• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Sunday morning musings: Obama's campaign slogan

Objective Voice said:
It is you who has your head buried in the sand. You see short term gains as absolute believing it to be the only way forward. There are aspects of socialism and nationalism in our American society, but none hamper our individual liberties. The unemployment compensation and welfare assistance you fear can only be made permanent (altruism) if this country fails to recognize that short term economic measures were necessary to save this country from collapse and that making peace around the world - these so-call apology tours - were necessary to regain America's trust and prestige around the world. People don't want to be beholding to another. They want freedom and peace, but most of all people what to able to provide for themselves. That means education. That means training and skills development. That means employment opporutnities if avenues are opened that lead to job placement. INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT, INNOVATION - they are the way forward at least to allow this nation time to heal.
Click to expand...



I went to college and paid for it as I went.

Borrowing money is not a good way to get out of debt.

Providing all of those things you list is great and it would be nice if the guy promising to pay for them had not already gambled away the rent money.
 
code1211 said:
I went to college and paid for it as I went.

Borrowing money is not a good way to get out of debt.

Providing all of those things you list is great and it would be nice if the guy promising to pay for them had not already gambled away the rent money.
Click to expand...

But no one's saying that peole would have to continue borrowing money in order to attend college. Given enough jobs with renewed emphasis on saving and investing and buying IN AMERICA, people will begin to fund their own initiatives. But it's going to take time which is what this nation needs in order to heal. Don't you see? If Republicans get their way this county won't be able to produce because we've become a nation that relies too much on financial services and not on manufacturing. This country does need to "go to work" but the only way that happens is if Republicans are honest as Gov. Christi has said - tell the truth - and folks are made to understand what's really at steak beyond money and power.
 
code1211 said:
The key words in you post that you just kind of passed by were "massive layoffs".

There are about 3.5 million more Americans working 4 years ago than there are today and there are about 11 million more Americans today than there were then.

This is failure.
Click to expand...

Where did those additional 11 million more people come from?
 
Objective Voice said:
The slogan, "Forward," is meant to convey the nation's forward progress. It's left vague so that WE, THE PEOPLE can choose which way forward we want to go. If it is to be a land that has always moved forward after reaching difficult times, then that is the country WE will vote to have - a country that picks itself up, dusts itself off, realizes our values centered around human compassion and individual God given rights. Or we can go the complete opposite way and become a nation of sheep led to the slaughter with an old enemy reborn and poised against us on one end while sealing off another to whom we owe a great debt on the other end.

"Forward" does convey a very simple message: What country do you wish to live in and under what circumstances do you wish to be ruled?

If it's peace you want along with any chance for prosperity, you'll vote for the man whose party has not championed the call for war, but instead has emphasized reconstruction and reforms. But if it's another fight you seak, you will vote for the man who has championed returning to old an cold war enemy who could become an ally while also declaring he'd empose tarriffs against the nation that now holds our country's debt. America would be trapped on both sides with no way out.

"Forward" means we would begin nation building here at home for a change. We'd rally the world to take a bigger role in performing peace keeping missions and keeping the world saver for all man-kind.

"Forward" means seeing Congress compromise for a change where the party who many of its leaders have said "they're unable to govern right now" or "that their party is unrecognizable from the party of years past, that it's no longer the party of Ike".

"Forward" means those who can do more begin to contribute more so that this nation can remain vibrant and strong.

FORWARD has many connotations..YOU CHOOSE which country you wish to live in. May God keep and bless us or have mercy on our souls. Vote wisely.
Click to expand...
Good post.


Objective Voice said:
You would be correct on all of the above. It was the economic policies of the Republican Party that caused the economic problems this country now faces. Therefore, blaming GW Bush would be very appropriate.
Click to expand...
Most of which, Obama continued. The claims of Obama being, in many ways, "Bush II Lite" aren't off-the-mark.
 
Objective Voice said:
But no one's saying that peole would have to continue borrowing money in order to attend college. Given enough jobs with renewed emphasis on saving and investing and buying IN AMERICA, people will begin to fund their own initiatives. But it's going to take time which is what this nation needs in order to heal. Don't you see? If Republicans get their way this county won't be able to produce because we've become a nation that relies too much on financial services and not on manufacturing. This country does need to "go to work" but the only way that happens is if Republicans are honest as Gov. Christi has said - tell the truth - and folks are made to understand what's really at steak beyond money and power.
Click to expand...

This nation will never rely on manufacturing. For the simple fact that labor is less expensive elsewhere. It doesn't make sense to manufacture anything when wages drive up the prices thus you don't sell enough to make a profit. Without profit, business doesn't exist.
 
Debra said:
Even the debt ceiling a usual regular normal thing the house passes without much conflict became a fiasco under this GOP house, they should be ashamed.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me?? How often should we as a country be expected to raise the debt ceiling? I personally would be very cautious when doing something like that, but the ceiling has been raised 3 times this year! If the Republicans made a mistake, it was allowing it to be raised at all! The country cannot move forward in a meaningful way if its continually going deeper and deeper into debt. You show me ONE successful business or country that stayed successful by following that route. You cant, because "success" and "debt" is an oxymoron.
 
code1211 said:
What planet are you from?
Click to expand...

The same planet as you only you've become blind to what's really been going on.

Republicans have used the filibuster far more than Democrats. And truth be told, much of President Obama's first term where he did have a Democrat majority was spent on getting health care reform passed. But I wouldn't present that time within our political process as wasteful. I see it as time well spent and only a fool would think otherwise. Think about it...

A health care system where everyone takes responsibility for their health care needs, a system where the poor will receive assistance for a brief time until they are able to stand up on their own feet and that requires those can pay their own way to do so instead of being moochers from the top down and you claim those at the bottom are doing, a system that has oversight and review panels that include representative membership from all THREE sides - Democrats, Republicans AND the people - civilians - who will also sit on the boards. It's not a perfect system but it is a REPRESENTATIVE system that contains checks and balances that are necessary especially in this partisan political climate were live in.

Those who continue to wear blinders cannot see the truth.
 
Arbo said:
This nation will never rely on manufacturing. For the simple fact that labor is less expensive elsewhere. It doesn't make sense to manufacture anything when wages drive up the prices thus you don't sell enough to make a profit. Without profit, business doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

The obvious solution to that is to lower the cost of labor. How do we do that? Gut the unions. We could pay the laborers half the money and they would still take home the same amount, because they wouldnt be giving half their earnings to corrupt unions. See, there are solutions that dont include exporting our money to other countries.
 
Arbo said:
This nation will never rely on manufacturing. For the simple fact that labor is less expensive elsewhere. It doesn't make sense to manufacture anything when wages drive up the prices thus you don't sell enough to make a profit. Without profit, business doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

But the wealth-class has been profitable even during this recessionary period. How much more money could they possibly need? And look at where their money is going? Oppulance and feeding the political machine just to keep funneling money into their pockets. And what have they done with their earnings? Have they adhered to the theory behind "trickle-down economics"? Has the middle-class grown or shrank? Have the numbers within the wealth-class increased or remain steady? Are there more poor people in America under the Bush-era tax system or have there been a sudden increase in people moving either into the wealth class or out of poverty?

Dpetty said:
The obvious solution to that is to lower the cost of labor. How do we do that? Gut the unions. We could pay the laborers half the money and they would still take home the same amount, because they wouldnt be giving half their earnings to corrupt unions. See, there are solutions that dont include exporting our money to other countries.
Click to expand...

And considering that private union membership has been down for years and public unions have now been pretty much "handled" with collective bargaining rights nearly erradicated, I'd say the threat of higher labor cost is nearly a moot point. But if Republicans don't work with this President to enact comprehensive immigration reform, you can kiss your cheap labor force goodbye.
 
Last edited:
I still think "I'm still not Bush!" is a far more effective and appropriate slogan considering his accomplishments.
 
radcen said:
Most of which, Obama continued. The claims of Obama being, in many ways, "Bush II Lite" aren't off-the-mark.
Click to expand...


And as I've said in previous posts, the incoming President usually does have to live within the framework set by his predecessor. This is why such issues as "closing Gitmo" and taking 9/11-terror suspects to trial have been so problematic. Read the books, "The Return of the Imperial Presidency" by Charlie Savage and "The Way of the World" by Ron Suskind and you'll discover exactly how difficult it has been to close this nation's largest terrorist detention facility and why it's been so difficult to bring terrorist to trial.
 
Objective Voice said:
But if Republicans don't work with this President to enact comprehensive immigration reform, you can kiss your cheap labor force goodbye.
Click to expand...

This arguing point is so over used. Immigration and cheap labor do not have to go hand in hand. You say Immigration like its some all encompassing thing, but your mostly refering to non skilled immigrants from Mexico when you refer to cheap labor. There are plenty of AMERICANS who are willing to work in non skilled jobs, which by their very nature demand less pay. But there are also MANY immigrants coming from all over the world who are skilled. They are two very different issues, since we cannot fix the labor crisis by importing immigrants. We solve it by putting our own citizens to work instead of removing their motivation by sending them checks and horizon cards every month.
 
Dpetty said:
This arguing point is so over used. Immigration and cheap labor do not have to go hand in hand. You say Immigration like its some all encompassing thing, but your mostly refering to non skilled immigrants from Mexico when you refer to cheap labor. There are plenty of AMERICANS who are willing to work in non skilled jobs, which by their very nature demand less pay. But there are also MANY immigrants coming from all over the world who are skilled. They are two very different issues, since we cannot fix the labor crisis by importing immigrants. We solve it by putting our own citizens to work instead of removing their motivation by sending them checks and horizon cards every month.
Click to expand...

Hence, you understand what "comprehensive immigration reform" truly means and how only with THE PEOPLE insisting on Congress voting in favor of infrastructure projects and SBA loans can all help to move this country FORWARD!
 
Objective Voice said:
Hence, you understand what "comprehensive immigration reform" truly means and how only with THE PEOPLE insisting on Congress voting in favor of infrastructure projects and SBA loans can all help to move this country FORWARD!
Click to expand...

I have said nothing about SBA loans, but as far as infrastructure projects, yes i think that will move the country forward on many levels, the least of which is that it creates jobs. If you want a worthy cause to spend out tax dollars on, it would definatly be infrastucture projects. Look up the CCC's.
 
Objective Voice said:
A health care system where everyone takes responsibility for their health care needs, a system where the poor will receive assistance for a brief time until they are able to stand up on their own feet and that requires those can pay their own way to do so instead of being moochers from the top down and you claim those at the bottom are doing, a system that has oversight and review panels that include representative membership from all THREE sides - Democrats, Republicans AND the people - civilians - who will also sit on the boards. It's not a perfect system but it is a REPRESENTATIVE system that contains checks and balances that are necessary especially in this partisan political climate were live in.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's some hard core left wing dreaming there. Talk about blinders.

Objective Voice said:
How much more money could they possibly need? And look at where their money is going?
Click to expand...

It's not governments job to determine how much they need, or how they spend it. There are political systems out there that do that, they don't have a good history of freedom for their people.
 
Objective Voice said:
And as I've said in previous posts, the incoming President usually does have to live within the framework set by his predecessor. This is why such issues as "closing Gitmo" and taking 9/11-terror suspects to trial have been so problematic. Read the books, "The Return of the Imperial Presidency" by Charlie Savage and "The Way of the World" by Ron Suskind and you'll discover exactly how difficult it has been to close this nation's largest terrorist detention facility and why it's been so difficult to bring terrorist to trial.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. An incoming President does have to deal with the previous President's budget... for the first year. After that, they can put their own mark on it. Also, it is extremely difficult for a President to "undo" a previous President's Executive Order simply by executing a new Executive Order.

But, take "closing GITMO", since you brought it up. He made the promise. Shouldn't he have known it was going to be difficult to actually do? (If not him, specifically, then one of his close advisers) Not just with Obama, but I have noticed that we allow most new Presidents to claim ignorance of the process when they cannot fulfill a specific campaign promise like that.

I personally believe, but have no proof, that he was advised after he got in office exactly why closing GITMO and having trials would be a bad idea, and he acceded to these reasons. Of course, he can't come out and say that (if true) because that would be portrayed as a sign of weakness by the other side. Regardless, we're back to him making the promise, and either being too weak to actually do it, or being naive about what he could do once elected and (unintentionally, most likely) misleading the voters... neither of which is any better than the other in terms of his image going forward (no pun intended on the 'forward').

Take the "war on drugs" and medical marijuana as another example. We were promised change there, too. Especially regarding medical marijuana. Did we get what was promised? No. We got pretty much Bush II's policies verbatim. I wouldn't have expected a complete reversal, and he didn't even promise that much, but he could have set a different tone, but he chose to ignore his promise and ignore the issue.

So, yes and no. No, the Presidency is not a dictatorship, but yes it is still a pretty influential office in its own right.
 
Dpetty said:
I have said nothing about SBA loans, but as far as infrastructure projects, yes i think that will move the country forward on many levels, the least of which is that it creates jobs. If you want a worthy cause to spend out tax dollars on, it would definatly be infrastucture projects. Look up the CCC's.
Click to expand...

I know you didn't mention SBA loans. I added that reference because it's important. The banks can't seem to get their act together to loan money to people who want to start, grow or expand their business and the private sector (these so-called "captains of industry") don't want to "invest" their profits without receiving something in return. Tax credits to hire and/or invest in public-private projects seems the right way to go don't you think? Revising the tax code as outlined in Bowles-Simpson...

Again, from the Bloomberg Business Week article:

The Bowles-Simpson plan would have reduced the deficit by $870 billion in 2020, from a projected $1.15 trillion without action.

It would have reversed the growth of the debt held by the public from 71.5 percent of gross domestic product in 2013 to 60 percent by 2023 by limiting domestic and defense spending and overhauling the tax code. It would have also eliminated all itemized deductions and replaced some of them with refundable tax credits while reducing income tax rates.
Click to expand...

As for the reason folks walked away from this so-called grand bargain:

Illinois Representative Jan Schakowsky, a Democrat on the panel who opposed the plan because of cuts in Social Security benefits...
Click to expand...

Yet another plan with non-starting vote issue - taking away Social Security benefits from working class people - folks likely like you and me - who have paid into the system throughout our working lives. So, here we have Paul Ryan talking about preserving Medicare on the one hand yet willing to cut Social Security benefits? How does he reconcil these two issues? Does not Social Security pay for most of the Medicare benefits our senior citizens enjoy? And if you think senior citizens are struggling to make ends meet now, wait until our generation gets into our golden years and many people don't have much in their savings accounts not to mention their retirement accounts have been gutted from the economic crisis of 2008? How do you think this generation can survive in the next 15-25 years? And what about the generation that follows if we stay on this same path?
 
radcen said:
Yes and no. An incoming President does have to deal with the previous President's budget... for the first year. After that, they can put their own mark on it. Also, it is extremely difficult for a President to "undo" a previous President's Executive Order simply by executing a new Executive Order.

But, take "closing GITMO", since you brought it up. He made the promise. Shouldn't he have known it was going to be difficult to actually do? (If not him, specifically, then one of his close advisers) Not just with Obama, but I have noticed that we allow most new Presidents to claim ignorance of the process when they cannot fulfill a specific campaign promise like that.

I personally believe, but have no proof, that he was advised after he got in office exactly why closing GITMO and having trials would be a bad idea, and he acceded to these reasons. Of course, he can't come out and say that (if true) because that would be portrayed as a sign of weakness by the other side. Regardless, we're back to him making the promise, and either being too weak to actually do it, or being naive about what he could do once elected and (unintentionally, most likely) misleading the voters... neither of which is any better than the other in terms of his image going forward (no pun intended on the 'forward').

Take the "war on drugs" and medical marijuana as another example. We were promised change there, too. Especially regarding medical marijuana. Did we get what was promised? No. We got pretty much Bush II's policies verbatim. I wouldn't have expected a complete reversal, and he didn't even promise that much, but he could have set a different tone, but he chose to ignore his promise and ignore the issue.

So, yes and no. No, the Presidency is not a dictatorship, but yes it is still a pretty influential office in its own right.
Click to expand...

But these things are minor in comparison to the larger issues at hand. Still, you are right in that once Pres. Obama got into the White House, I'm sure he quickly realized that closing Gimto would be more difficult than he initially thought. Still, I can care less about Gitmo or putting terrorist on trial. Why? Because once these wars are over neither will matter anymore. We'll do exactly what we did after WWII w/the Japanesse - we'll detain those worth putting in prison, take them to trail (as best we can) and release the rest. And in the aftermath, we'll close Gitmo.

The bigger issues are employment and by extension getting our nation's economy moving again while also positioning ourselves in the world to tamp down aggression while leaving the world saver. If we go the Republican way with Romney/Ryan remaining a pawn to Grover Norquist, this country fails miseribly! But under Pres. Obama we have a chance to heal and then improve things.
 
"Forward" simply means more of the same, borrow and spend.
 
Objective Voice said:
I know you didn't mention SBA loans. I added that reference because it's important. The banks can't seem to get their act together to loan money to people who want to start, grow or expand their business and the private sector (these so-called "captains of industry") don't want to "invest" their profits without receiving something in return. Tax credits to hire and/or invest in public-private projects seems the right way to go don't you think? Revising the tax code as outlined in Bowles-Simpson...
Click to expand...

Ya there are many hurdles out there to overcome, thats for sure. Bank regulations are one of them. Banks are sticky, because they are private institutions with government backed insurance, thus the government thinks it has the power to control them. At the end of the day, a bank is a business that is there to make money. That is its ultimate reason for existing. Why in the world would anyone want to "invest" in anything without expecting to see something in return? That defies the definition of investing. They definatly need to get their act together, but part of that is DE regulation, not added regulation.

Dont even get me started on the tax code. I think we should throw the whole thing out and start over. The problem is that there are TO MANY TAX CODES! If you have to go to school for years simply to be qualified to small areas of tax code, you know that its just to complicated. I doubt there is a single person in the world who has a firm grasp of every aspect of the United States tax system.
 
Born Free said:
"Forward" simply means more of the same, borrow and spend.
Click to expand...

It was not picked to show solidarity with their in-house network MSNBC? Isn't their slogan leaning forward?
 
Objective Voice said:
Then you are lost. You want to usher in tyranny which is what you'll get under Republican rule. They only see wealth, power and war! So, if that's what you want vote unwisely.
Click to expand...

Tyranny? Obama wants a welfare state with him at its head! He wants to make every single American dependant on him for their very lives! That is Tyranny my friend. That would make Obama a veritable emperor of the United States, with his czars at his side. Obama is just as addicted to power as any tyrant ever was, he just wants all the power for himself. Rather than a powerful nation, he wants a dependant nation that cant fight back.
 
Objective Voice said:
Then you are lost. You want to usher in tyranny which is what you'll get under Republican rule. They only see wealth, power and war! So, if that's what you want vote unwisely.
Click to expand...

I'm not lost, far from it. 6 trillion added to the national debt in just 4 yrs, unemployment over 8% for 42 months and running, a GDP of 1.5%, Obamacare that is so well liked 30 states sued to kill it. Hell I could go on and on.

Like I said, "Forward" simply means more of the same. Borrow and spend. And then you have this thing called "trickle up" please tell me how the poor, people on welfare, on food stamps, and all those that don't pay a dime in federal income tax is going to get this country growing again?

"Power" that is all Obama lives for.

Now to war, he added 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, a war he is losing, Then he invaded Libya for oil. And all along the way this warmonger takes no prisoners, he just kills them along with any civilians that are in the way with his drones.

"Forward" keep doing the same old ****.
 
Last edited:
Arbo said:
Wow, that's some hard core left wing dreaming there. Talk about blinders.



It's not governments job to determine how much they need, or how they spend it. There are political systems out there that do that, they don't have a good history of freedom for their people.
Click to expand...
No, no, no! He is objective and moderate and doubting that is tantamount to the insanity of questioning Obamacare!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom