;
If things had gone wrong, you know where the blame would have went.
Yep... and we also know from this list where a lot of the credit is going.
I'll reiterate what I said: Obama gave credit to military and counterterrorism professionals, allies, etc. and took credit only for working with intelligence officials and giving the order - the credit to which he was entitled. ref
whether to use a drone strike or Seal team
Seems like a pretty easy decision
Would the same be said if any of the seal team had been killed, or if the mission wasn't successful?
Yea, when I replied to one of the arguments they all disappeared from the New Arguments list - just started trying to find the ones I hadn't got to yet. Will start with this one.
Oh good grief man! I was arguing with Centifolia! I can throw anything into a political debate with her and win (no offense to her). She thought al Qaeda was a person... come on!
Yes, I was wrong about Iraq... but I was kind of rushing through her list of FIFTY achievements. The War on Terror is how I define that whole ordeal, and I was thinking of The War on Terror. I was clearly wrong and noticed that early on, but you had to be SO pompous, I couldn't admit that you proved me wrong... so I just threw in some shit. You might not believe me, but I do just come up with some random shit every now and then for the hell of it (I once argued that Jesus was the son of the planet Venus... just because I figured I could come up with a good argument for it lol). Of course I couldn't find any links to support my Iraq argument... so I started saying I wasn't going to read your links, just to piss you off lol. Sorry. It was my last hurrah, so to speak. So, since you want to keep insulting me... which, I can't have you leaving thinking I'm an idiot... I'm going to give your arguments my full attention and give you the responses I assume you were looking for (well, you probably just wanted me to agree with you... but whatever).
By the way, I easily get Iraq confused because I was a teenager at the time of the war, well... at least in it's early years. It's safe to say that world events were not really on my radar then... which is somewhat embarrassing looking back at it... but I can't have you trying to insult my intelligence. That just doesn't make anyone feel good... so anyways, here ya go! Oh... and I'll make sure to include A LOT of links.
1) Health Care Reform
Okay, here's the thing with Obamacare... we don't know how it's going to effect us. Saying it's going to be a good thing takes a certain amount of faith, as does saying it will be a bad thing. My stance is that I'd rather not take the risk and I don't like socialized healthcare. The government screwed up something as simple as the website, what will happen when they take over our healthcare!? I guess we're just going to have to wait and see...
Obamacare isn't projected to make any significant reductions to the deficit until the long run (about ten years from now). In the short run (within those first ten years), the sequester will reduce the deficit more. However, the ACA is planned to last, where as the sequester will end in 2021... and the sequester isn't necessarily seen as a good thing.
In the first ten years, Obamacare is supposed to increase the deficit. It was originally projected that it wouldn't and Obama even said "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future". So Obama signed it... and then made changes (one-year delay in employer mandate, etc.), which was a really sneaky move. So now it's estimated that Obamacare will increase the deficit in those first ten years. Which is a good example of why I don't have much trust in career-politicians. The predictions are kind of all over the place though, a good example would be the GAO. This all brings me back to my point, we don't know what to expect with Obamacare
2) Stimulus
Since we were debating the debt increase under Obama compared to Bush, I'll just address that again.
Obama surpassed Bush in 2012, so when I said that Obama increased the debt more in his first three years, than Bush did his entire eight years in office... I wasn't wrong. You just assumed that I meant Jan. '09- Jan '12... but he actually didn't pass Bush until March '12. So... what's the debt now? About $17 trillion. So if the debt was about $10.6 trillion when Obama took office, then... well, you can do the math.
Now, the financial collapse! I assume that you think it was Bush's fault entirely... which isn't true. Whether you believe that or not, I'll give you a list of the causes (the order doesn't really mean anything btw).
1. Commercial and investment banks merged- After the Great Depression, a law was passed that separated commercial and investment banks. In 1999, the bill was repealed.
2. The Federal Reserve dropped interest rates to 1%- This occurred in 2000, after the dot-com bust.
3. Corrupt credit agencies- Moody's, Standard & Poor's and Fitch all gave shitty securities AAA ratings, in order to keep clients happy and make more money.
4. Unregulated derivatives- AIG was able to write $3 trillion in derivatives, but didn't have enough money to cover those claims.
5. SEC loosened capital requirements for Wall Street Banks- Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were allowed unlimited leverage and ended up borrowing more than they should have.
6. Banks no longer had to comply with state anti-predatory lending laws- National lenders began selling risky loan products, which resulted in borrowers defaulting and a big increase in foreclosure rates.
7. Selfish Wall Street Executives gambling- They took huge risks, and if they hit their targets... they got paid. If their investments were to eventually collapse, they aren't effected.
Obama's wall street reform is not what it should have been. Neil Barofsky, a Democrat who oversaw TARP, gave Obama's Dodd-Frank Act an F rating. Part of this is because Obama and his administration refused to split up the big banks.
I'm not going to say the Dodd-Frank act is a complete failure, but it's definitely not deserving of an A rating or even a B... maybe a C, but most likely a D. Anyways, here's an article featuring the opinion of sixteen experts regarding what's been good and what's been bad with Obama's Wall Street Reform.
4) Iraq
Ah... the topic that led to those pompous insults of yours lol. As I explained up above, I was thinking of the War on Terror as a whole. You proved me wrong, but I really did not feel like saying "Yep... you're right!".
Here is what I know, without looking anything up (you probably won't believe me, but whatever!). We went to war with Iraq because we thought they were safe-harboring al Qaeda, which ended up being false. Some people even think that Bush declared war on Iraq to finish what his father left from the Gulf War.
Is that good or am I missing something? I think I do have the basic gist of it, I just don't know too many of the details.
5) Afghanistan
Obama has sent over 60,000 troops to Afghanistan since he took office, which is double the amount that were sent under Bush and more soldiers have died under Obama, than Bush.
6) Osama bin laden
Bush closing Alec Station was considered to be a good move at the time. It allowed the CIA to better focus their efforts on finding Bin Laden... it actually says so in the article that you provided. Did Bush say they weren't focused on finding Bin Laden? Yeah, but I think he was full of shit. We know for a fact that the CIA was searching aggressively for Bin Laden leading up to his death. Obama gets the honor of having the defeat of Bin Laden occur under his presidency.
7) U.S. Auto Industry
I gave Obama credit for this one, so I don't think I need to go into any more detail.
8) Recapitalized Banks
Doesn't this fall under the Dodd-Frank Act? How did it end up on the list twice?
9) Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
I can't really do anything but give him credit for this... but it really should have been an easy choice for a president serving these last few years, especially a Democrat.
10) Moammar Gaddafi
Okay, that's fine... but didn't the UK, France and the rebels play a larger role in the defeat of Gaddafi? That doesn't make Obama's role obsolete, but it was a joint effort. Ah, whatever. I'll give it to him.
Alright! There ya go, links and stuff! lol
I'll make sure to respond to the other topics later.
I'm going to give your arguments my full attention and give you the responses I assume you were looking for (well, you probably just wanted me to agree with you... but whatever).
I did expect a concession, but I certainly prefer a good argument (this is a debate site after all) - it's the in-between that sucks.
1) Health Care Reform
Saying it's going to be a good thing takes a certain amount of faith, as does saying it will be a bad thing.
Indeed; ObamaCare could save the life of the next Hitler, etc.
All we can really do is a rough cost benefit analysis, in conjunction with showing how the old system wasn't doing us many favors.
> medical debt was the number one reason behind bankruptcy filings even though three quarters of those were insured when their medical problems began ref
> Costs of the uninsured passed along to the insured ref
> Life expectancy in the United States used to be 1.5 years above the OECD average, now it's 1.4 years below the OECD average of 80.1 years ref
> Infant mortality, deaths per 1,000 live births, is 6.1 in the US, 2 more than the OECD average of 4.1 ref
> Health spending in the U.S. was about 90% higher than in many other industrialized countries. ref
> The United States spends more than two-and-a-half times the OECD per-capita average ref
> fewer physicians per person than in most other OECD countries ref
> Lack of portability reduces workforce mobility and inhibits the economy ref
> Insured employees are healthier, more productive, and miss fewer days of work ref
> Children with poor health care have higher levels of school absence, get lower grades, and have decreased future economic potential ref
My stance is that I'd rather not take the risk and I don't like socialized healthcare.what will happen when they take over our healthcare!?
ObamaCare is far from 'socialized healthcare'. Many liberals were pushing for a single-payer system (i.e. Medicare-for-all), but not only did that not happen, there isn't even one possible government-run plan that a person can choose from (the so-called public option). ObamaCare basically sets the legal boundaries for private insurance and then allows them to compete and is largely based on prior Republican ideas.
> Eliminates denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions
> Eliminates annual and lifetime insurance caps
> Eliminates the practice of collecting premiums until someone gets sick and then rescinding their coverage
> Limits cost variation to specific factors: age (limited to a 3 to 1 ratio), geographic area, family composition, and tobacco use (limited to 1.5. to 1 ratio)
> Allows free (no co-pay) access to preventative procedures (colonoscopies, mammograms, immunizations, etc.)
> Allows children to stay on their parents insurance until age 26
> Extends authorization and funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) through 2015
> Allows Medicaid coverage for people with incomes up to 138% of poverty level
> Provides Premium subsidies for families with incomes between 133-400% of federal poverty level
> Insurance cannot use more than 20% of premiums for overhead in the individual and small group markets and 15% for plans in the large group market
> Creates tax cuts for small businesses that contribute to health insurance plans for their employees ref
> Tax credits and Grants for research towards curing cancer within 30 years: ref
> Funds research comparing the clinical effectiveness of medical treatments - will serve as a repository for best-practices.
> Facilitates a drastic increase in the number of medical care professionals: primary care doctors, nurses, assistants, home-care aides, etc. ref
> Grants to States to incentivize Medicaid enrollees to participate in comprehensive health lifestyle programs
> Grants to small employers that establish wellness programs.
> Grants to States to develop, implement, and evaluate alternatives to current tort litigations.
> Provides incentives to accountable care organizations save money for Medicare programs
> Reduces payments for some hospital re-admissions
> Requires disclosure of financial relationships between health entities, including physicians, hospitals, pharmacists, other providers, and manufacturers and distributors of covered drugs, devices, biologicals, and medical supplies.
> Authorizes the Food and Drug Administration to approve generic versions of biologic drugs after 12 years
> Creates the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) to foster the creation of non-profit, member-run health insurance companies.
I guess we're just going to have to wait and see...
Some of the early indications are pretty positive:
Health care cost inflation is rising at its slowest pace in a half century (1%) and is now lower than overall inflation, which itself has been historically slow in recent years. ref
And ObamaCare appears to be a substantive part of what is bending the curve ref
Neil Barofsky, a Democrat who oversaw TARP, gave Obama's Dodd-Frank Act an F rating.
At the end of that article, Barofsky says: "repealing Dodd-Frank and not doing anything else to deal with the problem would be worse than what we have today," indicating that it is an accomplishment even if he thinks it did not go far enough.
here's an article featuring the opinion of sixteen experts regarding what's been good and what's been bad with Obama's Wall Street Reform.
I think the article you referenced is a fair anthology of opinions and in general shows that Dodd-Frank, while not perfect, has improved the situation.
4) Iraq
we thought they were safe-harboring al Qaeda
Depends on who the "we" is. The administration was making this claim, so much of the public and Congress believed this to be the case, but the intelligence community did not support this claim. As I posted earlier, the Inspector General concluded that Douglas Feith's office disseminated alternative intelligence assessments that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community (ref) and the CIA director himself said we never established that link (ref)
Is that good or am I missing something?
One of the other major contentions was that Iraq had 'weapons of mass destruction' which also turned out to be false. Rumsfeld said "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - that should have been a clue.
Iraq had allowed inspectors in and the inspectors findings had been "consistent with Iraq's declarations." They were being allowed to destroy old stockpiles, etc. Yet about one month after their report, without allowing the inspectors to finish or going back to the U.N., the inspectors were removed and Shock and Awe began.
Some people even think that Bush declared war on Iraq to finish what his father left from the Gulf War.
Or to kill Saddam for trying to assassinate George Bush Sr. in 1993, or because Afghanistan wasn't going well and there were no great targets there, etc. There were/are lots of alternative hypotheses floated.
5) Afghanistan
more soldiers have died under Obama, than Bush
I know this is under the Afghanistan so hopefully people assume that this statement applies only to Afghanistan, but I feel it might be important to clear up any ambiguity - there have been more military fatalities in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush, but more than twice as many soldiers were killed under Bush when looking at Iraq and Afghanistan combined. As an additional note, deaths in Afghanistan fell this year by more than 60%.
When Obama ran, he told everyone that he would increase troops in Afghanistan so no one should be surprised that he did. So far he is still on track to end the combat operations there next year. The lead role has been transferred to Afghan forces, etc. But I will say that our role in Afghanistan is far from done.
6) Osama bin laden
Bush closing Alec Station was considered to be a good move at the time.
Not by the guy who initially headed the unit:
"Michael Scheuer, a former senior C.I.A. official who was the first head of the unit, said the move reflected a view within the agency that Mr. bin Laden was no longer the threat he once was.
Mr. Scheuer said that view was mistaken." (from the same article)
It allowed the CIA to better focus their efforts on finding Bin Laden
It doesn't say it allows them to "better" focus on Bin Laden, it says that the priority for Bin Laden remained high and that they can better focus on al Qaeda and terrorist trends in general.
Did Bush say they weren't focused on finding Bin Laden? Yeah, but I think he was full of shit. We know for a fact that the CIA was searching aggressively for Bin Laden leading up to his death.
I don't think anyone is asserting that the Bush administration fully stopped searching for Osama, only that it lessened focus on him as an individual and that going into Iraq pulled resources that could have otherwise been directed at Osama and al Qaeda.
Obama gets the honor of having the defeat of Bin Laden occur under his presidency.
cool.
7) U.S. Auto Industry
I gave Obama credit for this one, so I don't think I need to go into any more detail.
cool.
8) Recapitalized Banks
Doesn't this fall under the Dodd-Frank Act? How did it end up on the list twice?
I am pretty sure they meant the Legacy Securities Public-Private Investment Program which happened before Dodd-Frank was enacted.
it really should have been an easy choice for a president serving these last few years, especially a Democrat.
Having some military leaders and personnel speak against it and some saying we shouldn't do such a big change while at war made it more difficult than it otherwise would/should have been.
I can't really do anything but give him credit
cool
10) Moammar Gaddafi
didn't the UK, France and the rebels play a larger role in the defeat of Gaddafi? That doesn't make Obama's role obsolete, but it was a joint effort.
Indeed it was a joint effort; no one said Obama tracked Gaddafi down in his spare time.
From the initial post:
"In March 2011, joined a coalition of European and Arab governments in military action, including air power and naval blockade, against Gaddafi regime to defend Libyan civilians and support rebel troops. Gaddafi’s forty-two-year rule ended when the dictator was overthrown and killed by rebels on October 20, 2011. No American lives were lost."
The debate basically went straight from the mention of stimulus to debating the debt which I think misses some important aspects of the stimulus:
> how much deeper would the recession have gone with no intervention (if there is any time for increasing government debt, it is during recessions)
> The Stimulus was signed on February 17, 2009 and the recession officially ended in June 2009
> GDP was -8.3% in Q4 of 2008 but went into the positive range (+1.3%) by Q3 of 2009 (from bea.gov Table 1.1.1)
> Job growth - We lost nearly 2 million jobs in Q4 of 2008 and 2.3 million in Q1 of 2009 but the trajectory changed and we started adding private sector jobs by March 2010 and the private sector has since added jobs for 44 months in a row refref
You just assumed that I meant Jan. '09- Jan '12
As you just mentioned, you said "in his first three years", which by definition was Jan 2009 to Jan 2012, so I made no assumptions in that regard.
I assume that you think it was Bush's fault entirely...
That would be an incorrect assumption. There is certainly blame enough to go around for Clinton, Summers, the Reserve, the SEC, Congress, ratings agencies, the investment banks, and many others
A few things:
i) Of course since the collapse happened before Obama took office, all of these pre-date his term and policies.
ii) The causes of the collapse would seem to be a lot more relevant to the discussion of Wall Street Reform rather than the Stimulus
iii) On repealing Glass Stegall -
> The repeal was a conservative idea. The bill that repealed it was called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, named for 3 Republicans, and initially every Democrat in the Senate except Fritz Hollings of South Carolina voted against it - ref
> I'll let Clinton explain what blame he thinks he deserves and what he doesn't ref
iv) reducing Fed interest rates to get past the dot-com bubble is different than keeping them there long after
v) Part of Dodd-Frank was directed at fixing the conflict of interests that Credit Rating Agencies. It is still in progress
vi) SEC allowing unlimited leverage and superseding anti-predatory lending laws occurred under Bush and are addressed in Dodd-Frank refref
vii) Executive incentives/claw-backs are also addressed in Dodd-Frank ref
do you remember who came next? Morsi, which ended up resulting in even more protests.
Does the inability to establish a full democracy in Egypt in a year mean Mubarak should have continued his 30 year reign?
12) Reversed Bush Torture Policies
You really believe that they aren't still torturing terrorists?
Here is the Executive Order that was issued. Politifact followed up in Nov 2011 and still rated the promise as kept ref. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
13) America’s Image Abroad
Everyone's pissed off
Our favorability is still up an average of 10% from 2008 ref
14) Kicked Banks Out of Federal Student Loan Program, Expanded Pell Grant Spending
I don't know much about this, so alright
Instead of securing bank loans through Federal Family Educational Loan program (guaranteeing profits for banks), loans are now issued directly to students saving about 68 Billion over the next 10 years.
Some of that savings will be used to increase the number of Pell grants and they tied the maximum Pell grant award to CPI.
15) Race to the Top
Not many people support that one
Argumentum ad populum. Note that 'many people' includes many Democrats who don't like the pressure on teacher unions and focus on charter schools etc. rather than disparities between rich and poor schools.
The initial results are mixed, but I'll demur from a conclusive opinion until more results are in. TN and DC
16) Boosted Fuel Efficiency Standards
We'll see how that goes...
The standards started with the 2012 model year so we are already seeing how that goes. Should we expect it to go any differently than raising fuel standards have gone in the past?
17) Coordinated International Response to Financial Crisis
Obama's economic/financial record is not good, if you haven't noticed
That's not exactly a response to the topic if you haven't noticed.
18) Passed Mini Stimuli
And now there's a controversy about where that money really went
I think it is referring to this which wasn't an allocation of money so wondering where it went is not a valid concern - it was a series of tax cuts and credits along with extending unemployment (the payroll tax cut was extended for another 2 months in December 2011).
19) Asia Pivot
Began? Two years later and not a single marine is over there.
200 marines just got back from spending 6 months over there. Also, Navy ships touring that area have nearly doubled. The the next round of 1,150 Marines can't be sent until next year because the base hasn't been built by the Australian government yet. ref
20) Increased Support for Veterans
Yet more veterans supported Romney than Obama
Ad populum strawman, and not a great one at that.
There aren't good statistics on how veterans vote since it is illegal to ask them (18 USC 596), however, Fox News did an exit poll of Veterans in Virginia which showed both candidates getting 49%. ref
Additionally Obama got nearly double the campaign donations from Military personnel. ref
Does the inability to establish a full democracy in Egypt in a year mean Mubarak should have continued his 30 year reign?
The Egyptian opinion of America has gone down since then. Should we have gotten involved in the first place? It seems like we did more harm than good.
Here is the Executive Order that was issued. Politifact followed up in Nov 2011 and still rated the promise as kept ref. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Of course, that may not be the most reliable of information... but I seriously doubt that they aren't still torturing terrorists. Our government may even be outsourcing torture to other countries.
Our favorability is still up an average of 10% from 2008
That's not exactly a response to the topic if you haven't noticed.
That comment didn't really help either, if you haven't noticed.
There aren't good statistics on how veterans vote since it is illegal to ask them (18 USC 596), however, Fox News did an exit poll of Veterans in Virginia which showed both candidates getting 49%
Initially we were publicly supportive and privately firm, but after long train of abuses and usurpations (e.g. arresting bloggers, postponing elections, decreeing that demonstrations in support of the judges who want independence from executive authority were illegal, putting Presidential contenders in jail, beating torturing and killing protesters, etc.), Obama said there should be a peaceful transition and that it should include free and fair elections, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and the freedom to access information.
It's up for certain nations, but it's also down for many countries.
That's why I used the average for all the countries that had data for 2008 and 2013:
Country '08 Fav '13 fav dif
Spain 33% | 62% +29%
Indonesia 37% | 61% +24%
France 42% | 64% +22%
Germany 31% | 53% +22%
Australia 46% | 66% +20%
Mexico 47% | 66% +19%
Argentina 22% | 41% +19%
Japan 50% | 69% +19%
South Africa 60% | 72% +12%
Turkey 12% | 21% +9%
South Korea 70% | 78% +8%
Russia 46% |��51% +5%
Britain 53% | 58% +5%
China 41% | 40% -1%
Poland 68% |��67% -1%
Lebanon 51% | 47%�� -4%
Jordan 19% |��14% -5%
Egypt 22% | 16% -6%
Pakistan 19% | 11% -8%
----------------------------------------------
Average 40% | 50% 10%
Out of the 19 nations that had data for both years, 6 had a net decrease (less than one-third), and 13 had a net increase (more than two-thirds) - with 9 gaining by double digits.
While his appeal has waned since being newly elected, more than 61.5% of the countries in the poll you reference still rate Obama as favorable. (Thus the title: "Confidence in Obama High but Declining")
this debate is about Obama
Item 13 from the list is "Improved America’s Image Abroad" - thus a comparison is in order.
"Obama is still rated more highly than President George W. Bush was in most countries surveyed in 2007 and 2013. The gap in confidence in the two American leaders is especially large in Europe. But even in the Middle East, where both presidents received low ratings, the Turks, Egyptians and Jordanians are much more likely to have confidence in Obama than they did in Bush."
"In 37 of the 47 countries surveyed, including the United States, majorities say they have little or no trust in Bush to do the right thing in world affairs. Only in Israel and six of the 10 nations surveyed in sub-Saharan Africa do majorities express confidence in Bush. And in most countries where trend data are available, confidence in Bush has either declined in recent years or held steady at very low levels."
"Bush retains majority support in Israel, where 57% express confidence in his leadership. But this represents a decline of 26 percentage points since 2003."
"Obama is still rated more highly than President George W. Bush was in most countries surveyed in 2007 and 2013. The gap in confidence in the two American leaders is especially large in Europe. But even in the Middle East, where both presidents received low ratings, the Turks, Egyptians and Jordanians are much more likely to have confidence in Obama than they did in Bush."
The confidence in Bush was low in 2007, but they're comparing it to the confidence in Obama in 2013. Wouldn't it be safer to compare confidence in Bush from 2005, or wait until 2015 to compare Obama to Bush in 2007?
It provides the opportunity for someone to look at the actual reference:
"17. Coordinated International Response to Financial Crisis:
To keep world economy out of recession in 2009 and 2010, helped secure from G-20 nations more than $500 billion for the IMF to provide lines of credit and other support to emerging market countries, which kept them liquid and avoided crises with their currencies."
I was looking for something reflective of their actual vote rather than prospective, but fair enough - I can find a poll that says the Military favored Obama - ref; my original statement stands - the ad populum argument of how veterans vote does not mean Obama did nothing for the military.
> largest spending increase in 30 years for the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve medical facilities and national cemeteries, and to assist states in acquiring or constructing state nursing homes and extended care facilities.
Rather than the 'accomplishment' column, I'll just put this in the 'progress in the right direction' column since there is still a lot that needs done.
The Obama administration expanded eligibility for Agent Orange and Gulf War disability claims (extending the allowable claim period and the presumptive illnesses), but those contributed to an already huge problem with backlogged disability claims resulting from Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, but the backlog is finally coming down.
> The backlog has decreased by 34% since March of this year.
> A record number of claims has been handled in each of the past three years
> The accuracy of assessing claims has improved
> 99.4 percent of claims older than 2 years and 93 Percent of claims older than 1 year have been completed.
And they're now creating new ones, which aren't going very well
Obama was able to get Russia and China to back the sanctions ref
For the 1st time in more than 30 years our leaders are talking, and are discussing lifting some sanctions in return for Iranian concessions on their nuclear program. ref
Today, Iran signed an agreement to start allowing IAEA to inspect some of its facilities ref
22) Dirtiest Power Plants
It's better for the environment, but it's also costing jobs.
The need for energy still exists - so those employees will go to work in cleaner plants and/or jobs will be created in other energy sectors
25) Protected Two Liberal Seats on the U.S. Supreme Court
only impressive to other liberals
and people who care about having the diversity of the Court at least somewhat correspond to the public at large (Sotomayor and Kagan are the 3rd and 4th women to ever be on the Court; Sotomayor is the only Hispanic on the Court) - so, yeah, mostly liberals.
26) Improved Food Safety System
Okay
27) New START Treaty
You think they're keeping to their agreement? I doubt it
You could look at it two ways, he's helping criminals get out of jail sooner (which he is) or he's saving tax payer dollars. The question is, do you like the fact that this helps criminals?
You could look at it a third way, that it reduces the disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine from 100:1 down to 18:1 and increases fines and sentences for many criminals. ref
33) Trimmed and Reoriented Missile Defense
he was planning on blowing up Syria's chemical weapons, if you don't remember that discussion we had not too long ago.
perhaps it is you who didn't remember, the topic that is... (it's Missle Defense)
35) Let Space Shuttle Die and Killed Planned Moon Mission
NASA is practically dead because of him
Retiring the space shuttle program after the completion of the space station had been the plan since 2004 ref
Obama increased NASA's budget in 2009 and 2010 and all of his budgets have given NASA more nominal dollars than they got in 2008 so their cut has only been a fraction of inflation. ref
36) Invested Heavily in Renewable Technology
Spend, spend, spend... he just keeps increasing the debt
So, if he cuts spending he's wrong, and if he increases spending he is wrong?
Investing in renewable energy lessens our dependence on foreign nations and will reduce spending in the long term.
37) Crafting Next-Generation School Tests
The site you got this list from couldn't even come up with fifty accomplishments
I assume she got it from this, or a derivitive. I posted a list here with a few more.
38) Cracked Down on Bad For-Profit Colleges
That hasn't been going too well
Some of the rules have been blocked in the courts and are in the process of being rewritten, but the industry has been losing students and stock prices have dwindled and schools are definitely changing.
was that really worth billions of dollars in spending?
First, the bill spends less than half a billion a year ref
Second, if in the long run it saves billions in the cost of health care for diseases related to obesity (not to mention the lives of the people involved), then, yes.
40) Expanded Hate Crimes Protections
was it worth $680 billion?
680 Billion was the cost for the entire National Defense Authorization Act of 2010, not the cost of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act which was a rider to the bill.
35.Obama increased NASA's budget in 2009 and 2010 and all of his budgets have given NASA more nominal dollars than they got in 2008 so their cut has only been a fraction of inflation.
Why do you guys celebrate it as the killing of the moon mission and retiring the space shuttle instead of him making NASA better?
39.First, the bill spends less than half a billion a year
Won't that add up to billions after a few years?
40.680 Billion was the cost for the entire National Defense Authorization Act of 2010, not the cost of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act which was a rider to the bill.
Either way, the idea of hate crimes only perpetuates racism instead of getting rid of it.
35) Why do you guys celebrate it as the killing of the moon mission and retiring the space shuttle instead of him making NASA better?
Since it wasn't my list I will post Washington Monthly's justification for why they thought it was a good thing:
"Allowed the expensive ($1 billion per launch), badly designed, dangerous shuttle program to make its final launch on July 8, 2011. Cut off funding for even more bloated and problem-plagued Bush-era Constellation program to build moon base in favor of support for private-sector low-earth orbit ventures, research on new rocket technologies for long-distance manned flight missions, and unmanned space exploration, including the largest interplanetary rover ever launched, which will investigate Mars’s potential to support life."
A report by NASA said Constellation would likely not be ready to reach the ISS before the ISS is planned to be discontinued. ref
I think Obama would contend the he is improving NASA by eliminating poor programs, bringing in the private sector, and focusing on other goals: robotic exploration, heavy lift rocket, asteroid landing, Mars, etc.
"we will actually reach space faster and more often under this new plan, in ways that will help us improve our technological capacity and lower our costs, which are both essential for the long-term sustainability of space flight. In fact, through our plan, we’ll be sending many more astronauts to space over the next decade."
39) Won't that add up to billions after a few years?
Won't any positive number add up to billions eventually?
Care to address the substance, namely the Second part?
40) Either way, the idea of hate crimes only perpetuates racism instead of getting rid of it.
"Either way"? - so, you only care about hundreds of billions of dollars if you think they can be blamed on Obama?
perpetuates racism
your evidence is?
The existence of a hate crimes law doesn't make/keep someone bigoted.
Federal hate crimes laws allow the federal government to prosecute cases that local governments do not as a backstop against local governments that won't prosecute based on the nature of the crime. They additionally address the terroristic element of some hate crimes which intimidate others in the affected class.
I think Obama would contend the he is improving NASA by eliminating poor programs, bringing in the private sector, and focusing on other goals: robotic exploration, heavy lift rocket, asteroid landing, Mars, etc.
Too bad his supporters are too dumb to represent him that way.
Won't any positive number add up to billions eventually?
Care to address the substance, namely the Second part?
You didn't why should I. There is a huge difference in a program that will only take 5 years to reach billions and claiming it doesn't cost billions, and a program that would take 10,000 years to cost billions and claim it doesn't cost billions.
so, you only care about hundreds of billions of dollars if you think they can be blamed on Obama?
I was saying that the amount of money involved doesn't matter and I wasn't holding the amount against Obama.
The existence of a hate crimes law doesn't make/keep someone bigoted.
It takes a bigot to write hate crime law, sorry it has to. It is literally impossible for hate crime law to not be written by a bigot based on what hate crime law is.
Federal hate crimes laws allow the federal government to prosecute cases that local governments do not as a backstop against local governments that won't prosecute based on the nature of the crime. They additionally address the terroristic element of some hate crimes which intimidate others in the affected class.
Oh, so now randomly generic laws are a good thing. That's news to me.
your evidence is?
When you look at a crime and decide what the punishment is based on the race of the people involved, that's racism, plain and simple.
45) S-CHIP predates ObamaCare by more than a decade.
Guess who wasn't president more than a decade ago. Why does he get credit here?
Item 45 didn't credit Obama with creating CHIP - it said that he expanded CHIP to cover an additional 4 million children.
"45. Expanded Health Coverage for Children: Signed 2009 Children’s Health Insurance Authorization Act, which allows the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to cover health care for 4 million more children, paid for by a tax increase on tobacco products."
I am saying your comment that: "You guys had to stretch pretty far to hit 50" is without merit since I have not only defended nearly every item on the list, but also submitted several others and have linked to other debates where I have posted several more.
Did Washington Monthly, or Centifolia, or I, or the debate topic, or anyone (except for you) say anything about the accomplishments all being at the same (arbitrary and ambiguous) level of importance as saving the car industry?
There is no quantitative valuation for accomplishments. The threshold is whether it was good or not. They are posted on a debate site so if you feel that an accomplishment does not exceed that threshold, feel free to (attempt to) debate it.
Saying that something should be judged on its own merits is, of course, not the same as saying it is not a great accomplishment. I have not said that any of the accomplishments are big or small or great or magnificent. In fact, I have specifically intimated that such a valuation is unfeasible.
If you can't debate the substance, just make something up, eh?
Too bad his supporters are too dumb to represent him that way
The headline out of context may not be worded in the best way, but the full context was part of Centifolia's post.
"35. Let Space Shuttle Die and Killed Planned Moon Mission: Allowed the expensive ($1 billion per launch), badly designed, dangerous shuttle program to make its final launch on July 8, 2011. Cut off funding for even more bloated and problem-plagued Bush-era Constellation program to build moon base in favor of support for private-sector low-earth orbit ventures, research on new rocket technologies for long-distance manned flight missions, and unmanned space exploration, including the largest interplanetary rover ever launched, which will investigate Mars’s potential to support life."
In context just sounds like he decided to cut funding to NASA without coming up with something better to spend the money on. Then telling the private companies to do space exploration. How is that improving NASA?
just sounds like he decided to cut funding to NASA without coming up with something better
It says "... in favor of support for private-sector low-earth orbit ventures, research on new rocket technologies for long-distance manned flight missions, and unmanned space exploration, including the largest interplanetary rover ever launched, which will investigate Mars’s potential to support life." (emphasis added)
Explicitly showing that Obama supported alternatives and lists more than just "telling the private companies" to do it.
"Cut off funding for even more bloated and problem-plagued Bush-era Constellation program to build moon base in favor of support for private-sector low-earth orbit ventures, research on new rocket technologies for long-distance manned flight missions, and unmanned space exploration, including the largest interplanetary rover ever launched, which will investigate Mars’s potential to support life."
The ventures with the private-sector for low-earth orbit are a substitute for the Constellation program - not NASA as a whole.
And I apparently must repeat that it mentions "research on new rocket technologies for long-distance manned flight missions, and unmanned space exploration, including the largest interplanetary rover ever launched, which will investigate Mars’s potential to support life."
It is becoming fairly obvious how someone so unwilling or unable to become aquainted with the facts has such a distorted perception of Obama.
The ventures with the private-sector for low-earth orbit are a substitute for the Constellation program - not NASA as a whole.
That statement only mentions taking away money from NASA and not making NASA any better.
And I apparently must repeat that it mentions "research on new rocket technologies for long-distance manned flight missions, and unmanned space exploration, including the largest interplanetary rover ever launched, which will investigate Mars’s potential to support life."
Is that supposed to be NASA or private sector?
It is becoming fairly obvious how someone so unwilling or unable to become aquainted with the facts has such a distorted perception of Obama.
I don't like his followers because they don't know how to make him look good.
It takes a bigot to write hate crime law, sorry it has to. It is literally impossible for hate crime law to not be written by a bigot based on what hate crime law is.
If a hate crime law is directed at crimes based on race, then it applies to white on black and black on white crime and is racially neutral.
Also, it doesn't care about the actual race of the participants only the race (or other factor) as perceived by the perpetrator.
B) If it were written that way, why would you need it?
For the reasons I gave earlier:
1) Federal hate crimes laws allow the federal government to prosecute cases where local governments do not. For instance, if a crime happens against a Muslim, or other religious group, and the local law enforcement does not pursue enforcement because of a similar bias against that group - the federal government can, in some instances, step in and prosecute.
2) They address the added terroristic element of some hate crimes which intimidate others in the community.
it is how other people perceive what the perpetrator perceived
Looking at a compendium of information and deciding that beyond a reasonable doubt the perpetrator committed the crime based on race, religion, etc. does not make the judge, jury, law-makers, etc. bigoted against the same groups as the perpetrator.
A) That sounds like anti discrimination law not hate crime law. Can you tell me which section is allowing hate crime prosecution?
B) Awesome, it is racist and a violation of the constitution. If it is a local crime and the feds step in and claim jurisdiction that's bad.
C) Except with real element of intent cases the lawyer has to present evidence not just say look this guy is black and that guy is white.
Looking at a compendium of information and deciding that beyond a reasonable doubt the perpetrator committed the crime based on race, religion, etc. does not make the judge, jury, law-makers, etc. bigoted against the same groups as the perpetrator.
Yeah, they are bigoted against the group the perpetrator belonged to.
A) That sounds like anti discrimination law not hate crime law. Can you tell me which section is allowing hate crime prosecution?
Finally, the cognitive dissonance is kicking in - you are almost there.
That sounds like anti discrimination law not hate crime law.
That's because hate crime law is anti discrimination law.
If it is a local crime and the feds step in and claim jurisdiction that's bad.
The feds assume jurisdiction in these cases when a person is pursuing federally protected activities.
with real element of intent cases the lawyer has to present evidence not just say look this guy is black and that guy is white.
Can you feel your ignorance melting away... I wonder if you will you miss it. These cases are prosecuted by providing evidence of intent, not by anyone saying this guy looks white and this guy looks black therefore it's a hate crime, case closed.
Yeah, they are bigoted against the group the perpetrator belonged to.
The only group the perpetrator belongs to is perpetrators.
That's because hate crime law is anti discrimination law.
Do you not know the difference between hate crime laws and anti discrimination laws?
The feds assume jurisdiction in these cases when a person is pursuing federally protected activities.
You have no idea what a hate crime is do you?
Can you feel your ignorance melting away... I wonder if you will you miss it. These cases are prosecuted by providing evidence of intent, not by anyone saying this guy looks white and this guy looks black therefore it's a hate crime, case closed.
Can you give an example of a hate crime case?
18 USC § 249 - Hate crime acts
Finally, the hate crime laws. I don't think these are enforced the way you claim. I have never seen a case where a black guy got an extra 10 years because he attacked a white guy. Do you have an example?
From the law mentioned:
Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person
Why do you need to add extra punishment? Are we not punishing people enough for shooting people, setting them on fire, or blowing them up? Why aren't we punishing people the proper amount?
Notice that it records crimes that were: Anti-White, Anti-Black, Anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native, Anti-Asian/Pacific Islander, Anti-Multiple Races, Group
'(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, ‘‘hate crime’’ means a crime
in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the
case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the
crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion,
national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation
of any person.'
Ooh, I guess you missed the part about a crime. A hate crime is a crime already and there is the extra bias part. Firing someone is not a crime, so firing someone for being black is not a hate crime.
A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias.
Guess what, anti discrimination does not fall into this category.
Here are the FBI statistics related to hate crimes:
Oh look at this. Anti white is 504 and anti black is over 2000. About 6000 overall incidents. How is it that 10% of the population is the target of 33% of hate crimes? Do you actually believe that there is that much anti black sentiment in this country. There is only 760 anti gay. It looks very much like the hate crime laws are being enforced in a biased manner.
Notice that it records crimes that were: Anti-White, Anti-Black, Anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native, Anti-Asian/Pacific Islander, Anti-Multiple Races, Group
That's good at least.
You really can try to find out things before putting your foot in your mouth.
I knew I could, I was specifically asking if you had the ability because you didn't know the difference between hate crime and anti discrimination.
Only because you prefer to remain in ignorance. Do you have an example of how it works in your imagined world??
Yeah dumbass, you just gave it. White guy(s) gets in trouble for attacking black guy. Where is the black guy getting in trouble for attacking the white guy?
I literally linked you to the exact text of the law.
anti discrimination does not fall into this category
It doesn't 'fall into' this category, it encompasses it.
Anti-discrimination is a panoply that includes to several sections of US law (housing, employment, voting, etc.) including hate crimes.
Do you actually believe that there is that much anti black sentiment in this country.
I used to live in the South so, yes. I would actually have guessed a bit higher. What do you think the ratio of White Supremacists to Black Supremacists is? You will need a lot more than those statistics to prove discrimination in enforcement. Additionally, discrimination in enforcement does not make lawmakers bigoted.
When people want the statistics to show something else, you get this:
- notice that it says the "DA's office will have to show that Washington either intentionally selected the victim based on his race, or committed the act itself based on the victim's race" which is exactly how I described and you said "I don't think these are enforced the way you claim."
It doesn't 'fall into' this category, it encompasses it.
Anti-discrimination is a panoply that includes to several sections of US law (housing, employment, voting, etc.) including hate crimes.
That's like discussing squares and saying shapes have some bearing on the conversation. Sure squares are shapes, but that doesn't mean discussing shapes means you are getting anywhere with squares. Plus, your idea is wrong anti discrimination law that you pointed me to does not encompass the hate crime law that you had to separately show.
When people want the statistics to show something else, you get this:
Why have hate crime legislation if it leads to this?
Additionally, discrimination in enforcement does not make lawmakers bigoted.
The fact that they decided race should be considered when punishing someone is what indicates they are bigots.
notice that it says the "DA's office will have to show that Washington either intentionally selected the victim based on his race, or committed the act itself based on the victim's race" which is exactly how I described and you said "I don't think these are enforced the way you claim."
I didn't see it, but I guess they are doing the right thing. I still don't understand how punching someone in the face so hard they die 5 days later requires hate crime law to prosecute it. Aren't these all violations of free speech?
Using your analogy, all I said was squares (hate-crimes laws) are shapes (anti-discrimination laws), and you responded that I don’t know what hate crimes are, etc. - implying that you think hate crime laws are squares but anti-discrimination laws are circles.
Anti-discrimination laws are any laws designed to prevent/punish acts based on discrimination.
The fact that they decided race should be considered when punishing someone is what indicates they are bigots.
That's absurd. It does not take a racist to say "Don’t attack someone because of what race you think they are."
Why have hate crime legislation if it leads to this?
I have already told you why the laws are useful. The link just shows that one person looking at the statistics can say, "How is it that 10% of the population is the target of 33% of hate crimes?", and someone else looking at similar numbers will say, "given the arrest rate versus population percentage, the data indicates that blacks are one-and-a-half times more likely to be arrested for a 'hate crime' than whites" – people bring their perceptions to the statistics.
I didn't see it
How do you not see it?? Do you not click the link, does the link not work, can you not read down to the 6th paragraph (or do a search based on the quoted text)??
but I guess they are doing the right thing.
A) § 245 has been around since 1968; don’t you think that if it was racist and unconstitutional, etc. it would have been overturned in court? Even § 249 has already been challenged and upheld in the US Court of Appeals (United States v. Hatch)
B) If you didn't see it, why do you now "guess they are doing the right thing"?? Shouldn't you base your belief on the truth when it is so readily available rather than truthiness, especially if you are trying to assert that you have knowledge on a given subject? Are you conceding that your prior belief of them prosecuting these cases wrongly was baseless?
Aren't these all violations of free speech?
Is speech a crime?? Remember when you knew at least this much: "Ooh, I guess you missed the part about a crime. A hate crime is a crime already..."
Using your analogy, all I said was squares (hate-crimes laws) are shapes (anti-discrimination laws), and you responded that I don’t know what hate crimes are, etc. - implying that you think hate crime laws are squares but anti-discrimination laws are circles.
There is a difference between anti discrimination, anti discrimination laws, and hate crime laws. In my analogy anti discrimination is shapes, and anti discrimination laws are completely different from hate crime laws. So, anti discrimination laws are circles and you gave me circles and said they were squares.
That's absurd. It does not take a racist to say "Don’t attack someone because of what race you think they are."
How can you make a claim that you aren't judging people by race when you clearly think about race? What I am saying is a real non racist wouldn't take race into account.
I have already told you why the laws are useful.
The only thing they do is provide a form of cruel and unusual punishment, another violation of the constitution.
Do you not click the link
It was link(s). Not one link.
§ 245 has been around since 1968; don’t you think that if it was racist and unconstitutional, etc. it would have been overturned in court?
No, I think the courts have their heads up their asses too.
Are you conceding that your prior belief of them prosecuting these cases wrongly was baseless?
Yes, but I still don't see the point.
Is speech a crime?? Remember when you knew at least this much: "Ooh, I guess you missed the part about a crime. A hate crime is a crime already..."
Hey, if saying the n word before punching a black guy gets you an extra 10 years, how is the freedom of speech not under attack.
I'm not sure it can be made much clearer for you than this:
discrimination - acts based on bias
anti-discrimination laws - laws directed at preventing/punishing acts based on bias
hate crimes laws - laws directed at preventing/punishing criminal acts based on bias
Clearly hate-crimes laws are a subset of anti-discrimination laws.
Why do you continue to make assertions when you know that you are not informed on this topic? The law you think is anti-discrimination law rather than hate crimes law, 18 USC § 245, has been one of THE quintessential federal hate crimes laws in this country for decades.
How can you make a claim that you aren't judging people by race
They are not judged on their race, they are judged on evidence of their bias as I have already shown.
The only thing they do is provide a form of cruel and unusual punishment
Sentencing someone who commits a crime to jail is not cruel and unusual punishment, you are grasping at straws..
It was link(s). Not one link.
So, multiple links is an insurmountable hurdle? Sorry for backing up my position with too much information. It was the link just before the quote.
if saying the n word before punching a black guy gets you an extra 10 years, how is the freedom of speech not under attack.
The same way it isn't under attack when someone is charged with a stiffer crime when they say "I'm gonna kill you" before killing someone. Using someone's words and deeds to show intent is different than making those acts into illegal ones.
Clearly hate-crimes laws are a subset of anti-discrimination laws.
No, that's not how laws work. They are completely separate.
Why do you continue to make assertions when you know that you are not informed on this topic?
Because you have failed to show what you are talking about. You say hate crime law is part of one law then show a completely different law proving yourself wrong.
18 USC § 245, has been one of THE quintessential federal hate crimes laws in this country for decades.
No, anti discrimination, not hate crime.
Sentencing someone who commits a crime to jail is not cruel and unusual punishment, you are grasping at straws..
Sentencing someone to an extra tens years than what would usually be assigned is not unusual how?
So, multiple links is an insurmountable hurdle? Sorry for backing up my position with too much information. It was the link just before the quote.
If I gave you a 20 page link and said my proof was somewhere in there go find it, I would be an asshole.
The same way it isn't under attack when someone is charged with a stiffer crime when they say "I'm gonna kill you" before killing someone. Using someone's words and deeds to show intent is different than making those acts into illegal ones.
You don't get an extra sentence for saying I'm gonna kill you because if you had the time to say it they will conclude it is 1st degree with or without you saying it. It was 1st degree either way.
anti-discrimination laws - laws directed at preventing/punishing acts based on bias
hate crimes laws - laws directed at preventing/punishing criminal acts based on bias
The only requirements for the statement "hate-crimes laws are a subset of anti-discrimination laws" to be true is that each definition above be true and that criminal acts be a subset of acts. It is fairly simple English - how are you not getting this?
that's not how laws work. They are completely separate
You have no idea how laws work as evidenced by your posts.
A) Laws can certainly fit into many categories. Is fair-housing law a housing law or an anti-discrimination law?
B) Here's a summary of section (b)(2) of 18 USC 245:
Whoever by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person engaging in federally protected activities because of his race, color, religion or national origin shall be fined or imprisoned under this title.
And here is a definition of a hate-crime law: a law directed at bias-motivated crimes.
You either disagree with that summary, or you have some different definition of hate-crimes laws which excludes that summary. Which is it?
Sentencing someone to an extra tens years than what would usually be assigned is not unusual how?
That would be like saying we can't pass any new laws because we don't already usually consider something as illegal.
If I gave you a 20 page link and said my proof was somewhere in there go find it, I would be an asshole.
A) That's not what I did. You were obviously unwilling or incapable of finding cases where the offenders were not white, so I gave you the first 5 I could find with a modicum of searching. The last one had a quote showing how these crimes are prosecuted which specifically rebutted your now admittedly baseless idea of how they are enforced, so I pasted the quote right after the link.
B) I can read more than 20 pages...
You don't get an extra sentence for saying I'm gonna kill you because if you had the time to say it they will conclude it is 1st degree with or without you saying it. It was 1st degree either way.
um, what? Do you type your answer in Swahili and then google-translate it to English?
Saying "I'm going to kill you" before killing someone would basically rule out negligent homicide and mean 2nd degree murder, and if the person also indicates their plans in any way, that would generally make it 1st degree. You can get all the way from 3rd to 1st with nothing but speech.
If you want to know something, phrase it in the form of a question and people will often gladly help you. Phrase it like an assertion when you are plainly wrong and people will think you are ignorant (or worse).
It really doesn't take much effort to compile a list of groups who refer to 18 USC 245 as a hate-crime law:
anti-discrimination laws - laws directed at preventing/punishing acts based on bias
This statement is not accurate. If you want to use the term that way fine, but that isn't accurate. Actual anti-discrimination laws have nothing to do with hate crime laws. Since it requires separate laws to be written for hate crime legislation they are different things. You started off the conversation confusing the 2 and that's where the problem is. I am simply trying to explain to you how it was confusing.
You have no idea how laws work as evidenced by your posts.
Now you are confusing naming terminology with actual laws. I am trying to say that the first law you quoted was the anti-discrimination law, and the second was the hate crime laws. If you call them some other name that doesn't mean you are right or that I am wrong. The first law you quoted originally is completely separate from the second hate law crime you quoted.
That would be like saying we can't pass any new laws because we don't already usually consider something as illegal.
No, it is nothing like that. If you steal a necklace and get 1 year, how is stealing the same exact necklace but getting ten years not unusual? How would that be a different crime? Can you give a non hate crime example where that makes sense?
A) That's not what I did.
I know, you gave me multiple links. You are worse than an asshole.
Saying "I'm going to kill you" before killing someone would basically rule out negligent homicide and mean 2nd degree murder, and if the person indicates their plans in any way, that would generally make it 1st degree. You can get all the way from 3rd to 1st with nothing but speech.
1st degree murder is always more evident than just saying I'm going to kill you. Sorry if it was in Swahili before.
It really doesn't take much effort to compile a list of groups who refer to 18 USC 245 as a hate-crime law
And that doesn't make sense. So what the heck do they think 249 is? I guess you are right, but it doesn't make sense.
If you want to use the term that way fine, but that isn't accurate.
You must do more than say nu-huh for something to be true, or not true.
Actual anti-discrimination laws have nothing to do with hate crime laws.
As I said, and you did not address, a law is just a law - it can be described as belonging to multiple categories. This is the heart of your confusion.
I am trying to say that the first law you quoted was the anti-discrimination law, and the second was the hate crime laws.
Both sections relate to hate-crimes law and, since hate-crime law is a subset of anti-discrimination law, they both relate to anti-discrimination law also.
Can you give a non hate crime example where that makes sense?
Yes, eco-terrorism. It not only has the element of the original crime, but is designed to intimidate others and is prosecuted as a Federal crime.
you gave me multiple links
all 5 links were brief one page summaries.
1st degree murder is always more evident than just saying I'm going to kill you.
saying "I'm going to kill you" would exclude negligent homicide and generally result in at least 2nd degree, and saying something like "I am going to run you over" and then running them over would show intent and planning and would generally result in 1st degree.
Speech can show intent.
what the heck do they think 249 is?
Multiple laws can relate to the same topic - e.g. hate crimes.
18 USC 245 (b)(2) was one of the major ones (passed in 1968)
18 USC § 249 was an additional section added by the "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act" which added discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, and disability.
The "Hate Crime Statistics Act", "Violence Against Women Act", "Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act", etc. are all Federal acts that created additional statutes which would be considered hate-crimes laws.
Both sections relate to hate-crimes law and, since hate-crime law is a subset of anti-discrimination law, they both relate to anti-discrimination law also.
From what you found, everyone calls anti discrimination law hate crime law, which is inaccurate and causes confusion.
Yes, eco-terrorism. It not only has the element of the original crime, but is designed to intimidate others and is prosecuted as a Federal crime.
You get extra years in prison if you blow up a tractor while it is knocking down a tree as opposed to when it is not doing anything?
all 5 links were brief one page summaries.
And 4 of those links were bull. 80% of what you linked was not worthy of clicking.
saying "I'm going to kill you" would exclude negligent homicide and generally result in at least 2nd degree, and saying something like "I am going to run you over" and then running them over would show intent and planning and would generally result in 1st degree.
Speech can show intent.
If you run someone over, regardless of what you say, it will be considered planned. That's what I am saying.
Multiple laws can relate to the same topic - e.g. hate crimes.
18 USC 245 (b)(2) was one of the major ones (passed in 1968)
18 USC § 249 was an additional section added by the "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act" which added discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, and disability.
The "Hate Crime Statistics Act", "Violence Against Women Act", "Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act", etc. are all Federal acts that created additional statutes which would be considered hate-crimes laws.
Calling it the wrong thing doesn't help anyone. Those laws don't fit your definition of hate crime from before. They are wrong. Calling everything a hate crime law is clearly an effort to divert attention from them being racists onto "racist" perpetrators.
The simple definitions that the world uses and that I will continue to use throughout this debate regardless of when/if you come to the same conclusions are:
discrimination: acts based on bias
anti-discrimination: against acts based on bias
anti-discrimination laws: laws against acts based on bias
hate-crime: criminal acts based on bias
hate-crime laws: laws against criminal acts based on bias
And since criminal acts are a subset of acts, it follows logically that hate-crime laws are a subset of anti-discrimination laws.
This is simple English and logic. If you disagree with any of the above, you are wrong. Study some more and come back when you understand.
Haha, you are wrong. No one uses those terms like that, therefore you are wrong based on your logic. Hate crime laws is considered to be anything racially motivated, no crime actually has to be committed.
This is simple English and logic.
I wish, but the hateful bigoted lawmakers use language to make people think they are stopping some great evil. What sounds more effective, anti hate, or anti discrimination? They use anti hate to lie to the American public. It is sad.
If you disagree with any of the above, you are wrong. Study some more and come back when you understand.
Hate crime laws is considered to be anything racially motivated, no crime actually has to be committed.
um - it has 'crime' right there in the name... are you seriously this dense?
No one uses those terms like that
"DEFINITION.—In this section, 'hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."
"The current federal law regarding hate crimes deals with crimes where the offender is motivated by bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or ethnicity/national origin."
um - it has 'crime' right there in the name... are you seriously this dense?
I will just call murder fun time and it is no longer a crime, sweet.
In this section
For one section doesn't make you correct. Like I said, they use hate crime for everything. You are wrong about anti discrimination. There is no such thing as anti discrimination law apparently.
There is no such thing as anti discrimination law apparently.
wow - this is pretty hilarious now.
I'll phrase it another way for you.
If an act by itself isnot a crime, like not giving someone a job, or not renting to someone, then a law against performing that act based solely on race, religion, etc. would be described as an anti-discrimination law.
If an act by itself is a crime, like murder, assault, then a law against performing that act based solely on race, religion, etc. would be described as a hate-crime law.
If an act by itself is not a crime, like not giving someone a job, or not renting to someone, then a law against performing that act based solely on race, religion, etc. would be described as an anti-discrimination law.
WRONG. THE DOJ CALLS IT A HATE CRIME.
I wish your last 2 paragraphs were correct. I was trying to argue that is what it meant, but you pointed out that the DOJ disagrees with you.
I was arguing the last 2 paragraphs initially and you stopped me.
I didn't see them call it anti discrimination laws though either.
I'll give you a puzzle and have you work backward:
What would you call a law that is in opposition to discrimination??? (hint: the prefix anti- means against, or in opposition to.)
I was arguing for those definitions and you shot me down for it
re-read.
Me: posted a link to 18 USC 245
You:"That sounds like anti discrimination law not hate crime law."
- you were right that it was anti discrimination law but wrong that it did not include hate-crime law
Me: "hate crime law is anti discrimination law"
- in the squares are shapes sense
Then you went on a tirade with: "Do you not know the difference between hate crime laws and anti discrimination laws?" and "You have no idea what a hate crime is do you?" obviously not knowing what you were talking about.
I consistently stated that anti-discrimination laws "encompassed" hate-crimes laws and conversely that hate-crimes laws were a subset of anti-discrimination laws.
The record is plain to see.
laws are just laws. people use adjectives to describe some group of laws but that doesn't make a law fall into any one category.
I'll give you a puzzle and have you work backward:
What would you call a law that is in opposition to discrimination??? (hint: the prefix anit- means against, or in opposition to.)
Apparently hate crime if I follow everyone else. Sucks right? I wish you were right because you make sense. Other people don't agree with you, so you are wrong.
Me: "hate crime law is anti discrimination law"
- in the squares are shapes sense
Not according to the courts. The courts seem to think anti-discrimination law is hate crime law. If those assholes didn't get it wrong we wouldn't have a problem.
I consistently stated that anti-discrimination laws "encompassed" hate-crimes laws and conversely that hate-crimes laws were a subset of anti-discrimination laws.
Good for you. When the courts agree with you I will.
laws are just laws. people use adjectives to describe some group of laws but that doesn't make a law fall into any one category.
They use improper adjectives to cover their own racism.
Other people don't agree with you, so you are wrong.
No, everyone who is in a position to know disagrees with you.
The courts seem to think anti-discrimination law is hate crime law.
The court referred to 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B) as a hate crime exactly as I did.
Here is a summary of that provision again:
Whoever by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person engaging in federally protected activities because of his race, color, religion or national origin shall be fined or imprisoned under this title.
They referred to a hate crime as a hate-crime. Anytime someone refers to squares, should they also have to mention that squares are shapes??
That's me saying here's a link to a hate-crime statute and you can see for yourself that it is racially neutral.
You agreed with me that it was an anti discrimination law.
It is an anti discrimination law - since all squares are shapes, understand???
THEY ARE ALSO CALLING NON HATE CRIMES HATE CRIMES
Where? There is only one reference in that document to hate crimes statute and it refers to 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B).
"Defendants Eli Mungia and Roy Martin appeal their convictions under the federal hate crimes statute, 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B), for shooting three African-American men. Finding no error, we affirm."
Every time you refer to squares do you parenthetically mention that squares are shapes?? The court presumes that people reading these documents have some prior level of knowledge.
"In my analogy anti discrimination is shapes, and anti discrimination laws are completely different from hate crime laws. So, anti discrimination laws are circles and you gave me circles and said they were squares."
Ah, right - my second to last paragraph is imprecise.
This paragraph is correct:
If an act by itself is a crime, like murder, assault, then a law against performing that act based solely on race, religion, etc. would be described as a hate-crime law.
and the other paragraph should be:
Laws against performing acts based on bias against on race, religion, etc. whether they are crimes in and of themselves or not would be described as an anti-discrimination law.
This is the correct definition and is consistent with all of my prior posts.
Laws against performing acts based on bias against on race, religion, etc. whether they are crimes in and of themselves or not would be described as an anti-discrimination law.
Other people consider this a hate crime as well. According to you if other people believe it then they are right. So, you are wrong. It is consistent with your prior posts, but all of your prior posts turned out to be wrong according to the courts.
I have given dozens of links showing that all three branches of government and several groups dedicated to the issue all use the same definitions that I do. You have only presented your assertions and misinterpretations.
They called what you called anti discrimination hate crime. That is a different definition than you use. I told you that I believed that it was an anti discrimination law and you shot me down because they call it a hate crime law. Now you are saying they call it anti discrimination. Make up your mind.
I told you that I believed that it was an anti discrimination law and you shot me down
I think you misunderstand how that transpired and is the heart of why you still aren't getting it.
I linked to 18 USC 245 as a source that hate crime laws are racially neutral
You said that looks like anti-discrimination law
I responded that hate-crime law is anti-discrimination law (squares are shares)
You felt this was shooting you down, etc. then somehow devolved into saying anti-discrimination laws are circles etc. and it only got worse from there...
They called what you called anti discrimination hate crime.
They called what you called [a shape] [a square] - see how that still works?
Good. But, that is included in the "hate crimes statute". That is my problem.
I called x a shape
They called x a square
If x is a square, we are both correct.
Here is the problem. We have a whole bunch of shapes. Circles, squares, rectangles. You and the courts see the one square and label the whole set of shapes as squares. So, in this example x is a bunch of shapes with a few squares. Calling it a square is deception.
Acknowledging that it is possible for the Court to overrule prior decisions (i.e. Plessy v. Ferguson) is far from saying that they ever will or should in this case.
Right, but all you said hate crime laws do is give extra power to the federal government and assign unusual punishment. So, we are on the same page, you just think that if the government does something it is ok.
So far you have proved yourself a bit slow on the uptake, but apparently I am a glutton for punishment so I will attempt to tell you why your understanding of the eighth amendment in this area is incorrect.
all you said hate crime laws do is give extra power to the federal government and assign unusual punishment
The federal government applies the same punishment for a bias motivated crime as it does for the same crime when done against a federal employee as you can see by reading 18 USC 245. Therefore the punishment is not unusual for the crime as far as the federal government goes.
The second important piece of information that you are missing is that the federal punishment is not seen as being applied 'on top of' the state punishment; they are seen as separate cases prosecuted by separate sovereigns which is also why the 5th amendment double-jeopardy clause does not apply.
you just think that if the government does something it is ok.
Thinking that one thing the government does is ok is different than thinking that everything the government does is ok. Nice straw-man though.
If your prior legal acumen is any indication, I look forward to the pretzel-like logic you will use to insert your foot into your mouth. Please proceed...
The federal government applies the same punishment for a bias motivated crime as it does for the same crime when done against a federal employee as you can see by reading 18 USC 245. Therefore the punishment is not unusual for the crime as far as the federal government goes.
The second important piece of information that you are missing is that the federal punishment is not seen as being applied 'on top of' the state punishment; they are seen as separate cases prosecuted by separate sovereigns which is also why the 5th amendment double-jeopardy clause does not apply.
None of this explains how adding on a punishment to something that is already a crime isn't unusual. Since you have already admitted this is unusual punishment previously there is nothing more for me to argue.
Thinking that one thing the government does is ok is different than thinking that everything the government does is ok. Nice straw-man though.
It isn't a straw-man. You said that there wasn't anything wrong because the government approved it.
The constitution is supposed to protect us from the government, not from each other. Giving the federal government more power is not a plus.
None of this explains how adding on a punishment to something that is already a crime isn't unusual.
Yes, it does exactly that, only you chose not to (or cannot) comprehend what was presented.
I don't feel any need to convince you as that tends to take dozens of inane posts, I just wanted the information out there for any actually interested (and capable) reader.
Since you have already admitted this is unusual punishment previously there is nothing more for me to argue.
Of course that is patently false and anyone can review the discourse to prove as much.
You said that there wasn't anything wrong because the government approved it.
I contended that there was nothing wrong and that the government approves it - not because. You have a real knack for creating the argument you want to attack in your head since you cannot actually attack the substance.
Yes, it does exactly that, only you chose not to (or cannot) comprehend what was presented.
I don't feel any need to convince you as that tends to take dozens of inane posts, I just wanted the information out there for any actually interested (and capable) reader.
I can't comprehend it because you have already agreed that it is unusual punishment earlier.
Of course that is patently false and anyone can review the discourse to prove as much.
It only takes you agreeing with that statement once to show that you have said it. :)
I contended that there was nothing wrong and that the government approves it - not because. You have a real knack for creating the argument you want to attack in your head since you cannot actually attack the substance.
Maybe you shouldn't have said that it was ok because the government did it then. If you are saying that it is ok and the government did it, you just worded it wrong earlier. I still never got an explanation for why you think it is ok.
I think you would be doing yourself a favor if you go back and re-read this debate (and probably others) to see if you can determine how your perception diverges so far from reality.
At no point have I said hate-crime laws are a good thing simply because the government says so. And, at no point did I say hate-crime laws are cruel and unusual punishment - in fact, I have specifically stated the contrary.
So, why do you think your perception of the argument is so far afield and yet you feel comfortable posting your assertions on a site where anyone can see that they are blatant fabrications?
I think you would be doing yourself a favor if you go back and re-read this debate (and probably others) to see if you can determine how your perception diverges so far from reality.
Why should I, you won't go back and read to find out how you are ruining reality.
At no point have I said hate-crime laws are a good thing simply because the government says so.
You said it wasn't a violation simply because the government went through the process of getting passed.
And, at no point did I say hate-crime laws are cruel and unusual punishment - in fact, I have specifically stated the contrary.
You said that it is only usual if you commit a new crime, which is admitting that adding punishments to existing crimes is unusual.
So, why do you think your perception of the argument is so far afield and yet you feel comfortable posting your assertions on a site where anyone can see that they are blatant fabrications?
A) Most people on here won't see these posts.
B) Most people on here don't understand these posts.
C) Most people on here don't hold it against you for making bad posts.
No, you said it was unconstitutional and I showed how that was a false statement.
You claimed that the government can break the constitution by passing laws and it isn't considered violating the constitution.
Completely untrue. You should try to find the section where you think I am saying that and actually read it.
It is 100% true, maybe it is inaccurate, but you didn't recognize that. You couldn't give a reason why it wasn't unusual. You only dodged the question and changed the subject because you knew I was right.
You claimed that the government can break the constitution by passing laws and it isn't considered violating the constitution.
What I actually said was:
"If congress passes it, and the President signs it and the Supreme Court upholds it as Constitutional - then it is Constitutional.
At least until any future date where the Court rules differently."
Which you did not (and cannot) refute in any way - and, of course, is not the same as saying that hate-crime laws are good because the government says it's ok. Do you really not understand that??
You only dodged the question and changed the subject
Do you see that you have already changed your argument from: "You said that it is only usual if you commit a new crime, which is admitting that adding punishments to existing crimes is unusual."
to: "You only dodged the question and changed the subject"?
Only a dozen more posts until you admit "Ok, fine."
You benefit as well.
I am perfectly willing to have any of my posts scrutinized, I just wish it was by someone who could read. I don't depend on people not seeing my posts and not holding me accountable for posts that don't make sense as you are apparently comfortable in doing.
The federal government can, has, and will continue to violate the constitutional through this mechanism. Saying they do this mechanism doesn't mean they didn't violate the constitution. Your argument is saying that if the government does it it is constitutional. Do you really not understand that??
yes, I very specifically did. ref
Your logic is flawed. You are saying it isn't unusual because the federal government makes a special arrangement for you to be tried again for the same crime which doesn't always happen. That's unusual.
Do you see that you have already changed your argument from: "You said that it is only usual if you commit a new crime, which is admitting that adding punishments to existing crimes is unusual."
to: "You only dodged the question and changed the subject"?
Only a dozen more posts until you admit "Ok, fine."
To the newly changed subject.
am perfectly willing to have any of my posts scrutinized
Gee thanks dick. What else are you supposed to do dumbass, it is a public forum.
I just wish it was by someone who could read
Wrong place for that man.
I don't depend on people not seeing my posts and not holding me accountable for posts that don't make sense as you are apparently comfortable in doing.
Yeah long winded and off topic posts make you so much better.
The federal government can, has, and will continue to violate the constitutional through this mechanism.
That pesky government keeps violating the Constitution by following exactly what the Constitution says...
Saying they do this mechanism doesn't mean they didn't violate the constitution
You can argue that it should not be Constitutional, but not that it is currently unconstitutional.
Your argument is saying that if the government does it it is constitutional
Yes – if all three branches of the government follow the Constitution, then a law is, at least currently, constitutional. That is still not saying that hate-crime laws are good because the government said so. Just change your argument again, it will make you feel better.
Your logic is flawed.
So now you have argued that: "You said that it is only usual if you commit a new crime, which is admitting that adding punishments to existing crimes is unusual."
But, since you couldn't support that, you changed your argument to: "You only dodged the question and changed the subject"
Then, when I show that I did address it, you change your argument again to: "Your logic is flawed."
You’re making progress...
Wrong place for that man.
Which is worse – telling someone with obvious reading comprehension issues that I wish the arguments were addressed by someone who could read them, or Gee thanks dick. What else are you supposed to do dumbass?
I just chose not to rely on your logic that most people on here are too oblivious or stupid to hold someone accountable for what they are saying.
That pesky government keeps violating the Constitution by following exactly what the Constitution says...
The constitution does not say that as long as every branch of the government misinterprets the constitution the same way then it is ok. Unfortunately, the constitution does have a way for this to happen. Doesn't mean the constitution was any less violated.
You can argue that it should not be Constitutional, but not that it is currently unconstitutional.
If I would be able to sue the government and win, could I argue that it is currently unconstitutional?
Yes – if all three branches of the government follow the Constitution, then a law is, at least currently, constitutional. That is still not saying that hate-crime laws are good because the government said so. Just change your argument again, it will make you feel better.
No, that was my argument the whole time.
So now you have argued that: "You said that it is only usual if you commit a new crime, which is admitting that adding punishments to existing crimes is unusual."
But, since you couldn't support that, you changed your argument to: "You only dodged the question and changed the subject"
Then, when I show that I did address it, you change your argument again to: "Your logic is flawed."
You’re making progress...
Well, look at that, a change of subject.
Which is worse – telling someone with obvious reading comprehension issues that I wish the arguments were addressed by someone who could read them, or Gee thanks dick.
Neither is worse.
I just chose not to rely on your logic that most people on here are too oblivious or stupid to hold someone accountable for what they are saying.
Look dummy. You have no choice but to allow people to scrutinize your posts. Saying that you don't have a problem with it probably means you do have a problem with it and you are lying. Who really expects to get called out on that, right?
The constitution does not say that as long as every branch of the government misinterprets the constitution the same way then it is ok.
The Constitution says here is the constitutional process to enact/enforce a law and that process was followed.
If I would be able to sue the government and win, could I argue that it is currently unconstitutional?
You could argue that it would then be unconstitutional, but that would take actual legal knowledge which you are lacking.
that was my argument the whole time.
Ha. It's awesome to see your cognitive dissonance play out. So now you believe that if the government does it, then it is constitutional?? Also, you have never pointed to where I have said that since the government does it, that makes it good - because you can't. In fact, in my very first rebuttal to you on the topic I gave you 2 reasons why the laws have been helpful and then specially reiterated them later – we'll see if you can put all that mental power to work and find out what they were. If you need a remedial lesson, just let your teacher know...
Well, look at that, a change of subject.
Yes, you have indeed changed the argument several times now.
Saying that you don't have a problem with it probably means you do have a problem with it and you are lying.
Classic – when did you stop beating your wife... It was in response to you saying people here won't see your posts and won't understand them and won't call you out on them – so who is the one that is (or should be) embarrassed?
The Constitution says here is the constitutional process to enact/enforce a law and that process was followed.
That process does not say that no matter what was done it followed the constitution.
You could argue that it would then be unconstitutional, but that would take actual legal knowledge which you are lacking.
It is hard for me to believe you when you can't even answer a question.
Ha. It's awesome to see your cognitive dissonance play out. So now you believe that if the government does it, then it is constitutional??
Talk about cognitive dissonance. I am talking about your argument, not mine.
Also, you have never pointed to where I have said that since the government does it, that makes it good - because you can't.
There is more than one definition of good. It is a summation of what you said, not a direct quote.
In fact, in my very first rebuttal to you on the topic I gave you 2 reasons why the laws have been helpful and then specially reiterated them later – we'll see if you can put all that mental power to work and find out what they were.
Your links showed that they were helpful in putting a greater percentage of black people in jail. That's really helping racial equality.
Yes, you have indeed changed the argument several times now.
Now you are deflecting.
Classic – when did you stop beating your wife... It was in response to you saying people here won't see your posts and won't understand them and won't call you out on them – so who is the one that is (or should be) embarrassed?
I am not sure how that has anything to do with my wife (hmm, a subject change) but it is interesting to know that you don't mind being scrutinized. Do you breathe air? Do you use your feet to walk? Any other obvious information you want to give out? You know how you can tell when someone doesn't mind being scrutinized? When you start scrutinizing their arguments, they don't go bananas and talk about wife beating. ;)
That process does not say that no matter what was done it followed the constitution.
And that's not what I said either.
It is hard for me to believe you when you can't even answer a question.
question was answered.
I am talking about your argument, not mine.
You highlighted my argument and then said "that was my[your] argument the whole time."
It is a summation of what you said
It is a fallacious concoction. If it was based on what I said, you would be able to point to the constituent parts and the reason you can't is because it is not what I would have said since it is not what I believe.
Your links showed that they were helpful in putting a greater percentage of black people in jail.
Which disproved your contention that it is unfairly applied to whites.
But, that is not what I am talking about - the reasons I gave here (my very first rebuttal to you on the topic) and again here
I am not sure how that has anything to do with my wife
I was pointing out your loaded words, but apparently you've never even heard of the loaded question fallacy. You never fail to dash expectations.
Well, all of the relevant information is presented to any interested reader, and you can chose to inform yourself or remain ignorant. You do not have anything constructive to add to the debate so I am moving on.
You highlighted my argument and then said "that was my[your] argument the whole time."
I was claiming you said that the whole time, sorry for the confusion.
It is a fallacious concoction. If it was based on what I said, you would be able to point to the constituent parts and the reason you can't is because it is not what I would have said since it is not what I believe.
I pointed it out. It sucks that you believe that. I am glad deep down that you want to deny it at least.
Which disproved your contention that it is unfairly applied to whites.
If I was right, you would be right about it fixing something. But, it makes us both wrong.
But, that is not what I am talking about - the reasons I gave here (my very first rebuttal to you on the topic) and again here
Giving the federal government power is not a good thing.
I was pointing out your loaded words, but apparently you've never even heard of the loaded question fallacy. You never fail to dash expectations.
Oh, I am so sorry I didn't name the exact fallacy you used. That must mean I am terrible.
Well, all of the relevant information is presented to any interested reader, and you can chose to inform yourself or remain ignorant. You do not have anything constructive to add to the debate so I am moving on.
You haven't provided anything past it is good because it is good.
everyone calls anti discrimination law hate crime law
If everyone calls something hate crime, then that is the definition of hate crime. You not knowing the definition doesn't make the definition change.
extra years in prison if you blow up a tractor while it is knocking down a tree as opposed to when it is not doing anything?
If intent can be shown that you blew up the tractor knocking down the tree in order to intimidate others who might knock down other trees, yes.
4 of those links were bull
I linked to several cases where non-whites were the perpetrators. Since even after looking at the statistic from the FBI showing that they record Anti-White hate crimes you still did not think that it was possible, and yet did not or could not find the cases on your own.
If you run someone over, regardless of what you say, it will be considered planned. That's what I am saying.
Then what you are saying is again baseless. People accidentally run over people all the time and they are not charged with 1st degree murder.
If everyone calls something hate crime, then that is the definition of hate crime. You not knowing the definition doesn't make the definition change.
It is not your definition of hate crime from before. It is not only my fault.
If intent can be shown that you blew up the tractor knocking down the tree in order to intimidate others who might knock down other trees, yes.
I don't think that is true. But, believe what you want to believe.
I linked to several cases where non-whites were the perpetrators. Since even after looking at the statistic from the FBI showing that they record Anti-White hate crimes you still did not think that it was possible, and yet did not or could not find the cases on your own.
Blah blah blah. You said that you were quoting one of 5 links. We aren't discussing whether there was some good content in those links.
Then what you are saying is again baseless. People accidentally run over people all the time and they are not charged with 1st degree murder.
You don't seem to understand what I am saying. If you have the time to tell them you will run them over, then it was planned regardless of saying anything.
I have given my definition several times and backed it up. Can you?
You pointed out that the DOJ does not agree with your definition and that if other people don't agree with your definition you are wrong.
right, everyone in the world is wrong but you.
You told me that if everybody decides to use the wrong definition it is the correct definition. Since I am confused by the definition, it is true that everybody is at fault because they set the definition.
They were all relevant to the fact that non-whites are prosecuted - 1 had additional relevance to your assertion that enforcement was based on race.
That does not sound like all 5 of them had the quote in it.
Notice that you cannot back up one assertion that you are making? Maybe there's a reason for that.
I don't feel the need to back up my assertions to people who butcher the constitution.
You pointed out that the DOJ does not agree with your definition
of course that is just you not understanding English still.
I am confused by the definition
Thanks for admitting it. Read the definition anew and you will see that it is basic English. There is no trickery here.
discrimination: acts based on bias
anti-discrimination: against acts based on bias
anti-discrimination laws: laws against acts based on bias
hate-crime: criminal acts based on bias
hate-crime laws: laws against criminal acts based on bias
That does not sound like all 5 of them had the quote in it.
Right - because that's not what I said. I said all 5 were relevant to whether non-whites are prosecuted and the last one had a quote which made it also relevant to enforcement procedures.
I don't feel the need to back up my assertions
I will take this to imply that you now know at this point that your position can not be substantiated.
of course that is just you not understanding English still.
The DOJ says you are wrong and I am the one who doesn't understand English?
Thanks for admitting it. Read the definition anew and you will see that it is basic English. There is no trickery here.
discrimination: acts based on bias
anti-discrimination: against acts based on bias
anti-discrimination laws: laws against acts based on bias
hate-crime: criminal acts based on bias
hate-crime laws: laws against criminal acts based on bias
DOJ still says you are wrong. You can repeat this all you want, you are wrong. I agree that you claimed this was the only definition you are going by, but when I tried using those definitions you pointed out I was wrong because of the DOJ.
Right - because that's not what I said. I said all 5 were relevant to whether non-whites are prosecuted and the last one had a quote which made it also relevant to enforcement procedures.
You said check the link for the quote. You didn't tell me which one had the link.
I will take this to imply that you now know at this point that your position can not be substantiated.
I will take that to mean that you admit to butchering the constitution.
They are calling anti discrimination laws hate crime laws, not the other way around. They are saying all shapes are squares. Show me the venn diagram where all shapes are squares.
The element of intent is used for several other types of crime including murder and is not random or generic. The use of aggravating factors, in this case community intimidation, is also common.
How do all these non racists in Congress figure out that racists acts are so vile that they require extra (unconstitutional) punishment? Wouldn't you have to know how a racist thinks in order to make that judgment call? How would they know how much more vicious a crime is when the perpetrator involved racially hates the victim unless those people had those feelings themselves?
You would have to be a murderer to know that strangling means that you hated the victim more or an arsonist to know that starting a fire in the bathroom is more "evil". That's what hate crimes are more like. And I am specifically talking about actual hate crimes, where you get punished extra for targeting someone based on race.
No, it was stupid. Why don't you address the only part of my response?
won't prosecute based on the nature of the crime
It not being a crime is a good reason not to prosecute. If it isn't a crime for a white guy to do something to a white guy how is making it a crime for the white guy to do it to a black guy not racist. You are taking a prejudiced viewpoint and taking race into account.
If it isn't a crime for a white guy to do something to a white guy
The part you missed from my argument. Good rebuttal.
Do you think hate crime law should be extended to situations where an action by a white guy toward a white guy is not a crime, but would be considered a crime if it was a white guy doing the same thing to a black guy?
Do you think hate crime law should be extended to situations where an action by a white guy toward a white guy is not a crime, but would be considered a crime if it was a white guy doing the same thing to a black guy?
We have those laws already, but they are not hate-crimes laws they are anti-discrimination laws. Either something just clicked and now you get it, or your head just exploded...
Equal Employment, Fair Housing, Voting Rights Act, etc.
It is not a crime to not give someone a job - but it is a crime to not give someone a job solely based on their race.
We are discussing whether those laws are stupid. Saying we have them doesn't mean anything.
but they are not hate-crimes laws
Nope. This is the problem. Those are hate crime laws according to the department of justice, that's why this whole argument is confusing.
Equal Employment, Fair Housing, Voting Rights Act, etc.
Not exactly the same thing, but close. This is the only part of "hate crime" law that should be done.
It is not a crime to not give someone a job - but it is a crime to not give someone a job solely based on their race.
I am fine with that as long as it is still ok to not hire a black person. As long as it is ok to reject people of another race when they are not qualified for the job, then I don't see any problem.
No, I am saying that race is not a valid reason to disqualify someone from something. If that was the actual law we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The racist lawmakers realized they should be punished more if they acted on their racism when attacking someone. As a non racist I think to myself, what is the big deal if he robbed that guy for being black? He could have robbed just as easily for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I can't see how the racial motivation would need to be punished more, but I don't know what it would be like to be racially motivated when I commit a crime. The lawmakers must know to make that decision.
If that was the actual law we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The problem with that is that those are the actual laws. I have linked you the specific text of the major hate-crimes laws and given explicit examples of anti-discrimination laws and can easily provide their legislative language too since you don't seem to know how.
can you do the same?? can you show the text of any law that you disagree with?
The lawmakers must know to make that decision.
The law-makers don't have to know anything of the sort, they just leave it to judge/jury to determine if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime is motivated by bias
The problem with that is that those are the actual laws.
Sweet, they reversed the law about adding punishment to racially motivated crimes. Finally they are listening to me.
can you show the text of any law that you disagree with?
You said the law solely makes it a crime to racially discriminate, not adds punishment to something that is already a crime. I am opposed to the part where you think it is ok to add a punishment.
The law-makers don't have to know anything of the sort, they just leave it to judge/jury to determine if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime is motivated by bias
They lied to us then. Why did they pass a law when they don't believe that people should be punished more if it is racially motivated?
At this point I will leave to any fair reader to see that I have gone well above and beyond to try and help you understand.
You have admitted baseless claims, have resisted tons of evidence often without even examining it, have provided basically none of your own, cannot comprehend the most basic English, and have no understanding of the legal process in general nor discrimination laws in particular.
The Washington Monthly list was compiled before the attack on Benhazi, but I am curious as to what role you believe Obama played in either scandal you mentioned.
42) Brokered Agreement for Speedy Compensation to Victims of Gulf Oil Spill
There's still controversy surrounding that incident
Nothing of that size goes perfectly. Getting the fund setup quickly instead of spending years in court was beneficial to Gulf coast economic recovery.
43) Recovery.gov
so what?
Additional transparency is a good thing, no?
44) Pushed Broadband Coverage
95% of the nation has broadband coverage and it keeps growing
Pew research from 2008 showed that only 55% of American adults had broadband access at home (ref) - in rural areas it was 38%.
As of May 2013 that number is 70% with an additional 10% of people who have smart phone internet access ref
45) Expanded Health Coverage for Children
Well, we've addressed ObamaCare already
S-CHIP predates ObamaCare by more than a decade. In addition to the CHIP provisions in ObamaCare, Obama signed the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act and removed restrictions imposed under the Bush presidency ref. Your ad populum and other attacks on ObamaCare have no applicability to CHIP.
46) Recognized the Dangers of Carbon Dioxide
Well, that's old news. I'm glad he finally "recognized" that it's a problem.
finally?? The EPA issued its proposed findings less than 3 months after Obama took office. ref
The situation has been getting worse since their independence
It said that he helped them gain their independence - not that he created utopia.
The US helped South Sudan through the UN and USAID before during and after their push for independence. And Obama formally recognized South Sudan as an independent nation. Are you arguing that the US should not have gotten involved or that we did not get involved enough?
41.The Washington Monthly list was compiled before the attack on Benhazi, but I am curious as to what role you believe Obama played in either scandal you mentioned.
You can't say that avoiding a scandal is a big deal and also claim that it is only for scandals that he avoided. He is 100% successful in avoiding the scandals he was able to avoid.
42.Nothing of that size goes perfectly.
So, why does he deserve credit, he didn't do anything special. He failed like everyone would.
43.Additional transparency is a good thing, no?
It is over one aspect of stuff he is already getting credit for.
44.Pushed Broadband Coverage
Who cares? He suggested that private companies should focus on expanding their network? That is not a presidential accomplishment.
45.S-CHIP predates ObamaCare by more than a decade.
Hey! Guess who wasn't president more than a decade ago. Why does he get credit here?
46.finally?? The EPA issued its proposed findings less than 3 months after Obama took office.
So, you guys have been bullshitting everyone about the dangers for years without having any proof.
It is over one aspect of stuff he is already getting credit for.
Providing transparency into the stimulus was not a necessary part of the stimulus - doing so can be judged on its own merits. I assert it was a good thing over and above the stimulus itself.
Additionally, he has created several other sites that provide government transparency not related to the stimulus:
How does saying an accomplishment should be judged on its own merits mean that every item on the list is equivalent?
You seem to have a more than trivial maladroitness with reading comprehension; I'm not sure if it is a result of public education or your feelings toward Obama, but you way want to do a little reflection at some point.
How does saying an accomplishment should be judged on its own merits mean that every item on the list is equivalent?
You are saying it has the merits to make the list.
You seem to have a more than trivial maladroitness with reading comprehension; I'm not sure if it is a result of public education or your feelings toward Obama, but you way want to do a little reflection at some point.
I have more important things to do than read your garbage.
I AGREE WITH YOU, IT IS UNIMPORTANT LIKE YOU SAID.
You are only agreeing with yourself. Some people will think that government transparency is better than the government stepping into the private market and others will not - it is subjective.
I figured something that was on a list that including saving car companies from extinction would be somewhere close to the same value. Sorry, my bad.
1. Passed Health Care Reform: Force it on people who did not want it. Cause millions to lose their insurance, made insurance premiums double.
2 Passed the Stimulus
"Five years later, underemployment is still too high, the number of people that have dropped out of the workforce is astounding, unemployment remains stubbornly high and our economy isn't growing fast enough—proof that massive government spending, particularly debt spending, is not the solution to our economic growth problems,"
11. Told Mubarak to Go: And embraced the Muslim Brotherhood? stupid, stupid choice.
13. Improved America’s Image Abroad: Our enemies no longer fear us.
1. I agree that it has flaws. But sooner or later, we would be sent to the hospital and we shall be looking back on what could have happened if the Health Care was improved
2. The economy was already bad when he got his rank. If not for his actions, it could have been worse
11. It made peace with the Muslim world, strengthened the ties, and improved the security of the Americans.
13. You cant possibly believe that intimidation will lead to something good
1. I have been sent to the hospital before Obamacare was even thought of and came out better than I have this time. Because Obamacare passed my insurance changed. I use to not have a deductible at all, now I have to pay $750 deductible.
2. It is worse now than when he took office. I now make less money, pay more taxes, pay 2 times as much for my insurance, gas is higher.
11. You can't have peace with a religion of violence. I have studied the Quran and it promotes killing anyone who does not convert. Christianity does not promote that. Christianity is a choice that is offered, but not forced on anyone. (Not true Christianity anyway. There have been those in the past who did, Catholics)
13. I believe strength deters attack. If you are attacked then if you respond viciously it sends your message. I'm saying that as a U.S. Marine.
2. He was unable to stop the falling economy. But his actions has alleviated the tragedy that could have been.
11. Tell me more of how Christians were not responsible for the dark ages. Islam is just as violent as any religion, blame the rulers who uses it as a weapon.
13. Intimidation, harasment and bullying never to lead to anything good. It is the basics of good economic ties.
The darkages were ruled by Catholic church. The Catholic church is not real christianity. They try to get to heaven by their good works, the seven sacraments. That is not how the bible says you get there
There are over 100 verses that explain slavery in the Bible. It was not as we know slavery today. A person could sell himself, willingly, into being a bondslave. This meant he no longer had to supply his on lively hood. The master had to supply all his need in exchange for his service. A jew could only sell himself for 6 years, He had to be freed in the 7th year (year of Jubilee). a gentile could sell himself for any amount of time, up to life, but it was his choice.
If the slave was mistreated he had the right to run. and others were ordered by God to protect him. Below are some of the verses.
Exodus 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Read Leviticus 25. It explains that slavery (bondmen) was a way to relieve the poor of their financial problems. A person could sell their self into slavery. It was the masters responsibility to then furnish every need for that person. A Jew could only sell himself into bondage for 6 years, then he was to be freed and his debts forgiven.
Exodus 21:2-6 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
Deuteronomy 24:7 If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.
Deuteronomy 23:15-16 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:
16 He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.
If a man mistreated his slave he had the right to flee. And others were to protect him.
verbal; Matthew 5:21-22 "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
Ephesians 4:29
Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
physical
Psalm 11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.
As for genocide you must understand. The Amalikites wanted to destroy Israel. god knew that this would continue for ever unless he stopped it. God is all knowing. So to protect the Jews he knew what they needed to do, kill them all.
Tell me exactly what verses you mean by sexist. That is too broad a subject to explain each verse.
I see that you left out the verses in Leviticus about slaying homosexuals and putting women below the society.
The Amalikites wanted to destroy Israel. god knew that this would continue for ever unless he stopped it. God is all knowing. So to protect the Jews he knew what they needed to do, kill them all.
With that way of thinking, you're no different from the Muslim fundamentalists
the difference is that now, under christianity, Christ tells us to offer salvation as a free gift, a choice. It is not forced on anyone. If they do not desire to spend eternity in heaven with Christ, they can spend eternity in hell. God will not force anyone to accept him. He loves them enough to let them make their own choice. Heaven or hell. Millions have chosen hell. And God allows that.
things were different in the Old Testament. God's people were under the law. That was to teach them that they could not keep the law and therefore needed a savior.
People today are to stubborn to see God as love. They see him as vendictive and try to blame him as being mean and unjust. When he is the opposite. He gave himself to die for our sins. He made a way we could miss hell. NOW that is love. But it is our choice. I chose to give my life to God and accept his payment for my sin through Christ blood which he shed on the cross.
God loves the muslim, the hindu, the homosexual etc. Everyone. But they MUST come to him HIS way. Through What Christ did, not what man can do. we must believe in him. that is the first step. Christianity is not just a religion. It is a relationship with Christ, with God.
Many people claim to be christians, but they do not show the love of Christ in their life. That is partly what makes people hate christianity. But people must realize, christians are not perfect, we are just forgiven.
No, Islam teach that you try to convert the world and anyone who will not convert you kill. Whether they mean you any harm or not. There is no free choice is Islam. Convert or die by the hands of a muslim.
Christianity says, "Tell the world about Christ and give them the choice to convert" if they don't that is between them and God. It does not involve me or anyone else.
Yeah right. You speak as if Jesus did not chase people away with a whip, flip tables over and constantly threaten the people that either they believe in him, or burn in hell
Admit it, the Bible is no different from the Quran
Yes he did that. The money changers were making a mockery out of God's house.
The main thing people need to understand is this, God is always right. Even if it does not seem fair to us.
He created everything. He rules everything. The Bible is different than the Quran because the Bible is God's Holy Word, Truth. God told the writers of the books of the Bible what to write. There are no errors in it. No contradictions.
The Quran was written by a human and in his own understanding and what he wanted to write. It is full of contradictions.
When I say Bible I mean the Authorized Version (King James Version) The other translations are filled with men's mistakes. They were translated from faulty text. The KJV is the only one that is translated from the Textus Receptus. Even the New King James is translated from the faulty texts. (Sinaticus and the Vaticanus)
The old testament law is what dealt with killing homosexuals. We no longer live under the law. We are now under God's grace. He offers forgiveness to homosexuals and everyone else.
Show me where God puts women below society. You have yet to do that.
personal experience; Not just mine but hundreds of thousands of others. about 85% of Americans did not want Obamacare passed. It was forced on us.
WE THE PEOPLE are the rulers of this country or at least we are supposed to be. The elected officials have been insubordinate and need to be voted out for insubordination. They are forcing us to do what we do not want.
Affordable health coverage, limits on premiums, better access to healthcare, and rules that would prevent people with preexisting conditions -- including women and children -- from being denied health coverage
You do not need it yet. Thats why you are so against it. But on the day you were sent to the hospital, you will be regretting your decisions.
Do not be swayed by the voices of the masses. If history taught us anything, it is the fact that democracy isn't justice.
I have friends in Canada and The U.K. who have this kind of health care. They hate it. Unless you have a life threatening illness you can't hardly get help.
I checked into Obamacare for my son. He is 28, can't work for health reasons. It will cost him $2400.00 per year. He is one of the people this was supposed to help. And he can't even afford to get it.
The government has no business in the health care business.
I'm talking about insurance wise. The government does not need to be trying to provide insurance. They can't do any thing well anyway. so all they are going to do, already done, is screw up. They have screwed up our health coverage now.
This maybe abit long but please bear with me. This is a list of his achievements
1. Passed Health Care Reform: After five presidents over a century failed to create universal health insurance, signed the Affordable Care Act (2010). It will cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014 and mandates a suite of experimental measures to cut health care cost growth, the number one cause of America’s long-term fiscal problems.
2. Passed the Stimulus: Signed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 to spur economic growth amid greatest recession since the Great Depression. Weeks after stimulus went into effect, unemployment claims began to subside. Twelve months later, the private sector began producing more jobs than it was losing, and it has continued to do so for twenty-three straight months, creating a total of nearly 3.7 million new private-sector jobs.
3. Passed Wall Street Reform: Signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) to re-regulate the financial sector after its practices caused the Great Recession. The new law tightens capital requirements on large banks and other financial institutions, requires derivatives to be sold on clearinghouses and exchanges, mandates that large banks provide “living wills” to avoid chaotic bankruptcies, limits their ability to trade with customers’ money for their own profit, and creates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (now headed by Richard Cordray) to crack down on abusive lending products and companies.
4. Ended the War in Iraq: Ordered all U.S. military forces out of the country. Last troops left on December 18, 2011.
5. Began Drawdown of War in Afghanistan: From a peak of 101,000 troops in June 2011, U.S. forces are now down to 91,000, with 23,000 slated to leave by the end of summer 2012. According to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the combat mission there will be over by next year.
6. Eliminated Osama bin laden: In 2011, ordered special forces raid of secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in which the terrorist leader was killed and a trove of al-Qaeda documents was discovered.
7. Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry: In 2009, injected $62 billion in federal money (on top of $13.4 billion in loans from the Bush administration) into ailing GM and Chrysler in return for equity stakes and agreements for massive restructuring. Since bottoming out in 2009, the auto industry has added more than 100,000 jobs. In 2011, the Big Three automakers all gained market share for the first time in two decades. The government expects to lose $16 billion of its investment, less if the price of the GM stock it still owns increases.
8. Recapitalized Banks: In the midst of financial crisis, approved controversial Treasury Department plan to lure private capital into the country’s largest banks via “stress tests” of their balance sheets and a public-private fund to buy their “toxic” assets. Got banks back on their feet at essentially zero cost to the government.
9. Repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: Ended 1990s-era restriction and formalized new policy allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military for the first time.
10. Toppled Moammar Gaddafi: In March 2011, joined a coalition of European and Arab governments in military action, including air power and naval blockade, against Gaddafi regime to defend Libyan civilians and support rebel troops. Gaddafi’s forty-two-year rule ended when the dictator was overthrown and killed by rebels on October 20, 2011. No American lives were lost.
11. Told Mubarak to Go: On February 1, 2011, publicly called on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to accept reform or step down, thus weakening the dictator’s position and putting America on the right side of the Arab Spring. Mubarak ended thirty-year rule when overthrown on February 11.
12. Reversed Bush Torture Policies: Two days after taking office, nullified Bush-era rulings that had allowed detainees in U.S. custody to undergo certain “enhanced” interrogation techniques considered inhumane under the Geneva Conventions. Also released the secret Bush legal rulings supporting the use of these techniques.
13. Improved America’s Image Abroad: With new policies, diplomacy, and rhetoric, reversed a sharp decline in world opinion toward the U.S. (and the corresponding loss of “soft power”) during the Bush years. From 2008 to 2011, favorable opinion toward the United States rose in ten of fifteen countries surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, with an average increase of 26 percent.
14. Kicked Banks Out of Federal Student Loan Program, Expanded Pell Grant Spending: As part of the 2010 health care reform bill, signed measure ending the wasteful decades-old practice of subsidizing banks to provide college loans. Starting July 2010 all students began getting their federal student loans directly from the federal government. Treasury will save $67 billion over ten years, $36 billion of which will go to expanding Pell Grants to lower-income students.
15. Created Race to the Top: With funds from stimulus, started $4.35 billion program of competitive grants to encourage and reward states for education reform.
16. Boosted Fuel Efficiency Standards: Released new fuel efficiency standards in 2011 that will nearly double the fuel economy for cars and trucks by 2025.
17. Coordinated International Response to Financial Crisis: To keep world economy out of recession in 2009 and 2010, helped secure from G-20 nations more than $500 billion for the IMF to provide lines of credit and other support to emerging market countries, which kept them liquid and avoided crises with their currencies.
18. Passed Mini Stimuli: To help families hurt by the recession and spur the economy as stimulus spending declined, signed series of measures (July 22, 2010; December 17, 2010; December 23, 2011) to extend unemployment insurance and cut payroll taxes.
19. Began Asia “Pivot”: In 2011, reoriented American military and diplomatic priorities and focus from the Middle East and Europe to the Asian-Pacific region. Executed multipronged strategy of positively engaging China while reasserting U.S. leadership in the region by increasing American military presence and crafting new commercial, diplomatic, and military alliances with neighboring countries made uncomfortable by recent Chinese behavior.
20. Increased Support for Veterans: With so many soldiers coming home from Iraq and Iran with serious physical and mental health problems, yet facing long waits for services, increased 2010 Department of Veterans Affairs budget by 16 percent and 2011 budget by 10 percent. Also signed new GI bill offering $78 billion in tuition assistance over a decade, and provided multiple tax credits to encourage businesses to hire veterans.
21. Tightened Sanctions on Iran: In effort to deter Iran’s nuclear program, signed Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (2010) to punish firms and individuals who aid Iran’s petroleum sector. In late 2011 and early 2012, coordinated with other major Western powers to impose sanctions aimed at Iran’s banks and with Japan, South Korea, and China to shift their oil purchases away from Iran.
22. Created Conditions to Begin Closing Dirtiest Power Plants: New EPA restrictions on mercury and toxic pollution, issued in December 2011, likely to lead to the closing of between sixty-eight and 231 of the nation’s oldest and dirtiest coal-fired power plants. Estimated cost to utilities: at least $11 billion by 2016. Estimated health benefits: $59 billion to $140 billion. Will also significantly reduce carbon emissions and, with other regulations, comprises what’s been called Obama’s “stealth climate policy.”
23. Passed Credit Card Reforms: Signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act (2009), which prohibits credit card companies from raising rates without advance notification, mandates a grace period on interest rate increases, and strictly limits overdraft and other fees.
24. Eliminated Catch-22 in Pay Equality Laws: Signed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009, giving women who are paid less than men for the same work the right to sue their employers after they find out about the discrimination, even if that discrimination happened years ago. Under previous law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the statute of limitations on such suits ran out 180 days after the alleged discrimination occurred, even if the victims never knew about it.
25. Protected Two Liberal Seats on the U.S. Supreme Court: Nominated and obtained confirmation for Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic and third woman to serve, in 2009; and Elena Kagan, the fourth woman to serve, in 2010. They replaced David Souter and John Paul Stevens, respectively.
26. Improved Food Safety System: In 2011, signed FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, which boosts the Food and Drug Administration’s budget by $1.4 billion and expands its regulatory responsibilities to include increasing number of food inspections, issuing direct food recalls, and reviewing the current food safety practices of countries importing products into America.
27. Achieved New START Treaty: Signed with Russia (2010) and won ratification in Congress (2011) of treaty that limits each country to 1,550 strategic warheads (down from 2,200) and 700 launchers (down from more than 1,400), and reestablished and strengthened a monitoring and transparency program that had lapsed in 2009, through which each country can monitor the other.
28. Expanded National Service: Signed Serve America Act in 2009, which authorized a tripling of the size of AmeriCorps. Program grew 13 percent to 85,000 members across the country by 2012, when new House GOP majority refused to appropriate more funds for further expansion.
29. Expanded Wilderness and Watershed Protection: Signed Omnibus Public Lands Management Act (2009), which designated more than 2 million acres as wilderness, created thousands of miles of recreational and historic trails, and protected more than 1,000 miles of rivers.
30. Gave the FDA Power to Regulate Tobacco: Signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (2009). Nine years in the making and long resisted by the tobacco industry, the law mandates that tobacco manufacturers disclose all ingredients, obtain FDA approval for new tobacco products, and expand the size and prominence of cigarette warning labels, and bans the sale of misleadingly labeled “light” cigarette brands and tobacco sponsorship of entertainment events.
31. Pushed Federal Agencies to Be Green Leaders: Issued executive order in 2009 requiring all federal agencies to make plans to soften their environmental impacts by 2020. Goals include 30 percent reduction in fleet gasoline use, 26 percent boost in water efficiency, and sustainability requirements for 95 percent of all federal contracts. Because federal government is the country’s single biggest purchaser of goods and services, likely to have ripple effects throughout the economy for years to come.
32. Passed Fair Sentencing Act: Signed 2010 legislation that reduces sentencing disparity between crack versus powder cocaine possessionfrom100 to1 to 18 to1.
33. Trimmed and Reoriented Missile Defense: Cut the Reagan-era “Star Wars” missile defense budget, saving $1.4 billion in 2010, and canceled plans to station antiballistic missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic in favor of sea-based defense plan focused on Iran and North Korea.
34. Began Post-Post-9/11 Military Builddown: After winning agreement from congressional Republicans and Democrats in summer 2011 budget deal to reduce projected defense spending by $450 billion, proposed new DoD budget this year with cuts of that size and a new national defense strategy that would shrink ground forces from 570,000 to 490,000 over the next ten years while increasing programs in intelligence gathering and cyberwarfare.
35. Let Space Shuttle Die and Killed Planned Moon Mission: Allowed the expensive ($1 billion per launch), badly designed, dangerous shuttle program to make its final launch on July 8, 2011. Cut off funding for even more bloated and problem-plagued Bush-era Constellation program to build moon base in favor of support for private-sector low-earth orbit ventures, research on new rocket technologies for long-distance manned flight missions, and unmanned space exploration, including the largest interplanetary rover ever launched, which will investigate Mars’s potential to support life.
36. Invested Heavily in Renewable Technology: As part of the 2009 stimulus, invested $90 billion, more than any previous administration, in research on smart grids, energy efficiency, electric cars, renewable electricity generation, cleaner coal, and biofuels.
37. Crafting Next-Generation School Tests: Devoted $330 million in stimulus money to pay two consortia of states and universities to create competing versions of new K-12 student performance tests based on latest psychometric research. New tests could transform the learning environment in vast majority of public school classrooms beginning in 2014.
38. Cracked Down on Bad For-Profit Colleges: In effort to fight predatory practices of some for-profit colleges, Department of Education issued “gainful employment” regulations in 2011 cutting off commercially focused schools from federal student aid funding if more than 35 percent of former students aren’t paying off their loans and/or if the average former student spends more than 12 percent of his or her total earnings servicing student loans.
39. Improved School Nutrition: In coordination with Michelle Obama, signed Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act in 2010 mandating $4.5 billion spending boost and higher nutritional and health standards for school lunches. New rules based on the law, released in January, double the amount of fruits and vegetables and require only whole grains in food served to students.
40. Expanded Hate Crimes Protections: Signed Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2009), which expands existing hate crime protections to include crimes based on a victim’s sexual orientation, gender, or disability, in addition to race, color, religion, or national origin.
41. Avoided Scandal: As of November 2011, served longer than any president in decades without a scandal, as measured by the appearance of the word “scandal” (or lack thereof) on the front page of the Washington Post.
42. Brokered Agreement for Speedy Compensation to Victims of Gulf Oil Spill: Though lacking statutory power to compel British Petroleum to act, used moral authority of his office to convince oil company to agree in 2010 to a $20 billion fund to compensate victims of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico; $6.5 billion already paid out without lawsuits. By comparison, it took nearly two decades for plaintiffs in the Exxon Valdez Alaska oil spill case to receive $1.3 billion.
43. Created Recovery.gov: Web site run by independent board of inspectors general looking for fraud and abuse in stimulus spending, provides public with detailed information on every contract funded by $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Thanks partly to this transparency, board has uncovered very little fraud, and Web site has become national model: “The stimulus has done more to promote transparency at almost all levels of government than any piece of legislation in recent memory,” reports Governing magazine.
44. Pushed Broadband Coverage: Proposed and obtained in 2011 Federal Communications Commission approval for a shift of $8 billion in subsidies away from landlines and toward broadband Internet for lower-income rural families.
45. Expanded Health Coverage for Children: Signed 2009 Children’s Health Insurance Authorization Act, which allows the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to cover health care for 4 million more children, paid for by a tax increase on tobacco products.
46. Recognized the Dangers of Carbon Dioxide: In 2009, EPA declared carbon dioxide a pollutant, allowing the agency to regulate its production.
47. Expanded Stem Cell Research: In 2009, eliminated the Bush-era restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, which shows promise in treating spinal injuries, among many other areas.
48. Provided Payment to Wronged Minority Farmers: In 2009, signed Claims Resolution Act, which provided $4.6 billion in funding for a legal settlement with black and Native American farmers who the government cheated out of loans and natural resource royalties in years past.
49. Helped South Sudan Declare Independence: Helped South Sudan Declare Independence: Appointed two envoys to Sudan and personally attended a special UN meeting on the area. Through U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, helped negotiate a peaceful split in 2011.
50. Killed the F-22: In 2009, ended further purchases of Lockheed Martin single-seat, twin-engine, fighter aircraft, which cost $358 million apiece. Though the military had 187 built, the plane has never flown a single combat mission. Eliminating it saved $4 billion.
There has been plenty of myths about Obama circulating the internet like saying he has been spending too much and taking more vacations than any other presidents. All of which were proven false
It is true that his recent actions maybe sagging. But compared to the previous presidents, he was ranked as the 5th greatest president of all times.
2. That was one of the first things he has done, that shouldn't really count toward him. But, at least it isn't negative.
3.Isn't that repealing what Clinton screwed up?
4. No, Bush set a plan in motion to end the war the exact timeframe that Obama did it in. He should not get credit for not screwing up the ending of the war.
5. This is good, but wasn't this also part of the Bush plan?
6. Yeah. But, the intelligence community should be given that credit.
7. Part of number 2.
8. He gets credit for allowing private people to bail out banks, too?
9. This is good.
10. Unconstitutionally.
11. At least he is capable of using his words.
12. Makes us look good. So, ok.
13. Worthless. That just means people hated Bush.
14. Nice.
15. Nice.
16. If that is such a good thing, how come car companies weren't just doing that in the first place?
We all know who the worst President is: brought us into a deep recession, started a war on false pretense, allowed the largest terrorist attack on American soil, Lost the most jobs of any President, etc, etc, etc, etc---GWB gets that award.
No he is not the best president let me get that straight, but to burst your bubble he is not that bad.Now think do you really think he is all mighty well he is not.He don't have all the power you think he have he pretty much a face to represent the government, He don't make the choices the government dose so who really is destroying the U.S. is the government.so really its not Obama's fault he is just doing his job.
"annual home price increases over the last several months remain at levels not seen since 2006 and newly initiated foreclosures are at their lowest level since December 2005."
Issued Presidential Memorandum instructing the Attorney General to disseminate new guidelines increasing openness and transparency in the processing of FOIA requests
I wouldn't say he's great, he's not all powerful...which people don't seem to understand. I see the president as a scapegoat for laws passed through congress. Everything has to have a face to it, he has a voice yes, but vagina has lips and a hole it doesn't mean anyone would listen if it said something (terrible analogy I know).
I love Obama. I support him like 90%. Hey, no one is perfect. I just wish he would stop it with the progressive taxation and the over taxation. Other than that, we cool.
created or extended 18 small business tax cuts and credits:
1. New Small Business Health Care Tax Credit
2. New Tax Credit for Hiring Unemployed Workers
3. Bonus Depreciation Tax Incentives to Support New Investment
4. 75% Exclusion of Small Business Capital Gains
5. Expansion of Limits on Small Business Expensing
6. Five-Year Carryback of Net Operating Losses
7. Reduction of the Built-In Gains Holding Period for Small Businesses from 10 to 7 Years to Allow Small Business Greater Flexibility in Their Investments
8. Temporary Small Business Estimated Tax Payment Relief to Allow Small Businesses to Keep Needed Cash on Hand
9. Zero Capital Gains Taxes on Key Investments in Small Businesses:
10. The Highest Small Business Expensing Limit Ever– Up to $500,000
11. Extension of 50% Bonus Depreciation
12. New Deduction for Health Care Expenses for the Self-Employed
13. Tax Relief and Simplification for Cell Phone Deductions
14. An Increase in The Deduction for Entrepreneurs’ Start-Up Expenses
15. Five-Year Carryback Of General Business Credits
16. Limitations on Penalties for Errors in Tax Reporting That Disproportionately Affect Small Business
Here are 25 tax cuts from the 2009 stimulus bill (about 37% of the entire bill and the largest 2-year tax cut in history):
1. "Making Work Pay" Tax Credit (Sec. 1001, Page 195). In tax years 2009 and 2010, the Making Work Pay provision will provide a refundable tax credit of 6.2 percent of earned income up to $400 for individuals and up to $800 for married taxpayers filing joint returns.
2. Increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit (Sec. 1002, Page 198). Go to the stimulus bill for all the details, but it essentially expands this benefit for the working poor.
3. Increased Eligibility for the Refundable Portion of Child Credit (Sec. 1003, Page 199). In 2009 and 2010, families who don’t earn enough to pay income tax would be eligible to claim the $1,000 child credit.
4. "American Opportunity" Education Tax Credit (Sec. 1004, Page 199). Increases the Hope Scholarship Credit to $2,500.
5. Refundable First-time Home Buyer Credit. (Sec. 1006, Page 202). This extended and increased the first-time home buyer tax credit from $7,500 to $8,000.
6. Temporary Suspension of Taxation of Unemployment Benefits (Sec. 1007, Page 203). This exempts from taxable gross income the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits.
7. Tax Credits for Energy-Efficient Improvements to Existing Homes (Sec. 1121, Page 208). This provides up to a $1,500 tax credit for qualified energy efficiency improvements.
8. Sales Tax Deduction for Vehicle Purchases (Sec. 1008, Page 203). This allows people to write off state and local sales taxes related to the purchase of a new vehicle costing up to $49,500.
9. Premium Credits for COBRA Continuation Coverage for Unemployed Workers (Sec. 6432, Page 348)
10. Economic Recovery Credits to Recipients of Social Security, SSI, Railroad Retirement and Veterans Disability Compensation Benefits (Sec. 2201, Page 336). This was a $250 payment for senior citizens, disabled veterans and disabled people living on Social Security benefits.
11. Computers as Qualified Education Expenses in 529 Education Plans (Sec. 1005, Page 202). This allows college students to write off the expense of computers and software, provided it's for educational purpose and not for games.
12. Plug-in Electric Drive Vehicle Credit (Sec. 1141, Page 212). Allows purchasers of plug-in electric vehicles to write off up to $5,000 of their purchase (depending on the power of the battery).
13. Tax Parity for Transit Benefits (sec. 1151, Page 219). This relates to an increased exclusion amount for commuter transit benefits and transit passes.
14. Health Coverage Tax Credit Expansion (Sec. 1899, Page 309).
15. Extension of Enhanced Small Business Expensing (Sec. 1202, Page 221). This is a temporary increase in limitations on expensing some depreciable business assets.
16. 5-Year Carryback of Net Operating Losses for Small Businesses (Sec. 1211, Page 221).
17. Extension of Bonus Depreciation (Sec. 1201, Page 220). This extends by a year election to accelerate the AMT and Research Credits in lieu of bonus depreciation.
18. Exclusion of 75% of Small Business Capital Gains from Taxes (Sec. 1241, Page 228).
19. Temporary Small Business Estimated Tax Payment Relief (Sec. 1212, Page 222).
20. Temporary Reduction of S Corporation Built-In Gains Holding Period from 10 Years to 7 Years (Sec. 1251, Page 228).
21. Advanced Energy Investment Credit (Sec. 1302, Page 231). This relates to properties designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as those that produce energy from the sun, wind, geothermal deposits, fuel cells, microturbines, or an energy storage system for use with electric or hybrid-electric vehicles.
22. Tax Credits for Alternative Refueling Property (Sec. 1123, Page 211). This is a temporary increase for alternative fuel vehicle refueling businesses.
23. Work Opportunity Tax Credits for Hiring Unemployed Veterans and Disconnected Youth (Sec. 1221, Page 223). This is a tax credit to provide incentive to businesses to hire unemployed veterans and "disconnected youth." That latter term is defined, in part, as young adults "not readily employable by reason of lacking a sufficient number of basic skills."
24. Delayed Recognition of Certain Cancellation of Debt Income (Sec. 1231, Page 224).
25. Election to Accelerate Recognition of Historic AMT/R&D;Credits (Sec. 1201, Page 220).
Note: I think there are 6 that overlap with the Small Business Tax credits post.
He is a smart person, what he does makes sense. He is not perfect but still much better than all republican candidates combined, they are horrible, all of them feels mentally retarded with the only goal to cut the taxes for the richest, really comical people.
Is it on purpose that republican pick their candidates from mentally retarded people?
Even as a democrat, he just made me a neutral person, obamacare is not functioning, history was made when the gov. Shutdown. I still don't know what made him president for two terms.
Well, in order for someone as incompetent as Obama is to be elected, this means equally or more incompetent people have to vote for him. How do you create a society full of morons? Easy, government monopoly of education by force.
Hmmm, I am choosing between debating with you or just agreeing. First, can you elaborate on this monopoly of education created by the Government? This sounds like something a Libertarian would say, but I do not wish to assume you are one. I don't want to come of as offensive.
What is a monopoly? A monopoly is an entity that can legally force all persons to purchase their product by law with no choice? Basically, a monopoly is the legal use of force. The monopoly of government public education is enacted in all state constitutions.
Oh no. Haha. I know what a monopoly is. I was just wondering why you decided to called our education a monopoly by the government. Are you saying that the current method of education is coerced?
The majority of the information learned in school is irrelevant to real world skills. Besides, in a voluntary setting, most children would go to school via parents demands where school choice would be much more abundant.
Children learn math which is relevant, children learn history which is relvant, children learn the releveant languge to their country, children learn foreign languages which imporoves economic opportunites. My one friend grew up in Baghdad, Iraq, and they don't play when it comes to education. He started learning English in the 3rd grade I think through graduation which helped his economic ooportunities, and he is an artchitect so the math helped. Please excuse my typos. I have a learning disability.
The only relevant skills learned in school that are relevant in the real world are reading, writing and arithmetic. All other skills are learned by on job experience.
If you are not a statist, then why are pushing formal education so heavily? Formal education is a byproduct of the manifestation of compulsory attendance.
If you are not a statist, then why are pushing formal education so heavily? Formal education is a byproduct of the manifestation of compulsory attendance. No True Scotman fallacy. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NoTrueScotsman
This fallacy doesn't apply. I am not redefining the definition of statism to exclude you. It hasn't changed. Statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree. If you believe in the power of the state to control education, then you are a statist. The varying degrees doesn't matter, if any, then statist. If you believe in education brought by free markets, which is what I am arguing for, then not statist.
I am not a statist, I am a libertarian. I voted for Ron Paul, so don't give me that statist crap. I do not want the state to control education, I just want people to be educated. Whether they get a high school diploma or a GED matters not, as long as they get one or the other. I want people to have an education, because we live in an increasingly competitive world. More and more demands are being placed on workers, so it helps to have that education, but I def share your concerns about the disaster that is the current public education system and do you know why? My lovely liberal state denied me an education. I prefer homeschooling myself, and if I ever have children, def will do so. I am forced to get a GED because no school will accept me as a student for grades 9-12. Stay cool, we are on the same side, okay?
Ron Paul is a libertarian though he ran on the Republican ticket.
Formal education is merely a means to productivity not an end. Basically, compulsory education hasn't made us more competitive in the marketplace. Skills make us competitive, and some jobs requires education to develop skills.
Ron Paul is a libertarian though he ran on the Republican ticket. Agreed. Reason one why I don't do political parties. I vote based on ideology and policies as it was meant to be. Formal education is merely a means to productivity not an end. I agree. Basically, compulsory education hasn't made us more competitive in the marketplace. I don't understand what you mean. Where do you stand on education? Skills make us competitive, and some jobs requires education to develop skills. Please don't be angry with me, but: this statement seems to support education.
I don't see the problem with laws about attendance. I don't really see it as monopolization either. It sounds if you are making this sound like a bad thing and the choosing words that convinces the average person that you are correct. This is only what I am perceiving though.
2. Accreditation Laws
I also do not see how this is a bad thing. The state rules that your school is doing poorly and so it loses the status it once had before. If the school performs well then credit is give where it is due. I see no problem with this.
3. Anti-Diversity Policies
Elaborate on this part for me, please.
4. State Pre approved Home Schooling Curriculum
Again, PrayerFails, I must ask for you to elaborate further on this for me.
What do my points have to do with the status of your argument? Am I not a debater just like you? I am questioning your take on this. Was this all fluff perhaps?
No, there is no fluff. I don't want to take the time. It is not a matter of status. Basically, I am burnt out of this site, and I am crawling to the finish line.
I tried to make a comeback, but it is really exhausting, and this maybe it for good.
Fair warning, this site was great for debating, but HellNo and JoeCavalry destroyed it with their ridiculous jokes and rants, and it will suck the life out of you with all the garbage that they post.
I'll save the discussion about how long we've had public schools in this country and just say that if you present actual arguments to substantiate your opinion I will deal with them in earnest as a review of my posts on this debate should demonstrate.
There are plenty debates with my arguments showing how public schools are a complete failure except for the people who operate it. They get paid well. Not going to repeat myself on this site constantly over and over again anymore.
Maybe you read my comment out of context. I was responding to your post claiming public education lead to a society of morons which is how Obama was elected.
I demurred from the public education debate since public education in this country predates the revolution in several areas so your argument would apply to many presidents in our history and since the debate topic was whether Obama is the worst president.
If you make arguments defending your position that Obama is the worst president I will attempt to rebut.
I still don't know what made him president for two terms.
Cuz people like the thought of a "black" president and he keep promising change, so people were all like "omg, he will do so good for us, he is just what we need! a presidunt dat wants to change this turrible cuntry and help me get my foodstamps."
Clinton already allowed the government to shut down.
He isn't anything special. What you need to do is realize that taking money from hard working people to give to people who aren't working hard is a bad idea.
Look at the mess we have in public office- not just the executive branch, and not even just the federal government but state governments as well. Yeah, I'd say many people are too stupid to see that :/
Fifty ways the Obama Administration has hurt the economy and job creation.
By Gary Shapiro – 4.27.12
Since President Obama has taken office we have at least two million more employable Americans, yet after trillions of dollars of stimulus and deficit spending, we actually have fewer non-government jobs than we did the day he took the oath of office. The totality of the actions below has cast such a pall over our economy that we will be stuck in a jobless recovery for the foreseeable future. President Obama and his Administration have…
Increased the deficit more than $4 trillion, causing the first-ever downgrade in the U.S. credit rating and for the first time raising serious questions about U.S. financial stability.
Issued 106 new major rules that cost U.S. businesses $11 billion in implementation and more than $46 billion each year.
Blocked Boeing's new South Carolina factory from opening to assuage his union supporters.
Raided a Gibson Guitar factory for violating an arcane India law even though India does not believe the law has been broken.
Issued an "ambush" election rule allowing quick unionization and limiting an employer's ability to present reasons for non-unionization.
Restricted how companies hire unpaid interns, cutting the link between students and employers.
Blocked the construction of the Keystone Pipeline that would have given jobs to thousands of American workers, further reducing the domestic oil supply and forcing our ally Canada to turn to China as a more willing partner.
Cut authorization of permits restricting drilling in Gulf and slowed permitting of new oil drilling so our future oil supply will be restricted and gas prices will be higher.
Mandated third party certification for all manufacturers participating in the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program, which has raised costs for manufacturers and created a disincentive for participation in the program.
Funded Solyndra and other unworthy companies, wasting taxpayer money but also discouraging other privately funded companies from entering the market.
Only moved on Bush free trade agreements and failed to enter one new free trade agreement, even while our competitors have entered many, making U.S. goods more expensive to export.
Pushed for passage of card check legislation that would infringe upon the rights of workers and make the United States a less desirable place to open a business.
Created a new rule requiring every employer to post notices on union "rights," (found illegal by a federal court in April).
Changed rules on unionization votes so the majority of employees no longer need to vote to unionize, allowing easier unionization.
Disparaged the city of Las Vegas twice, which led to an immediate and dramatic fall-off in hotel room bookings and hospitality jobs.
Proposed onerous restrictions on government officials attending trade shows, threatening vital cooperation between business and government to create jobs.
Mandated that every hotel swimming pool have special access for the disabled, causing pools to close or hotels to add expensive add-ons, hurting the hotel industry and employment.
Imposed a requirement that every employer with more than 49 employees provide health care insurance or pay a fine.
Allowed the United States to become the highest corporate tax nation in the developed world.
Required every children's product to undergo expensive testing, threatening thousands of small businesses that make children's products.
Demonized businesses and one-percent income earners consistently as greedy.
Increased the number of IRS audits of successful job creators while dramatically cutting audits of those reporting no income.
Proposed regulating gas fireplaces in homes, threatening a large segment of the market despite no energy rationale.
Failed to approve one new nuclear plant, increasing our energy dependence.
Defended EPA "strong-arming" of property owners by threatening fines -- March 2012 Supreme Court's unanimously rejected EPA position.
Ignored proposals of his own Bipartisan Deficit Commission and thus guaranteed further choking deficits and financial uncertainty.
Imposed a 2.3 percent new excise tax on innovative medical devices.
Imposed a new investment income "surtax" of 3.8 percent.
Raised the Medicare Payroll tax from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent.
Required every individual to buy health insurance as part of his healthcare reform, which the Congressional Budget Office says will cost twice as much as the White House originally advertised.
Proposed a seven percent hiring quota for "disabled" workers in every job category for government contractors, creating a new expensive burden to doing business with government.
Expanded the definition of "disabled" to include people with diabetes and heart disease, among others, and specified new quotas for hiring under this definition.
Opposed "repatriation" of U.S. corporate profits made overseas (and already taxed), thus encouraging U.S. companies to invest those profits in foreign enterprises.
Proposed higher taxes for business-use airplanes, raising the cost of many U.S. operations.
Sought to give the IRS the power to license all tax preparers, discouraging entrepreneurs by raising the cost to enter the market.
Attacked the Supreme Court twice directly, undercutting confidence in the separation of powers.
Raided California medical marijuana facilities, harming entrepreneurs and threatening medical treatments.
Sought and signed the Dodd-Frank financial reform law with its hundreds of new rules and restrictions that impose billions in new costs on financial companies.
Advocated for the "Buffett Rule," which would discourage U.S. investment and barely dent the deficit.
Expressed plans to raise the capital gains tax, which would discourage U.S. capital formation and drive investment overseas.
Created new emissions standards for industrial boilers that may cost hundreds of thousands of U.S. businesses a total of $14.5 billion.
Pursued his campaign pledge to adopt electronic medical records, at an estimated cost of as much as $100 billion. The plan is already costing jobs.
Set new energy-use mandates for many products, discouraging innovation and consumer choice and raising product costs.
Imposed new restrictions on the number of hours driven by truck drivers, costing more than $400 million with no proven additional safety benefit and raising the cost of goods shipped in the United States.
Failed to confront drug company payoffs/rebates to doctors, thus raising the cost of health care.
Negotiated secret trademark treaties that are so secret their effects are unknown.
Failed to make government more transparent by restricting FOIA requests, according to the Washington Post, making review of government actions difficult.
Neglected to do anything about providing guns to Mexico drug cartels, which resulted in the death of U.S. Border Patrol agents, causing worldwide doubt as to U.S. rule of law.
Perpetuated the fraud of "green jobs" to sell and justify stimulus funds with little evidence to support the market for these jobs.
Investigated leading U.S. companies, such as Amazon, Apple, Google, Intel and Qualcomm, which encouraged other countries to do the same.
No doubt some might quibble with some items on this list; others could probably take it up to 100. The point is that the Obama Administration has hurt business interests and job creation. While President Obama and his administration aren't solely responsible for America's economic turmoil, they have definitely hurt much more than they helped.
Your desire, excitement, and aspiration are heard, go https://www.1depositcasinonz.com/ . Try your luck and share your emotions. Don't forget who risks wins.
