• 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!

Enlightenend Society

How long will it take?


  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
Couldn't tell you. Maybe we are in a slow recovery, maybe we are about to have prolonged recession/depression. What I do know is that we have these recessions about every 18 years. Its been happening for about 200 years now. Until we recognize it as unnatural and until we strike the root of the problem it is going to continue.
Do you think Barack Obama will "strike the root of the problem"?
 
You didn't read what I said. Please try again!

"A majority of Democrats also voted against the needless Iraq war that cost taxpayers $2 trillion dollars."



61% of Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war compared to almost 100% of Republicans.


In what world is 61% not a majority?
Sorry, but you didn't read what I said. "As an averaged percentage of each house of Congress, a mild majority of Democrats voted for the war."

60% of House Democrats against the bill, as did 42% of Senate Democrats. The average of that is...51%? Odd, I calculated 49% yesterday...

My point still stands. The Democratic Party was divided right down the middle on this - hardly the dovish crusaders you portrayed them to be.
 
Last edited:
Do you think Barack Obama will "strike the root of the problem"?

I highly doubt it. Then again, I doubt any of our current politicians would.
 
Sorry, but you didn't read what I said. "As an averaged percentage of each house of Congress, a mild majority of Democrats voted for the war."

60% of House Democrats against the bill, as did 42% of Senate Democrats. The average of that is...51%? Odd, I calculated 49% yesterday...

My point still stands. The Democratic Party was divided right down the middle on this - hardly the dovish crusaders you portrayed them to be.


I did have my percentage slightly off before. It was 57% of Congressional Democrats instead of 61% that voted against AOF in Iraq. However, your shell game doesn't hold up to the math:

In Congress,

7 Republicans out of 270, voted against AOF in Iraq or approximately 3%

vs

147 Democrats out of 258, that voted against AOF in Iraq or approximately 57%

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The fact that a majority of Democrats voted against the AOF in Iraq vs a near unanimous majority of Republicans that voted for AOF in Iraq is one of the reasons we chose Obama in the last two elections.
 
Last edited:
I did have my percentage slightly off before. It was 57% of Congressional Democrats instead of 61% that voted against AOF in Iraq. However, your shell game doesn't hold up to the math:

In Congress,

7 Republicans out of 270, voted against AOF in Iraq or approximately 3%

vs

147 Democrats out of 258, that voted against AOF in Iraq or approximately 57%

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The fact that a majority of Democrats voted against the AOF in Iraq vs a near unanimous majority of Republicans that voted for AOF in Iraq is one of the reasons we chose Obama in the last two elections.

OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) has what to do with the economic downturn and recovery? It started 6 years before the "crash" and I for one, don't see where it had any negative effect upon the economy. In fact, I would say it employed quite a few people and thus had a positive affect on the economy.

Wars usually are positives for the economy, unless of course you are in the country where they are being fought, then it can be bad.
 
So says Singapore. What about the rest of you?

No politician was off the hook. When you enter politics you face the wrath of the people in good times and bad times.
 
OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) has what to do with the economic downturn and recovery? It started 6 years before the "crash" and I for one, don't see where it had any negative effect upon the economy. In fact, I would say it employed quite a few people and thus had a positive affect on the economy.

Wars usually are positives for the economy, unless of course you are in the country where they are being fought, then it can be bad.



$2 trillion dollars of tax payers money wasted in a needless GOP war against Iraq on behalf of big oil did not help our economy, it was just the most wasteful part of our deficit spending.
 
The Constitution only says defense, it says nothing about wars of choice or spending as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. I have no problem cutting waste wherever it is in the government.

What waste besides the excessive military do you see needs to be made. Despite the GOP complaining about spending, they continue to spend as much as the rest of the world combined on the military and have not offered any specific cuts they want made.

Ok, you seem to think Afghanistan was unnecessary, since you seem to believe that, perhaps you could tell all of us what exactly we should of done after being attacked? The Afghans weren't going to turn anyone over to us nor stop them having training bases and secure facilities. What do you think were our other options?

Lets see, although I don't particularly like SS or Medicare, they are at least separate deductions and are supposed be separated from the general budget. But other things, I said them before, Welfare, Medicaid, HUD, Support of the Arts, Support of PBS (basically support of any such programs that do not have to do with basic governmental responsibilities), BATF (and other redundant Law Enforcement at the federal level), Federally funded unemployment, any program that exists simply to create jobs, About half of the education budget (force better management, reduce wastage and get rid of unneeded programs), not just Welfare, but pretty much all of health and human services, all funding for disease research, reduce and reorganize EPA, all investment into research that is not directly related to the military (and NASA, as they play a significant role in military capabilities.), replace all contractors with direct hire and direct manufacture of government specific needed equipment, Blackwater and other such firms and return those security functions back to the military, a lot of FEMA, realign and bring the CIA, homeland security and other "intelligence" agency into a single agency, stop all DOJ lawsuits against states, remove and eliminate multiple levels of redundancy in management of all government function, make Congress use public transportation instead of government owned ones, switch Congress to the Tri-Care Healthcare program mandated for the military, end retirement pay for Congressmen and Senators who do not serve at least 20 years, convert a large portion of VA over to an improved Tri-Care/private insurance policy system to meet their needs and provided, free of charge, to all retirees and disabled veterans and their dependents, convert 95% of Pilot slots in the Navy and Air Force to Warrant Officers instead of commissioned officers, greatly reduce the Officer Corp back to ratios of Officers to Enlisted levels at least as low as during Vietnam, possible as far as WWII, make the military budget a general budget and let the services decide how to spend it, not Congress, but of course keep oversight, reduce the budget for Congressional operations (Basically get rid of a lot of pages and interns(if they are paid)), reduce the operating budget for the White House, other than security, make all Congressional and Presidential vacations be paid for by those taking the Vacation, make funded and organized lobbying illegal, end all "Pork Barrel" funding, make Human Right (other than death penalty), Freedom of Religion and open markets a requirement before providing foreign aid, reorganize and consolidate overseas bases, end Affirmative Action, end requirement to contract with minority owned companies, stop all funding provided to institutions who use race or sex as a selection criteria, convert all prisons into self-sustaining farms/factories (any sale of goods will be at average market price and will not undercut private enterprise). Probably more if I looked at things closely.

Things I would do to improve the economy and improve tax revenue-- flat tax across the board for everyone, use workfare participants to do a lot of work we now pay others, especially contractors, to do, end all Free Trade agreements with countries that do not have economies capable of buying a significant amount of our products, end the practice of reducing or eliminating tariffs for companies who build in the US, extending Tariff reduction to only those products produced in the US, Create an office of Patents which will hold all patents produced or paid for by federal funding and collect fees for licensing of those patents, allow the government to hold stocks of private companies as long as it is not a controlling interest, the stocks historically pay dividends, the company is not currently in financial difficulties and investment is kept equal amongst competing publicly held companies, create an agency dedicated to investing/making loans to inventors so they don't have to sell them to existing companies and can enter the competitive market, also for small business investment/loans, completely redo the education system, introducing multi-path options made either by choice and/or by capabilities, including skills training, so that graduates actually graduate high school and will be able to get something other than low-wage non career jobs, invest into or at least make loans to build Nuclear plants and other large scale electrical energy producing plants to replace all fossil fuel plants, institute a graduated tax system based upon percentage of profit for business, introduce a moderately high tax for all rail that does not convert to electric rail and increase it every five years until all rail is electric, replan and rebuild public transportation net works to be only electric based and is focused on efficiently moving workers from home to work and home to shopping centers, I'm tired of typing, not out of suggestions.
 
$2 trillion dollars of tax payers money wasted in a needless GOP war against Iraq on behalf of big oil did not help our economy, it was just the most wasteful part of our deficit spending.

That still doesn't explain how it is related to the economy. It explains, partly, a relationship between it and the governments budget, but not the economy.

And cheaper oil is a positive for the economy, not a negative.
 
That still doesn't explain how it is related to the economy. It explains, partly, a relationship between it and the governments budget, but not the economy.

And cheaper oil is a positive for the economy, not a negative.

You don't believe that deficit spending and huge national debt hurts the economy? Most Americans do not agree with the blood for oil policy in Iraq, that's one of the reasons we voted for Obama, as he was the only viable candidate that said it should be ended.
 
You don't believe that deficit spending and huge national debt hurts the economy? Most Americans do not agree with the blood for oil policy in Iraq, that's one of the reasons we voted for Obama, as he was the only viable candidate that said it should be ended.

They only hurt the economy when tax rates are changed. Higher tax rates will always negatively impact the economy, however, there is no definitive proof that lowering tax rates improves the economy. Also, every single year of Bush, the deficit Decreased after it spiked.

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress

I notice you still bring up Iraq, but didn't answer my question about Afghanistan. Are you now conceding that it was a necessary war for our defense?

It clearly shows that deficit was in reduction prior to the 2006 election where the Dems took control of Congress. It spiked, but was then coming back under control. It had to spike after the utterly miserable shape that Clinton left the military in.

It also very clearly shows how the debt and deficit spiked after the Dems took office and been high ever since with only some relief coming after the Rep took the House.

P.S. Due to my personal involvement and circumstances surrounding the beginning and reasons for the Iraq war, I refrain from discussing that topic other than to say that I have absolute unshakable faith that it was the right thing to do. Besides actually believing that, I have to, my own mental health depends on me believing that. I wish I could tell you the reasons for that faith, but I cannot.
 
They only hurt the economy when tax rates are changed. Higher tax rates will always negatively impact the economy, however, there is no definitive proof that lowering tax rates improves the economy. Also, every single year of Bush, the deficit Decreased after it spiked.

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress

So debt is no problem? Glad to hear it!!! Stop whining about having to repay US debt then.



I notice you still bring up Iraq, but didn't answer my question about Afghanistan. Are you now conceding that it was a necessary war for our defense?

No, I am conceding that, unlike with the Iraq war, a majority of both parties voted for going after Al Qeada in Afghanistan.
 
So debt is no problem? Glad to hear it!!! Stop whining about having to repay US debt then.




No, I am conceding that, unlike with the Iraq war, a majority of both parties voted for going after Al Qeada in Afghanistan.

Not exactly what I said. Saying it doesn't always have a significant impact upon the economy is not the same as saying it not harmful in other ways.

Define Whining as you see it? Stating that it is too high is not whining. Stating that it will have a negative impact on the Economy when taxes have to be raised is not whining. Saying that debt cannot continue to rise indefinitely is not whining. I cannot think of a single thing I have ever said about the debt or deficits that could be considered whining.

Perhaps my insistence that you and others qualify the wars (to which you and another responded about the debt/deficit caused,) as to how they relate to the economy, the subject of this thread, as in the downturn and the recovery of the economy. You might consider that whining, but actually, it is an attempt to get you to focus on the actual subject of this thread and relate what you said to that subject.

I have given you my view on how they relate, however, you still have not supported your view that they somehow affected the economy negatively or that they are preventing economic recovery. You brought up the wars, in this thread, thus saying that they related to the downturn or the recovery of the economy. It is your argument, it is you that must support it if questions or concede that they did not.

Recovery, I can figure out myself, if Taxes get raised, but these are factors that existed long before the "crash". I am not debating their potential negative impact upon economic recovery.

So, please, lay out your associations and logic chain on how the wars negatively impacted the economy and how the wars in any way helped cause the economic downturn. Or do you concede that they did not?
 
Not exactly what I said. Saying it doesn't always have a significant impact upon the economy is not the same as saying it not harmful in other ways.

Define Whining as you see it? Stating that it is too high is not whining. Stating that it will have a negative impact on the Economy when taxes have to be raised is not whining. Saying that debt cannot continue to rise indefinitely is not whining. I cannot think of a single thing I have ever said about the debt or deficits that could be considered whining.

Perhaps my insistence that you and others qualify the wars (to which you and another responded about the debt/deficit caused,) as to how they relate to the economy, the subject of this thread, as in the downturn and the recovery of the economy. You might consider that whining, but actually, it is an attempt to get you to focus on the actual subject of this thread and relate what you said to that subject.

I have given you my view on how they relate, however, you still have not supported your view that they somehow affected the economy negatively or that they are preventing economic recovery. You brought up the wars, in this thread, thus saying that they related to the downturn or the recovery of the economy. It is your argument, it is you that must support it if questions or concede that they did not.

Recovery, I can figure out myself, if Taxes get raised, but these are factors that existed long before the "crash". I am not debating their potential negative impact upon economic recovery.

So, please, lay out your associations and logic chain on how the wars negatively impacted the economy and how the wars in any way helped cause the economic downturn. Or do you concede that they did not?



Either we have a debt problem we need to address, or we don't, which is it?

If we have a debt problem, then we need to cut our most wasteful spending, which is excessive military spending and wars of choice. The Democrats have been a bigger advocate of cutting this most wasteful spending than have been the GOP.
 
Either we have a debt problem we need to address, or we don't, which is it?

If we have a debt problem, then we need to cut our most wasteful spending, which is excessive military spending and wars of choice. The Democrats have been a bigger advocate of cutting this most wasteful spending than have been the GOP.

If you want to discuss debt, then move to or create a thread about debt. This is about the economy.

How does your post about two wars relate to the economy? Specifically, what roles did they play in causing an economic downturn?

The only relation I know of is Taxes, and Taxes have not changed since before the Wars. I am trying to understand how you are relating the wars to the economy.
 
If you want to discuss debt, then move to or create a thread about debt. This is about the economy.

How does your post about two wars relate to the economy? Specifically, what roles did they play in causing an economic downturn?

The only relation I know of is Taxes, and Taxes have not changed since before the Wars. I am trying to understand how you are relating the wars to the economy.


Setting aside for a moment that you think debt and deficit spending are unrelated to the economy, what we need is further stimulus to spur infrastructure jobs and growth while assuring no tax increase/benefits decrease for the working class.
 
Setting aside for a moment that you think debt and deficit spending are unrelated to the economy, what we need is further stimulus to spur infrastructure jobs and growth while assuring no tax increase/benefits decrease for the working class.

I do not think they are unrelated, infact, the very post you quoted I stated how I think they are related. But I cannot answer or debate how you think they are related without you telling me how you think they are related.

I think income taxes should be equal for everyone. While they make more money, your post tends to lead one to think the other classes don't work. This may be true in some cases, but not in others.

We have already pored more than a Trillion dollars into stimulus, it didn't really work. I have my opinion why it didn't work, but it didn't. So why should we give the same people any more money to stimulate the economy when they have already demonstrated that their approach to doing it doesn't work?

Also, jobs bills have come up in Congress and been defeated. Why were they defeated? Not because those voting against it didn't like the idea of the jobs bill, they just mandated that those wanting those bills come up with a way, other than deficit and debt, to pay for it. If you want $200 billion for a jobs bill, what are you going to cut to pay for it? If you cut that $200 Billion from just Defense, how many jobs will be lost vs how many will be gained by the bill? You may not like the military, you may hate defense spending, but the DoD is a very large employer. Could we cut waste exceeding $200 billion from defense, I believe so, however, I don't see Congress taking the steps that would be necessary because it would mean them giving up some control. Arbitrarily cutting defense is bad. With defense, you have to plan and reorganize how it does business. Congress and the President, pretty much, control how DoD does business.

But, I am also against the government spending that kind of money. It falsely props up the economy. Instead, I think we need to redo government regulation to allow the economy to do better instead of spending billions, even trillions in a socialistic attempt to manipulate the economy and make it even more dependent on the government.

I would be far more willing to allow temporary stimulus if the government were making actual real positive changes to it's governance of the economy. I have not heard, nor read about, a single politician, of either party, at the national level ever address all the real governmental issues that caused the economic failure. Without significant changes to the governance of the economy, any "stimulus" money pored in is just wasted. Fix then stimulate not stimulate and ignore.

So, if I am understanding you correctly, the wars, started 7 and 5 years before the economic down turn did not cause the downturn but prevent recovery because you feel the government should have a greater role in the economy. So, exactly how, 7 and 5 years before the wars, was Bush and Congress supposed to know that the economy would crash?

Where, in any governing document, aka the Constitution, does it say that the government is responsible for controlling the economy? Or to stimulate it (especially after they broke it)?
 
I think income taxes should be equal for everyone.

Fortunately our forefathers were wise enough to see that a flat tax for everyone led to a two class system of robber barons and serfs when they instituted a progressive tax system, and as we saw in the Presidential election and all the polls, the majority of voters still support a progressive tax system.


We have already pored more than a Trillion dollars into stimulus, it didn't really work. I have my opinion why it didn't work, but it didn't. So why should we give the same people any more money to stimulate the economy when they have already demonstrated that their approach to doing it doesn't work?

Are you seriously asking why Congress didn't take your opinion rather than the CBO? The CBO testified before Congress that they and the nation's top economists have determined that unemployment would have been worse without the stimulus.


Also, jobs bills have come up in Congress and been defeated. Why were they defeated?

Because the GOP was more interested in scoring political points with their base than they were concerned for Americans without jobs.


So, if I am understanding you correctly, the wars, started 7 and 5 years before the economic down turn did not cause the downturn but prevent recovery because you feel the government should have a greater role in the economy. So, exactly how, 7 and 5 years before the wars, was Bush and Congress supposed to know that the economy would crash?

Because a consumer economy cannot prosper when most of the money is concentrated at the top, out of reach of the majority of consumers. We learned this first in the 1920's and repeated the mistake in the 2000's.

Where, in any governing document, aka the Constitution, does it say that the government is responsible for controlling the economy? Or to stimulate it (especially after they broke it)?

I've seen no one suggest that the government control the economy. All that I have seen done is to stimulate the economy when the private market is not doing it. The goal of the whole Constitution is to promote the welfare of we the people. A strong economy promotes the welfare of we the people.
 
Last edited:
Fortunately our forefathers were wise enough to see that a flat tax for everyone led to a two class system of robber barons and serfs when they instituted a progressive tax system, and as we saw in the Presidential election and all the polls, the majority of voters still support a progressive tax system.




Are you seriously asking why Congress didn't take your opinion rather than the CBO? The CBO testified before Congress that they and the nation's top economists have determined that unemployment would have been worse without the stimulus.




Because the GOP was more interested in scoring political points with their base than they were concerned for Americans without jobs.




Because a consumer economy cannot prosper when most of the money is concentrated at the top, out of reach of the majority of consumers. We learned this first in the 1920's and repeated the mistake in the 2000's.



I've seen no one suggest that the government control the economy. All that I have seen done is to stimulate the economy when the private market is not doing it. The goal of the whole Constitution is to promote the welfare of we the people. A strong economy promotes the welfare of we the people.

Actually, it was not our "fore-fathers" if you mean the founders. The first income tax was in 1861, under Lincoln and was dropped after the war. The first permanent income tax was not until 1894. So, for more than a hundred years, we had no income tax at all, yet we still grew.

Did congress take the opinion of the CBO? And why was it the opinion of the CBO instead of facts? Maybe because it could not be proven one way or another? So lets see, I can take the opinion of Liberal economist that espouse the idea of socializing the economy or I can accept that the benefit could not be definitively proven and no actual growth derived from it. Sorry, taking the "it cannot be proven" side on this.

Were they? Really. I don't believe so, for one thing, it took place too far ahead of any election, and the voting public has shown that it has a very, very short political memory. No, I believe that if the Dems had also proposed cuts equal to what they wanted to spend, it would of passed.

I disagree about your assertions about a consumer economy. For one thing, without government interference, there would not be such a concentration at the top. No, the consumer market failed and became more concentrated at the top when American goods became too costly and too low of quality for Americans to buy. Americans went for either price or quality, neither of which most of the American manufactures could supply. Between that, high labor costs (which was causing American made products to be so expensive) and burdensome regulation (like EPA), companies were forced to outsource or go bankrupt, some did outsource, some died off. When this began occurring, monies that were flowing downward were cut off to Americans and the outflow went overseas, but cost a lot less, so those at the top kept more of it. Combine this with the consumer credit frenzy we saw very much of in the 1990 and it is a matter of when, not if, the economy is going to fail. Support of Unions and failure to enact fair work legislation, government interference in health care, EPA regulation, NAFTA Government encouragement of bad credit (fair housing act amendment in the early 1990s), and government forcing of the use of credit agency (in the name of privacy) instead of letting credit companies determine if someone was qualified, all of these and more, all actions taken by the government, were the cause of the collapse of the consumer market and the concentration of wealth. And all of them came from one political party, the Dems.

BTW, it says "promote the general welfare". That does not mean every single individual. Unemployment topped out at 10% nationally, so if 90% are doing ok or good, how is 10% to called the "general welfare"? And of that 10%, how many of them were in that position and stayed there because of their individual, not government, actions and choices. 100%, thats how many. There is around 15% of Americans living in poverty, again, by their own choice, so you believe that under the "general welfare" the government should spend trillions of dollars to provide for less than 20% of our population? And that less than 20% who, for the most part, won't lift a finger to help themselves.

I'm not buying it. For the general welfare, we should just let those less than 20% waste away instead of bankrupting 100% to care for them. Better to place them on work farms or projects at tell them "work or die" and let them choose and leave the rest of us out of it.

Here is you some food for thought "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few."
 
Did congress take the opinion of the CBO? And why was it the opinion of the CBO instead of facts?

The facts the CBO and economists studied showed that unemployment would have been higher without the stimulus.


I disagree about your assertions about a consumer economy.

Perhaps we should hold an election then and let the citizens decide. Oh, that's right, we just did that.

BTW, it says "promote the general welfare". That does not mean every single individual.


Of course not, it means what is best for we the people collectively.


Unemployment topped out at 10% nationally, so if 90% are doing ok or good, how is 10% to called the "general welfare"? And of that 10%, how many of them were in that position and stayed there because of their individual, not government, actions and choices. 100%, thats how many. There is around 15% of Americans living in poverty, again, by their own choice, so you believe that under the "general welfare" the government should spend trillions of dollars to provide for less than 20% of our population? And that less than 20% who, for the most part, won't lift a finger to help themselves. I'm not buying it. For the general welfare, we should just let those less than 20% waste away instead of bankrupting 100% to care for them. Better to place them on work farms or projects at tell them "work or die" and let them choose and leave the rest of us out of it.

Since there are more people than jobs your reasoning above fails.


Here is you some food for thought "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few."

Exactly why we chose a leader that was concerned about the needs of the many, rather than a candidate that was just concerned with the wants of the few?
 
Last edited:
The facts the CBO and economists studied showed that unemployment would have been higher without the stimulus.




Perhaps we should hold an election then and let the citizens decide. Oh, that's right, we just did that.



Of course not, it means what is best for we the people collectively.




Since there are more people than jobs your reasoning above fails.




Exactly why we chose a leader that was concerned about the needs of the many, rather than a candidate that was just concerned with the wants of the few?

But the could not definitely prove it.

Just because it is popular, doesn't make it right. The world is flat used to be a majority belief, how did that work out? Very few voters ever bother to really learn anything before voting, they don't research facts or apply logic, they go by who offers them the most. Votes are bought more than they are earned.

Are there more people than jobs? Prove it. Or are there more people than jobs that people are willing to take instead of rely on the government. And if all the available jobs were filled, how many more jobs would be created because those people joined the economy? They are not in that position by choice(other than the disabled)? Prove it. (instead of going into that here, I suggest you check out the minimum wage thread currently going on, under polls.)

Your last statement makes no sense when compared to what you have been saying. It is paradoxical to what you have been saying, since I already provided you with numbers that prove different.

The wants of the many outweigh the wants and needs of the few is a more accurate statement of the philosophies you have so far espoused. Our maybe even more accurate, the Greed of the many outweigh the Greed of the few and the needs of everyone can be ignored to fulfill that Greed.
 
Last edited:
The CBO is the most non-partisan, authoritative entity available, and they concurred with the leading economists.




For 34 Straight Months, There Have Been More Than Four Unemployed Job Seekers For Every Job Opening

Did they definitively prove it or was it their opinion?

Did they include all the jobs currently held by Illegals? Probably not. Can you say, with absolute certainty that they included every job available in America? Did the even include Walmart and McDonalds? The article you link says almost nothing about sources and methodologies for calculating that. Where are the facts they used to build their pretty little chart?
 
Back
Top Bottom