United States of Entropy

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
what do you think he should do about it?

More speeches like the one you posted is a start - but he needs to get more specific. I also think he missed a golden opportunity during the years after the crash to hold Wall St. accountable for the creation of the disaster. He can be more vocal against allowing Chinese investors to buy up tons of real-estate which is pricing the middle-class (even the upper middle class) out of decent homes - a.k.a Housing Bubble 2.0. He can be more vocal about changing "Too Big to Fail" - meaning, break up the banks - spread the risk. Instead, there are fewer banks since he took office and they pose an even greater systemic risk than before. He can be more vocal about the necessity of higher wages across the board (they have been stagnant since 2000).

He needs to basically do everything he can to convince the Red State Republicans (The "guns and religion" crowd) to stop defending Wall St. - that it is the Wall St. banksters that are keeping them unemployed and underpaid. That's what a leader does - he persuades people into action. And so far, he's failing.
 
He needs to basically do everything he can to convince the Red State Republicans (The "guns and religion" crowd) to stop defending Wall St. - that it is the Wall St. banksters that are keeping them unemployed and underpaid. That's what a leader does - he persuades people into action. And so far, he's failing.


and where does the GOP fall in all of this?
 
and where does the GOP fall in all of this?

They have their own problems. If I were a GOP candidate - I would tap into Red State manufacturing base and press the corporations to bring back the jobs that got shipped overseas because the profit margins are not what they once were (i.e. slave labor in China is ending). I would press for free, yes free education for displaced working for tech programs (green tech, automated manufacturing, programming, robotic maintenance...etc). The country would get an excellent ROI for a program such as this. I would make Wall St. enemy #1 and blame it on the Dems.

But you asked me what I thought Obama should do. He needs to tap into the same enthusiasm that got him elected in 2008 (let's face it - a better GOP candidate would've probably won 2012). He should be casting a "Great Society II" sort of vision and push for Basic Income while making Wall St. enemy #1 and blame it on the GOP. People follow leaders that are optimistic about the future - not ones that keep making excuses why nothing is getting done (fair or not).
 
I would make Wall St. enemy #1 and blame it on the Dems.

Given the absolute hysteria that's caused whenever anyone on the left floats the idea of more regulations on Wall St, that would be interesting to see how Republicans would frame that.

He should be casting a "Great Society II" sort of vision and push for Basic Income while making Wall St. enemy #1 and blame it on the GOP. People follow leaders that are optimistic about the future - not ones that keep making excuses why nothing is getting done (fair or not).

As far as I can tell, Obama actually has been pretty optimistic about the future while clearly trying to tackle some of the issues that could be a roadblock to that better future. He's been far from perfect, but I don't think any objective reading of his administration's actions would come to the conclusion that he's pessimistic about this country's future. The majority of doom and gloom I'm seeing is from Republicans (particularly the far right of the party, though that distinction is becoming increasingly murky as time goes on) who vilify Obama, regularly (and without any rational foundation) call his patriotism into question and frame everything he does as an attack on the very foundations of this nation. If his opposition demonstrated any substantive wish to actually work with him to move forward, there could be some hope, but when they have been incredibly vocal and committed, from day one, to oppose his every move, then quite frankly I think your wishes for him seem to be completely ignoring the reality of the situation.
 
I thinking we look at the increasing y extreme posts even in here by some posters, who just a few years ago were capable of discussion and disagreement. Now, it's nasty insults and derision and apocalyptic rhetoric if it has the word "Obama" near it.

We're getting a glimpse into the hermetically sealed right wing alternate reality. When the only place you get your news is via conservative websites and talk radio and Fox News, and you spend all your time in a comments column trying to prove who hates Obama more, there's very little you can do. I cannot for the life of me understand the hysteria. I can understand disagreement, but all this pseudo intellectual garbage (which the writer doesn't understand) about "positive rights" -- its nothing to do with anything. It's Eastwood's empty chair. There is nothing the GOP in Washington has to offer other than obstruction. It seems incredibly unfair to blame Obama for not being a good enough leader when he's up against a bunch of zealots.

I understand what a draw that is for those who are drawn to the comfort and clarity of a totalizing narrative in other walks of life, but it's getting ridiculous -- this Congress has done so little.
 
-- this Congress has done so little.

The "Do Nothing" Congress of 1948 passed 906 laws in a two year period. This congress has only passed 55 in one year. Being the least productive congress in the history of the United States is pretty much the natural result of a minority party rabidly committed to obstructionism rather than actual governance. I suppose it comes as no surprise when they have been trying so hard for the duration of this presidency to paint government, in nearly any form, as ineffective and untrustworthy.


I suppose it's possible they could pass another 852 next year.
 
I thinking we look at the increasing y extreme posts even in here by some posters, who just a few years ago were capable of discussion and disagreement. Now, it's nasty insults and derision and apocalyptic rhetoric if it has the word "Obama" near it.

We're getting a glimpse into the hermetically sealed right wing alternate reality. When the only place you get your news is via conservative websites and talk radio and Fox News, and you spend all your time in a comments column trying to prove who hates Obama more, there's very little you can do. I cannot for the life of me understand the hysteria. I can understand disagreement, but all this pseudo intellectual garbage (which the writer doesn't understand) about "positive rights" -- its nothing to do with anything. It's Eastwood's empty chair. There is nothing the GOP in Washington has to offer other than obstruction. It seems incredibly unfair to blame Obama for not being a good enough leader when he's up against a bunch of zealots.

I understand what a draw that is for those who are drawn to the comfort and clarity of a totalizing narrative in other walks of life, but it's getting ridiculous -- this Congress has done so little.

I agree and I'm noticing this with my conservative family members and the few friends I have that I discuss politics with. Some flood Facebook with anti-Obama articles or turn every conversation into an excuse to rant against Obama.

The problem with their obsessive hatred for Obama is that it makes many turn deaf ears to them, and ignore whatever they have to say. Most of it is worth ignoring (He's a Muslim Kenyan-born anti-American Communist Marxist) but some may be worth listening to, like that Forbes article I posted about the ACA and the illegal taxes involved with it. We as a country can't solve anything if one-half is losing rationale.

Granted, during the Bush years, some liberals were the same way by how they voiced their hatred for Bush and conservatives. But this rhetoric is much worse and more obsessive.
 
How's 1981 treating you?

Same as 1787.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
― James Madison, The Federalist Papers
 
Same as 1787. “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” ― James Madison, The Federalist Papers


This is exactly the problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom