• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BREAKING: President Obama Addresses the Nation Tonight at 9

And if the people support politicians who uses this power to gain re-election by doing what the people want, then that is a feature of democracy, not a bug.

Except we are a constitutional representative republic and not a democracy. That is exactly what is supposed to prevent that sort of hackery. Checks and balances and laws are there for a reason.
 
Except we are a constitutional representative republic and not a democracy. That is exactly what is supposed to prevent that sort of hackery. Checks and balances and laws are there for a reason.

It is both. Democracy is not mutually exclusive from constitutional republics.
 
Just goes to show once again that the Federal Govt. should never be in the business of social engineering and the responsibility for helping the people belongs at the state and local levels. We wouldn't be in this mess today if it weren't for meddling politicians who continue to see an opportunity to keep their power and their jobs.

State and local governments have proven themselves to be fairly worthless at dealing with larger issues, e.g. slavery, Jim Crow, poverty, industrial safety, pollution, etc.
 
I watched the speech from President Obama. My impressions were that it was a very fair speech. Sure, there were some things that might not of been totally in line, but he is human, as you and I, and can not be perfect. As I stated earlier in another thread, I feel Obama's presidency can be summed up as a destruction control presidency. Even though the stimulus package hasn't been the most efficient, he was able to save necessary programs like law enforcement and fire houses. (I would argue that that is not the Federal Government's place to control. But the state or districts'.) The intentions were good regardless.

You see, my parents eat up Fox News like it is candy. When the speech was done, Fox News started to spin it grossly, to the point I said, "Shut the **** up Fox News!" and left the room. I could not stand it anymore. For every conservative outlook you have on something, you should have a liberal on another. That is journalism. Not the MSNBC's or the Fox News's of our time.

And so, I think I agree with President on the negotiations. It seems the Republicans are un-willing to compromise. However, it should be noted he was unable to compromise with Obamacare. He may of perceived his was was the only way to solve the crisis at hand, but that does not justify doing the exact thing he is complaining about.

And I feel we are starting to see, in the beauty of our governmental system, it is very inefficient. That is the downside to having such a large legislature. I feel that the inefficiency might bite us to the point, that it is very well possible that we could default. I know they are working as hard as they can to prevent that, but I am afraid seven days is not enough. I feel that if Obama wants to get re-elected, he has to address the people like that much more often. The gross slander of Fox News puts him in a position where he shouldn't just take it, but to defend himself as a strong and competent leader. I am guilty of this...

I watched a segment on Fox News, and what they said made sense to the point I told myself, "I am never going to vote for him again for the Presidency." Then when Obama made that speech, I changed my mind. It is still possible for me to vote for him (notice the word possible) , but I feel he needs to be more transparent with the American public in order for me to vote for him.

That's my two cents.
 
State and local governments have proven themselves to be fairly worthless at dealing with larger issues, e.g. slavery, Jim Crow, poverty, industrial safety, pollution, etc.

State and local governments are closer to the people as intended by our Founders. If you have a problem at the state level how do you expect a bloated federal bureaucracy to help you? You actually think a politician in D.C. is going to help you in your local community? Think about it, all wishful thinking by proponents of a large central govt. What creates such brainwashing?
 
As Rage Against the Machine puts it, we all have bullets in our heads (brainwashed).

"There goes the inhouse drive by
They say jump you say how high."
 
I agree with most of what you said, but I think you are mistaken about health care reform. In fact, the program was pre-compromised in order to -- unrealistically, as it turned out -- avoid major republican opposition. Thus, instead of starting out with single payer, as Obama would surely prefer, Democrats submitted a plan that was essentially written by Republicans in response to Clinton's health care proposal, and later adopted by Mitt Romney in MA. That is the mistake that Obama can't seem to unlearn; his staring position is always the position that he would like to wind up with after negotiations have taken place. Perhaps this makes some sense, in retrospect. He understands that republicans will simply refuse to negotiate, so he is in effect writing in the changes that they would make if they were remotely reasonable.
 
State and local governments are closer to the people as intended by our Founders. If you have a problem at the state level how do you expect a bloated federal bureaucracy to help you? You actually think a politician in D.C. is going to help you in your local community? Think about it, all wishful thinking by proponents of a large central govt. What creates such brainwashing?

The Founders obviously intended for there to be a federal government that was meant to provide for the general welfare. Otherwise they would have simply restricted its scope to national defense. And yes, I do think that politicians in Washington are helping my local community. Lord save of us if we had to rely exclusively on the clowns who run the show down here.
 
That makes sense. As my brother pointed out, you have to realize, a lot of the Republicans that are still in office are there after the wave of democrats so to speak. That means they represent districts that are extremely conservative. Which means two things. One, they are unable to compromise. Two, there is no incentive to compromise, simply because the people they represent are so conservative.
 
sookster;1059689701]I watched the speech from President Obama. My impressions were that it was a very fair speech. Sure, there were some things that might not of been totally in line, but he is human, as you and I, and can not be perfect. As I stated earlier in another thread, I feel Obama's presidency can be summed up as a destruction control presidency. Even though the stimulus package hasn't been the most efficient, he was able to save necessary programs like law enforcement and fire houses. (I would argue that that is not the Federal Government's place to control. But the state or districts'.) The intentions were good regardless.

Where do you get your information? None of the stimulus went to fire control and police departments. That is state and local responsibility. Do you know the role of the Federal govt? It isn't to pay for state programs like police and fire departments or even teachers.

You see, my parents eat up Fox News like it is candy. When the speech was done, Fox News started to spin it grossly, to the point I said, "Shut the **** up Fox News!" and left the room. I could not stand it anymore. For every conservative outlook you have on something, you should have a liberal on another. That is journalism. Not the MSNBC's or the Fox News's of our time.

Now that was a real grown up thing to do. Every Fox Program has the contrary point of view. What you fail to recognize is the failure of this Administration as you have been brainwashed into thinking with your heart instead of your brain. Politicians have created the 14.4 trillion debt and those politicians now want more.

And so, I think I agree with President on the negotiations. It seems the Republicans are un-willing to compromise. However, it should be noted he was unable to compromise with Obamacare. He may of perceived his was was the only way to solve the crisis at hand, but that does not justify doing the exact thing he is complaining about
.

Why do you continue to buy the lies of this President? What economic prediction of this President has come true? How long are you going to accept the rhetoric and ignore the results? President Obama had total control of Congress and the WH doing nothing about the debt ceiling or even getting a budget approved. Now he wants to compromise? Compromise on what? He has added 4 trillion to the debt in three years and wants to start the negotiations with cuts of his record budgets. Wow! Go back to 2008 budget numbers and start there.

And I feel we are starting to see, in the beauty of our governmental system, it is very inefficient. That is the downside to having such a large legislature. I feel that the inefficiency might bite us to the point, that it is very well possible that we could default. I know they are working as hard as they can to prevent that, but I am afraid seven days is not enough. I feel that if Obama wants to get re-elected, he has to address the people like that much more often. The gross slander of Fox News puts him in a position where he shouldn't just take it, but to defend himself as a strong and competent leader. I am guilty of this...

Right, that effecient govt. system has created a 14.4 trillion dollar debt. Talking is all Obama does, leadership is something he doesn't understand. He has zero leadership skills. Where is his plan on the debt crisis?

I watched a segment on Fox News, and what they said made sense to the point I told myself, "I am never going to vote for him again for the Presidency." Then when Obama made that speech, I changed my mind. It is still possible for me to vote for him (notice the word possible) , but I feel he needs to be more transparent with the American public in order for me to vote for him.

You are exactly who is was talking to, the young, naive, and gullible. You need to trust but verify his rhetoric and when you verify the rhetoric you find terrible results.

Obama record, 15.1 million officially unemployed TODAY 2 1/2 years later, 16.2% total unemployment or underemployment over 24 million TODAY, 4 trillion added to the debt as of the end of fiscal year 2011, and a rising misery index(7.83 to 12.67).
 
State and local governments are closer to the people as intended by our Founders. If you have a problem at the state level how do you expect a bloated federal bureaucracy to help you? You actually think a politician in D.C. is going to help you in your local community? Think about it, all wishful thinking by proponents of a large central govt. What creates such brainwashing?

The problems listed in the post you responded to are not "state level" problems. No one has argued that the Feds should be dealing with every problem, so your argument here is a straw man.
 
I agree with most of what you said, but I think you are mistaken about health care reform. In fact, the program was pre-compromised in order to -- unrealistically, as it turned out -- avoid major republican opposition. Thus, instead of starting out with single payer, as Obama would surely prefer, Democrats submitted a plan that was essentially written by Republicans in response to Clinton's health care proposal, and later adopted by Mitt Romney in MA. That is the mistake that Obama can't seem to unlearn; his staring position is always the position that he would like to wind up with after negotiations have taken place. Perhaps this makes some sense, in retrospect. He understands that republicans will simply refuse to negotiate, so he is in effect writing in the changes that they would make if they were remotely reasonable.

I mostly agree, but I don't think Obama wanted things like single payer, UHC or a public option just as he not opposed to cutting spending and programs like SS and Medicare
 
The Founders obviously intended for there to be a federal government that was meant to provide for the general welfare. Otherwise they would have simply restricted its scope to national defense. And yes, I do think that politicians in Washington are helping my local community. Lord save of us if we had to rely exclusively on the clowns who run the show down here.

Promote the General Welfare, not provide for it, that is until politicians learned they can buy votes and keep their job and power by providing people with anything. If you have clowns running your state then why not do something about it, get involved, run for office, take the jobs of those clowns. The role of the Federal Govt. isn't to provide for all that you need but instead make it easier for people like you to earn what you want. There is quite a difference
 
I mostly agree, but I don't think Obama wanted things like single payer, UHC or a public option just as he not opposed to cutting spending and programs like SS and Medicare

Name for me one single payer system that is working anywhere in the world?
 
Promote the General Welfare, not provide for it, that is until politicians learned they can buy votes and keep their job and power by providing people with anything. If you have clowns running your state then why not do something about it, get involved, run for office, take the jobs of those clowns. The role of the Federal Govt. isn't to provide for all that you need but instead make it easier for people like you to earn what you want. There is quite a difference

The job of the Federal govt is to promote the general welfare by providing funding for programs that do that.
 
The problems listed in the post you responded to are not "state level" problems. No one has argued that the Feds should be dealing with every problem, so your argument here is a straw man.

Police, fire, teachers, state highways are state responsibilities not the Federal govt. What do you pay state taxes for?
 
In response to the thread constructively criticizing my post, here is my response.

One, my source of information that the Federal Government was able to save police forces and fire houses, was from the President himself. And, I know you are not going to think that is a valid source, for you perceive him as a man of lies.

I would argue, that it is very dangerous to think in extremes, or black and white. In fact, that is considered a cognitive distortion in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. I implore you, to try and see the other side. I understand that maybe something that the other side did angered you, might of done something horrible in your life, but if you are religious, I think you might understand the concept of forgiveness.

You are right. It is both sides that is responsible for the debt crisis. I also want to point out, that there is 24 hours in the day, and the President needs sleep or he would even be a worse leader if your mind could comprehend that. Which means, there is only so much he can do, as with anyone in office. They are human, not machines.
 
The job of the Federal govt is to promote the general welfare by providing funding for programs that do that.

No, the job of the Federal govt. is to provide incentive so that people don't need that so called Federal help. You think it is my responsibility to pay for your healthcare? You always talk about the Federal Govt, and ignore that the Federal Govt. gets its money from the taxpayers. Why should a taxpayer in Ohio pay for someone else's healthcare in California. Send your money to the Federal govt so they can deduct administrative fees and decide where to send it. That created the 14.4 trillion debt we have today.
 
No, the job of the Federal govt. is to provide incentive so that people don't need that so called Federal help. You think it is my responsibility to pay for your healthcare? You always talk about the Federal Govt, and ignore that the Federal Govt. gets its money from the taxpayers. Why should a taxpayer in Ohio pay for someone else's healthcare in California. Send your money to the Federal govt so they can deduct administrative fees and decide where to send it. That created the 14.4 trillion debt we have today.

And the fed govt provides incentives by providing funding to the states. And it is your responsibility to pay whatever the law says you must pay.
 
In response to the thread constructively criticizing my post, here is my response.

One, my source of information that the Federal Government was able to save police forces and fire houses, was from the President himself. And, I know you are not going to think that is a valid source, for you perceive him as a man of lies.

I would argue, that it is very dangerous to think in extremes, or black and white. In fact, that is considered a cognitive distortion in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. I implore you, to try and see the other side. I understand that maybe something that the other side did angered you, might of done something horrible in your life, but if you are religious, I think you might understand the concept of forgiveness.

You are right. It is both sides that is responsible for the debt crisis. I also want to point out, that there is 24 hours in the day, and the President needs sleep or he would even be a worse leader if your mind could comprehend that. Which means, there is only so much he can do, as with anyone in office. They are human, not machines.

Which is a lie, but you bought it so prove it. States are responsible for solving their own problems, why do you believe someone from another state should fund your police?

Both sides did create the problem, but only one side seems to understand personal responsibility and states rights.
 
Name for me one single payer system that is working anywhere in the world?

France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, Sweden, South Korea, Great Britain, etc., etc.

In fact they all provide essentially the same level of care we do, and generally at half the cost per capita. Eventually we will have to go to single payer or health care costs will permanently bankrupt us.
 
And the fed govt provides incentives by providing funding to the states. And it is your responsibility to pay whatever the law says you must pay.

A typical non answer, so because the state has that right makes it ok but only as long as liberals control the legislative process? Why should the Federal Taxpayer provide incentive to the states and ignore their own state?
 
Back
Top Bottom