View Poll Results: Which issue was/is more important for Barack Obama to have tackled first?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • the Economy

    21 77.78%
  • Killing Bin Laden

    1 3.70%
  • He did both and did a great job.

    5 18.52%
  • I have no idea what's going on. don't care. I jus like the man. 4 more years!.

    0 0%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37

Thread: Economy vs. Killing Bin Laden: Which wa/is more important?

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    07-30-13 @ 10:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    428

    Re: Economy vs. Killing Bin Laden: Which wa/is more important?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    I think that once he was isolated and his effectiveness to act was removed, that killing him was no longer a priority or should it have been. The War in Afghanistan was never totally about getting OBL, it was about undercutting support and removing bases of operations for Al Queda, and the War on Terror in general was about removing that from other terrorist organizations, not just about AQ. Further, while many consider the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to have been a waste of money, consider that without them having open bases to train in and that they now expend so much of their resources there instead of attacking us directly, then both were a success in diverting greater danger away from our borders. We all hate to see the reports of dead military members over there, but it is the military's job to be the shield between those that would attack us and our civilians. If anyone is going to attack us, the military should be the target, it's part of their job. Every gun, bomb or suicide bomber that they use there is one less that they could be using in our malls, shopping centers, schools or other civilian targets inside the US.

    If we didn't spend money to keep the attacks focused there and on our military, but instead they were freer to attack our civilians and business, what affect would that have had on the economy? People want to constantly bring up the costs of the war, but never consider what the cost to us may be if we didn't have them. This whole concept that if we left them alone, they would leave us alone fails because we did leave them alone before and they attacked and blew up embassies, bombed a US Naval Vessel, and finally carried out the 9/11 attacks.

    Also, the government can rarely directly control the economy, efforts to do so will only cause greater economic distress. To affect the economy, the government should focus on making the business environment in America competitive and workable instead of hamstringing it. I did not disagree with Obama's concept of his stimulus, only how he went about it. He would of had much greater success if he had had the government directly hire the unemployed to work on projects. Instead of welfare, put those people to work, use the money currently going to welfare to fund it initially. If properly structured, we could have a almost self sustaining program instead of the burdensome mess that is welfare in America today and our economy would be a hell of a lot better off because of it.
    I thought the WOT was all about OIL , not ousting dictators?

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    07-30-13 @ 10:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    428

    Re: Economy vs. Killing Bin Laden: Which wa/is more important?

    Quote Originally Posted by Donahue View Post
    I don't even know what that means but you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing with everyone at this point.

    You're not worth my time and I'm adding you to Ignore.
    Oh ok, you're clueless as to how wars are funded? I get it.

    My whole issue is with the poor decisions Obama made with my tax dollars. I think he should've spent our tax dollars on fixing the eeconomy not continuing wars and starting new ones with Syria and Iran.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    07-30-13 @ 10:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    428

    Re: Economy vs. Killing Bin Laden: Which wa/is more important?

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Actually....Obama TRIED to focus on the economy much more than he was able to....but if you go back and look at his first year, it was the "Party of NO" that rejected and blocked every effort he made to do so. If he hadn't been obstructed at every level, the economy would have rebounded more than it has. That said....we have now had 40 interrupted months of job growth. The stock markets have doubled since Obama took office and we are on the right path. That certainly beats the hundreds of thousands of jobs which we were hemorraghing when Obama took office, at least in my opinion
    Oh I get it. so the "party of NO" and not Congress, kept Obama from doing his job? I get it.

    Sounds like sour grapes though. because Obama could've done more with the economy using his executive Order powers, which he has freely used over 10 times alreaddy signing things and "changing " things.

  4. #24
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,091

    Re: Economy vs. Killing Bin Laden: Which wa/is more important?

    the best thing for the economy would have been to bring back the WPA and to pay for it with taxes, in my opinion. there's plenty of infrastructure to fix, and we need a massively expanded electrical grid. that would have been a bottom-up fix, and everyone would have benefited from it. if we hadn't done the REA the first time around, there might not have been electricity in many rural areas until many decades later, if ever.

    instead, we got a stimulus that wasn't big enough. it was far better than nothing, though.

  5. #25
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    Re: Economy vs. Killing Bin Laden: Which wa/is more important?

    Quote Originally Posted by 4Horsemen View Post
    Oh I get it. so the "party of NO" and not Congress, kept Obama from doing his job? I get it.

    Sounds like sour grapes though. because Obama could've done more with the economy using his executive Order powers, which he has freely used over 10 times alreaddy signing things and "changing " things.
    Not sour grapes at all...just the facts. It was the party of NO and a handful of bluedogs that obstructed every effort that Obama raised at trying to help the economy. McConnell himself made no bones about it. He, from day 1 indicated that they would obstruct everything that Obama tried to do. So if kinda falls shallow when people condemn Obama's efforts, when they support the very people who obstructed the efforts.

