American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten;416332]They have clearly come out and labelled wealth redistribution as Socialism and Theft. If you think wealth redistribution can be a realistic option in certain circumstances.[/QUOTE]Supposedly the "average" American believes the wealthiest 20% should control 32% of the wealth of the country. I don't know how you get from where we are now to that point without socialism and theft. Besides the moral dimension, the average person ends up worse off under governments that are highly redistributionist, as I've pointed out here before. If redistributionists ever come to control the USA I'm leaving and not looking back.

Esten, One thing you've failed to consider when you highlight inequality and play down socialism in America is how big government has become. Government expenditures at the federal, state and local levels now account for 42% of GDP, up from 36% during Bush's administration and 32% during Reagan and Clinton. The government controls a huge part of the economy.

There are huge expenditures for social security, medicare, medicaid, education, food stamps, unemployment, etc. that make the country more equal in terms of consumption, although not necessarily in terms of income or wealth.

My question, how big a part of the economy should government be, if 42% isn't enough? Maybe 50%? 70%? And why isn't the trend towards bigger government (towards the government controlling more and more of the economy) a trend towards socialism?

[QUOTE=Esten; 416332]

[QUOTE=Punter 127;416246]I'm of the same school of thought as Stan, and Jackson Social Security is a Socialistic piece of shit. However we appear to be stuck with it and we must find a way to keep it afloat, that's why I said Krauthammer is realistic, NOT because he or I think it's a good program.[/quote]Whether SS is a good program or not is beside the point.

I was talking about wealth redistribution. In the context of SS, it could be reformed any number of ways. Not all approaches involve wealth redistribution.

You and Krauthammer seem to be in support of an approach that involves wealth redistribution. With the reason being that this approach (means testing) is sensible and realistic. I fully agree. This is not the only example where Republicans support wealth redistribution, I've posted polls before that show most Republicans favor progressive taxation.

Data like this demonstrates that not all conservatives are pure ideologues. Just some.

Punter you may be of the same school of thought as Stan and Jackson on SS, but not necessarily on wealth redistribution. They have clearly come out and labelled wealth redistribution as Socialism and Theft. If you think wealth redistribution can be a realistic option in certain circumstances, you differ from them. [/QUOTE]Make no mistake, I completely agree with Jackson and Stan, and I'm absolutely against wealth redistribution, if I had the power SS as we know it now would end [strike]tomorrow[/strike] today!

But I'm also realistic and I know we are stuck with SS and I believe we should work with the assets that are available. That is the only reason that I agree with the suggested changes, and for me it's a bitter pill to swallow. SS is a prime example of failed socialism.

You are using smoke, mirrors and spin to change the subject from SS to wealth redistribution, the subject at hand is (was) rather or not SS is broke, and why the Obama administration is in debt denial.

Have you read Krauthammer follow up article?

[url]http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/566527/201103181807/Social-Security-A-Classic-Case-Of-Debt-Denial.htm[/url]

Americans, including registered voters, favor Obama's re-election in 2012 by a large percentage.

A new poll released today by the Pew Research Center shows 48 percent of the respondents want Obama re-elected, while 35 percent prefer a Republican and 16 percent are undecided.

Among registered voters. 47 percent favor Obama and 37 percent prefer a Republican.

Looks like not many of those misguided citizens stop by these pages and enjoy the wisdom of Jackson, WW, Stan and company and adopt the Obama is a cretin argument.

Nope! Looks like Esten rules!

[QUOTE=Punter 127;416355]You are using smoke, mirrors and spin to change the subject from SS to wealth redistribution, the subject at hand is (was) rather or not SS is broke, and why the Obama administration is in debt denial.[/QUOTE]Go back and look at my first post on Krauthammer, and then my followup post. The whole point of my posts on Krauthammer to begin with was to point out an example of a conservative supporting wealth redistribution.

You can go ahead and talk about SS all you want. But don't accuse me of changing the subject when I have been consistently discussing wealth redistribution from the beginning.

[QUOTE=Esten; 416359]Go back and look at my first post on Krauthammer, and then my followup post. The whole point of my posts on Krauthammer to begin with was to point out an example of a conservative supporting wealth redistribution.

You can go ahead and talk about SS all you want. But don't accuse me of changing the subject when I have been consistently discussing wealth redistribution from the beginning. [/QUOTE]No I'm not joking you talked more about wealth redistribution than you have about the problems with SS, which is what my post which you replied to was about. But we can move on because this conversation is of little value anyway.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;416352]Besides the moral dimension, the average person ends up worse off under governments that are highly redistributionist, as I've pointed out here before. If redistributionists ever come to control the USA I'm leaving and not looking back.[/QUOTE]Of course there is a downside to excessive redistribution, just as there is a downside to insufficient redistribution.

Do you support the continuing trend of the wealthy elite extracting more and more of the wealth in this country? While the middle class and poor have very limited, or no, share in the increasing wealth?

We have a distribution problem. But we also have limited ability to address the root distribution problem. Therefore redistribution must be part of the solution.

[QUOTE]Esten, One thing you've failed to consider when you highlight inequality and play down socialism in America is how big government has become. Government expenditures at the federal, state and local levels now account for 42% of GDP, up from 36% during Bush's administration and 32% during Reagan and Clinton. The government controls a huge part of the economy.

There are huge expenditures for social security, medicare, medicaid, education, food stamps, unemployment, etc. That make the country more equal in terms of consumption, although not necessarily in terms of income or wealth.

My question, how big a part of the economy should government be, if 42% isn't enough? Maybe 50% 70% And why isn't the trend towards bigger government (towards the government controlling more and more of the economy) a trend towards socialism? [/QUOTE]Government grows in proportion to the failures of the private sector. Why should we not have a strong government to address those failures? I don't have a magic number for you. But I can tell you that in a country with as much wealth as the US has, I fully support a strong government to look out for the basic needs of those that the private sector leaves behind.

Back to his drivel supporting the redistribution of wealth and his wet dream of turning the USA into a socialist utopis. Good luck with that.

Not to pull you out of your leftist fantasies, but you blew right by one of the best posts which succinctly asked the essential question regarding Libya.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;416351]I don't understand how it's in the best interests of the United States to become involved there. [/QUOTE]Thank you, Tiny. While I have poked fun by suggesting (in jest. Sort of) that we should take Libya over for its oil, I think that I have been consistent on saying that whatever it is that we do away from our own shores needs to be in America's best interests (end of story).

No one in this administration has even attempted to articulate how this farce is in our best interests. BHO, the great constitutional scholar went to the UN for permission to wage war forgetting both the Constitution and his own declaration a few short years ago where he emphatically stated the he believed that the US president does not have the authority to commit the military to action. His vice president said much the same in stating that if Bush goes into Iraq without congressional approval he will take it upon himself (Biden) to impeach Bush (Biden, after spending how many years in the congress was unaware that the House is the party responsible for impeachment).

[QUOTE=Esten;416333]... means knowing when not to lead.[/quote]Thus confirming my suspicion that both you and BHO, know not that for which America stands.

[quote=]Obama has handled Libya just about right. 70% of Americans support the no fly zone, but few are interested in seeing the US be the world's policeman yet again.[/quote]His deft handling of the situation surely is responsible for a 17% favorable rating for his handling of the military (which happens to be much higher than I would have expected) and only 50% support for the action in Libya (guess 20% of your folks thought the no fly zone was in Wisconsin).

[quote=]The delays appear to have expanded and consolidated the coalition under terms that European countries will lead the effort after establishing the NFZ.[/quote]If they spent so much time figuring it all out before going public, why haven't they figured it out yet? Why is our secretary of defense saying that we are "doing it on the fly?"

[quote=]Sounds good to me.[/quote]Deploying billions of dollars and thousands of our military forces to an undefined military action with no strategy, no objectives and no exit. What about all the civilian Libyan casualties? Sounds good to you?

Are you also in favor of BHO's kill teams in Afghanistan who have clearly committed atrocities far worse than Abu Ghraib?

[quote=]Even Republicans are giving Obama some faint praise, while getting in their lame digs on how he should have acted sooner, or how he needs to explain things better.[/quote]Like I said, I am not a republican. I have no praise for Obama, not for delaying in making a decision and not for the decision that he made. He has failed miserably.

[quote=]Which is odd since I've heard Obama's statements on the US role several times and it seems quite clear to me.[/quote]His statements do not reflect reality. More than 50% of all combat sorties have been flown by American crews. The only active carrier involved is US flagged. All command and control has come from American military leaders based in US facilities. If there is a transition, command and control will still originate from US facilities. A preponderance of assets and personnel involved are US. Further, almost all of the weapons technology deployed is US in origin. All of it I am sure opposed by the likes of Esten and Obama.

[quote=]Just more weak political posturing from the right.[/quote]So, a recitation of indisputable facts is posturing?

[quote=]Wahhhhhhhhhh!!!! Obama didn't burst into Libya sooner and crush Gaddafi and show the world we're number one. Wahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!! [/quote]I think I have been pretty clear that before we help bounce Mubarak, Qaddafi and the like, we need to determine what is in AMERICA'S BEST INTERESTS! Turning Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood is not in America's best interests neither is assisting 'rebels' (two types in Libya those sympathetic to Al Qaeda and those sympathetic to Iran) in Libya.

[quote=]He took a more strategic approach with Libya, one you have evidently been unable to grasp.[/QUOTE]What I can't grasp is describing sitting on ones hands for 31 days as a strategic approach, UNLESS your strategy was to ensure an outcome where the 'rebels' are too weak to win and Qaddafi is left too weak to exact revenge on the populace.

The depths of your intellectual dishonesty have no bounds.

WW, I hate to contradict you but currently the French have deployed the Charles de Gaulle, their only operational aircraft carrier, to support the no fly zone and ground strikes. You are correct as more than 50% of the strike packages deployed over Libya are US with the English & French making up the rest. Nearly all the aerial refueling is being done by US tankers, not to mention 98% of the 120+ cruise missiles launched were US, nearly all the intelligence and command and control is coming from US assets. Not sure how we are going to 'not lead' when the bulk of the import assets are US.

To this day Obama, Hillary, and Gates are still giving conflicting signals. No wonder no one can comprehend Obama's strategy – he doesn't have one and neither do Gates or Clinton. We are back to Bill Clinton's idea of military intervention, lob a few cruise missiles and call it good, but Obama one upped Billy boy by taking a vacation to Rio to boot.

I don't think we had any business being there, but if we were going in why wait 30 days for the situation to deteriorate when this same show of force in the opening days of the revolt would have pushed Daffy out and marginalized his military since early on they were waiting to see how the revolt would shake out.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416369]WW, I hate to contradict you but currently the French have deployed the Charles de Gaulle, their only operational aircraft carrier, to support the no fly zone and ground strikes.[/quote]Good catch. I think that I read that they also have provided one C135 refueling plane to the effort as well. I had seen that the CDG was in Khor Fakkan back in January (they had been supporting our efforts in Afghanistan, sort of) , when I was in the UAE, although I didn't make as far as KF (no "C"). I doubt too many frogs got of the boat in KF, either. My bias against the French must have blinded me to the contribution of their only carrier, which is a pretty capable boat, considering its limited compliment of attack aircraft. I still blame the French, in part, for the loss of USAF captains Fernando L. Ribas-Dominicci and Paul F. Lorence who were killed during Operation el Dorado Canyon. As you may recall, the French denied us fly-over rights which forced our USAF F-111 crews, out of the UK (I think they were stationed at Upper Heyford) , to go around Spain and enter the Med through the Straits of Gibraltar, significantly increasing flight time (adding 2, 600 miles, round trip) and stress on our crews which may or may not have played a roll in the downing of the captains' F-111 ostensibly by a Libyan SAM over the Gulf of Sidra. Interesting that one of our 'wayward' munitions nearly took out the French Embassy in Libya (which was probably rife with materials designed to help Qaddafi with his quest for weapons of mass destruction). Maybe the French can make up for screwing us back then. They could start with returning the remains of Capt. Lorence to his family.

[quote=]You are correct as more than 50% of the strike packages deployed over Libya are US with the English & French making up the rest. Nearly all the aerial refueling is being done by US tankers, not to mention 98% of the 120+ cruise missiles launched were US, nearly all the intelligence and command and control is coming from US assets. Not sure how we are going to 'not lead' when the bulk of the import assets are US.[/quote]I think we are on the same page. It's more 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! ' Good thing NATO is taking over since we aren't directly associated with them (other than paying most of the bills, providing most of the assets & personnel).

[quote=]To this day Obama, Hillary, and Gates are still giving conflicting signals.[/quote]To the US public, to Congress (if they are even speaking to congress) , to the world, to our allies, to the rebels and to Qaddafi.

[quote=]No wonder no one can comprehend Obama's strategy – he doesn't have one and neither do Gates or Clinton.[/quote]Dopple wins the prize! You are correct, sir! That way, no matter what the outcome, Obama will say that is what he set out for (apologies for ending the sentence with a preposition but I am being lazy, should have been stated as 'that, for which he set out').

[quote=]We are back to Bill Clinton's idea of military intervention, lob a few cruise missiles and call it good, but Obama one upped Billy boy by taking a vacation to Rio to boot.[/quote]Don't you think that you are being a little harsh on the Chosen One? After all, he cut his Spring Break '11 short by 2 full hours to get back to the White House and not communicate with the US public nor Congress, nor our allies, nor. Well, you know where I am going with this.

[quote=]I don't think we had any business being there,[/quote]Agreed. A surprise attack, dropping a bunch of bombs on Qaddafi would certainly have been appropriate considering the litany of Libyan led and sponsored attacks on US interests and those of our allies (and those of a bunch of pussies for whom we are always standing tall): Pan Am 103, Rome & Vienna airport attacks, the Gulf of Sidra Incident, La Belle nightclub bombing, Pan Am 73, everything Abu Nidal is responsible for, and the list goes on.

[quote=]but if we were going in why wait 30 days for the situation to deteriorate when this same show of force in the opening days of the revolt would have pushed Daffy out and marginalized his military since early on they were waiting to see how the revolt would shake out.[/QUOTE]He was busy voting present and doing his NCAA polls.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416369]WW, I hate to contradict you but currently the French have deployed the Charles de Gaulle, their only operational aircraft carrier, to support the no fly zone and ground strikes. [/quote]Dopple, you were not contradicting me. You were pointing out and correcting an error that I had made in my previous post, which I appreciate. It also gave me an opportunity to grind my axe for the French. I don't even like capitalizing their "F" although, I must say, I find many French women to be quite alluring.

WW, please don't get me wrong about the French, until their current president, the French were the best trained surrender monkeys around.

You know they had to cancel the ending fireworks display at Euro Disney because a contingent of French soldiers tried to surrender to some German tourists after the display on opening night!

Also, I have some great French military firearms for sale, they are in pristine condition since they have only been dropped once!

As I stated in my prior post, not sure how we are going to turn over control when nearly everything out there from the front line, intelligence, command and control, resupply and support are ours. Good cut on NATO, combat by consensus, while we pay the bills.

The best show in town now is watching the left wing media twisting in the wind defending Obama regarding the Libyan adventure. I guess they don't have mirrors anywhere near them as there is no way they could look at themselves in one after what I've seen them spewing, and to think these are the same folks who crucified Bush.

The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people. It's unacceptable and outrageous for Gaddafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop.

[QUOTE=Esten;416379]The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people. It's unacceptable and outrageous for Gaddafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop.[/QUOTE]We do, why?

And what makes you think the rebels are seeking freedom, we don't know anything about them?

If we follow your thinking, we're going to have one hell of a busy schedule ahead of us.

When we went war with Iraq George W. Bush was labeled a war monger by the Left-Wing Nuts and the media.

Now Obama bombs the fuck out of a nation that's in a civil war and you and the liberal media want to paint him a humanitarian.
Can you say hypocrites?

There is NO imminent danger in Libya and we have no vital American interest there. This abuse of executive power should be stopped at once!

If only the Left believed in God (any god) :

[QUOTE=Esten;416379]The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression[/quote]Then they could pray for the innocent people of Libya. As far as US military intervention, the threshold is America's 'Best Interests' through the prism of America's national security.

America does not have a moral obligation to protect and arm foreign combatants engaged in civil unrest or civil war, where the loyalties of such combatants are unclear or clearly allied against US interests. In fact, the US has a moral and constitutional duty not to assist such parties and if such parties present a danger to US national security, take appropriate steps to mitigate the problem (I. E. Nuke 'them back to the stone age).

[quote=]and self-government for their people.[/quote]Ha! Boy, I can recall the chorus of support Bush received from the left (and its propaganda organ, the main stream press) for espousing such extreme, right wing views.

You are so f-ing confused, it is quite entertaining to watch. Thanks for the laughs.

[quote=]It's unacceptable and outrageous for Gaddafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop.[/QUOTE]Before I agree with you, please reconsider this statement with the name Saddam Hussein inserted in place of Qaddafi. What are your thoughts on that version?

Now, I agree with both parts of your statement. However, I believe that we disagree as to how the latter should be effected. Since there has been no case made (not even attempted-nothing but silence) that attacking Libya is in America's best or national security interests, I am against our intervention. Like I previously stated, lob some bombs on Qaddafi's compound and call it a day, Executive Orders 11905, 12036 and 12333 be damned.

That said, I do not think that Obama's actions visa vi Libya are in any way unconstitutional. I am not a big fan of the War Powers Act (something I share with every president since and including Nixon) , given that I have clearly stated my belief in the Constitution (clearly many of the most significant portions of the WPA are unconstitutional).

If we follow your doctrine (call it the Obama-forced-by-the-warbird-bitches Doctrine) then I expect that we will soon send troops into, or at least will institute no-fly zones and destroy the war-making abilities of Darfour, Syria, Bahrain, Russia, China, Wisconsin and a whole bunch of other places (as punter pointed out).