    As for Executive powers, exactly what are you proposing that Obama do? There are very limited things that executive orders can be used for. I'm interested in hearing what you think Obama could have done with them that he didn't.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  6. #26
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Economy vs. Killing Bin Laden: Which wa/is more important?

    Quote Originally Posted by 4Horsemen View Post
    I thought the WOT was all about OIL , not ousting dictators?
    I thought it was about neither, that it was to remove states that supported terrorism and to hunt down terrorist/terrorist groups. If it was/is about oil, then they are doing a damned terrible job of it. It has definitely helped keep terrorist infiltration into the US down and their resources focused on our forces instead of our civilians, but longterm change in the region and oil? Not so good of a job. Hell, if oil was the only reason, just the capacity in Iraq should of been able to forces prices far below what we see now.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  7. #27
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Economy vs. Killing Bin Laden: Which wa/is more important?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    the best thing for the economy would have been to bring back the WPA and to pay for it with taxes, in my opinion. there's plenty of infrastructure to fix, and we need a massively expanded electrical grid. that would have been a bottom-up fix, and everyone would have benefited from it. if we hadn't done the REA the first time around, there might not have been electricity in many rural areas until many decades later, if ever.

    instead, we got a stimulus that wasn't big enough. it was far better than nothing, though.
    I agree with most of what you say. But when Texas tried to institute Workfare to replace welfare in the state, someone decided it was "indentured servitude" and got it killed off. Think those same welfarist are going to support a new Conservation Corp or WPA structure that requires the welfare recipients to get off their asses and actually work? I don't.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  8. #28
    onomatopoeic
    mbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-17 @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,350

    Re: Economy vs. Killing Bin Laden: Which wa/is more important?

    Quote Originally Posted by 4Horsemen View Post
    IYO, which was more important? and why?


    IMO, Barack's failure to tackle the economy FIRST and get that fixed and back running properly. what he did was put a band aid on a bullet wound(stimulus/obamacare,etc..), and spent his chips on killing bin laden, which if you ask me, bin laden been dead since 2007, but that's another topic.

    sound off
    The OP, another Fallacious post/abuse of 'Polls'.
    Similar to False Choice/False Dichotomy but worse/Goofier.

    As if one can't do both at the same time, or as if the cost of getting Bin Laden significantly effected the economy.

    The poll section remains the forum of choice/abuse for the worst partisan nonsense.
    Last edited by mbig; 09-19-12 at 03:46 PM.
    I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
    anon

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-26-14 @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,032

    Re: Economy vs. Killing Bin Laden: Which wa/is more important?

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Actually....Obama TRIED to focus on the economy much more than he was able to....but if you go back and look at his first year, it was the "Party of NO" that rejected and blocked every effort he made to do so. If he hadn't been obstructed at every level, the economy would have rebounded more than it has. That said....we have now had 40 interrupted months of job growth. The stock markets have doubled since Obama took office and we are on the right path. That certainly beats the hundreds of thousands of jobs which we were hemorraghing when Obama took office, at least in my opinion
    You do know that the democrats held both the House of Representatives and the Senate in the first 2years... so the party of "no" is the democrats I gather?

  10. #30
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,091

    Re: Economy vs. Killing Bin Laden: Which wa/is more important?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    I agree with most of what you say. But when Texas tried to institute Workfare to replace welfare in the state, someone decided it was "indentured servitude" and got it killed off. Think those same welfarist are going to support a new Conservation Corp or WPA structure that requires the welfare recipients to get off their asses and actually work? I don't.
    i'd say that there would be a lot of support for a renewed WPA from the left, and it doesn't mean that safety nets have to be entirely eliminated. i would guess that a lot of people would take the better paying jobs, though, so there would be significantly fewer people on public assistance. i've heard the "lazy welfare recipients won't work no matter what" meme, and it's basically bunk. those who argue this can generally find a couple inflammatory examples of people who cheat the system, but i've yet to see any evidence that this represents the majority of people on assistance. people will do whatever can make them the most money. if it's a good job, they'll take it.

    the sticking point would be the taxes. to fund a program big enough to fix our infrastructure and to make a real dent, taxes would have to go up. under Roosevelt, the top marginal rate was much higher. we wouldn't have to raise it that much, but there is fierce opposition to even returning to the historically low rates of the 1990s.

    my guess is that there is almost no chance of a meaningful work program being enacted. our basic choice is to hire people to do essential work or pay them not to. i'd prefer the former, even if it costs me more in taxes. that money will trickle up big time, and i'll benefit from it, as will everyone else.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •