Do You Think Barack Obama Represents â??Changeâ?�?

Random:

Why does everyone blame everything on Bush and the Republicans?

What about the 8 years of President Clinton? You can't act like America was fan-freaking-tastic then. Bush came into the Presidency and took all of the shit that had been building up from the Clinton regime.

Bush is by far not the best president, but to blame everything on him and say things like he's the worst clearly shows a lack of historic acuracy. He has had to make some pretty hard decisions. And unless you were there in the room, knowing all the info that he did I doubt anyone can have a proper opinion. Often in history Presidents are rated as being horrible only to have that stigma change a few years later when the air clears and people can see things in a better view.

But that's my 2 cents.

:dance:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

Bush came into the Presidency and took all of the shit that had been building up from the Clinton regime.

---

Yeah, he fixed up that budget surplus he got real quick.

This guy sums it up nicely:

"Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the budget was almost balanced in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus."


Theres more at the link :)

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

It's easy to blame Clinton but i strongly feel Bush has robbed Americans of their constitutional rights with this 'patriot' act, funded a war in iraq which is completely farcical and unnecessary, wasting billions of dollars, including $23B not accounted for... He's contributed heavily to the destruction and respectability of the repuation of America. He's a complete and utter disgraceful embarresment and everyone who voted for him should be ashamed in my opinion or happy you got what you voted for. Unfortunately for others, they've suffered a tyranny of the majority. This isn't about the abismal bush legacy though. Obama is a much better leader who is actually in touch with the public, running for their rights and preferences, not like Bush who ran his own agenda. I don't see how Mccain can relate to this current situation, it seems he's living in the past. He'll get a lot of support from the older voters, perhaps he'll even pull through. I hope not.

I'm in no way saying he's a fantastic president but I'm saying is he has had a lot of hard decisions and it's easy to place blame on him but really he doesn't have THAT much power. You have to blame congress and the sentate also. Not to mention MANY of the Democrats were for the war at the time. (Obama SAYS he wasn't but he didn't even vote...because he wasn't even in OFFICE! Which goes to prove even more his complete lack of experience).

Obama is only "in touch with the public" because he continues to make huge promises that he can't financially account for. Well he'll get them payed for by raising taxes and then redistributing the wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

I'm in no way saying he's a fantastic president but I'm saying is he has had a lot of hard decisions and it's easy to place blame on him but really he doesn't have THAT much power. You have to blame congress and the sentate also. Not to mention MANY of the Democrats were for the war at the time. (Obama SAYS he wasn't but he didn't even vote...because he wasn't even in OFFICE! Which goes to prove even more his complete lack of experience).

Obama is only "in touch with the public" because he continues to make huge promises that he can't financially account for. Well he'll get them payed for by raising taxes and then redistributing the wealth.

---

In the concept of distributive justice, i believe inequality is only justified when it benefits the least well off. I'm aware you're against socialism but when there's people suffering and dying, living in poverty in the richest country in the world, something is wrong imo. I agree with you it's very easy to blame politicians and that they make very hard decisions. However, it was his choice to run for president and he must accept full responsabilty for all his actions, no matter how hard the decision was, president isn't an easy job, it's full of media sharks waiting to smell blood then finish you off.

I don't only blame Bush, like you say the congress passed this without true evidence of WMD's, sure Sadam is dead, that changed things for the better.. We've initiated a democratic process which is positive, but at what cost? If i were to ask who's the most powerful man in America, would it not be the president? Politicians should represent the overwhelming interest of the public, i feel Obama is better at understanding people's needs better. Also, how will McCain strengthen the dollar any more then Obama would? In the battle of political ideologies, ofcourse i'd prefer anarchism but that's not viable. Thus, i'm a liberal, basing my values on liberty, freedom and equality, some of the great things america was founded upon. It seems to me the conservatives want to weaken our civil liberties for the purpose of 'national security' but i believe it's only sensationalist propaganda to gain votes. By eroding our liberties this only plays in to the hands of terrorists who wish to do exactly that, this is doing their job for them.

I think this will be a hard fought battle but i believe the charisma that obama shows will inspire more people to vote, especially those who never vote because they feel alientated from old white men conservatives with their own financial agendas who wish to interfere in your life. Negative liberty for the win.

I think Obama does represent change and I will support him, obviously. Although I talk a fairly big game about being far left, I'm actually more moderate than most people know and I hate the polarization we have in this country and on these boards because anyone with any sense knows the two parties have to work together. Polarization doesn't do this country any good, and it's the stuff of frighteningly simple black-and-white minds, I think, that have to reduce debates to two sides, like good and evil. (Like George Dubya Bush does.)

That being said, any candidate would represent change after the Bush administration. Even McCain, despite the fact that the Obama camp likes to paint him as the third Bush administration. Although I stand to the left of Senator McCain, I respect him a great deal.

I read a lot. I mean news magazines, Newspapers. Books. Some blogs. But mostly longer stuff. Blogs and electronic news are mostly just quick news bytes and headlines. That being said, objectively speaking and based on a long career in communications and speechwriting before I danced off to medical school, Obama's message of change is mighty vague right now, and I've been looking for a long time for specifics. It needs some meat and some definition. Does anyone else who supports Obama feel the same way? "Change you can believe in" to me is starting to make me think about the term "faith" for some reason. Like I'm being asked to take it on faith. I've always been one to take things on facts more than on faith.

I need some more in-depth definition of exactly how Obama plans to change things. That's when I'll feel more comfortable buying what he's selling. I'm still buying it, though. Make no mistake about that. If for no other reason than these two simple words: Supreme Court.

As far as pointing the finger 8 years back at the Clinton administration for the problems we're seeing now, that just makes me laugh hysterically. Anyone with eyes and a brain can read history and has seen the deficit go up, foreign policy and respect from the world go down, homeland security and, especially early on, defense policy, be mismanaged, freedoms and privacy be infringed, and ire in the Middle East be stirred up to levels that we'll never recover from. Seriously. That crap happened under Bush and no one else. Far more than what's listed here, too, by the way. If you don't believe that his foreign policy, by the way, has been appalling, you might want to educate yourself on what both Secretary of State Powell and Rice have worked in complete futility to try to do and how impossible it was--and still is, in Condi's case--to try to accomplish anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illnillinois

Its called "The End Times" He plans to make alot of changes:wtf:

---

What i mean by (End Times). We are living in the last days.. Its funny that I hear of Natural Disasters ALL over the US in the last year, and it doesn't really even make a bleep on most peoples radar. We are so Desensitized to events. The anti-christ isn't stupid. Obamas coment of "He'll be the gap between the EAST-WEST, "christians and Musslims" When there is 7 years of peace in the middle east, better start getting your bags packed, but pack lite..
Obamas "ability to gather the masses" People are blinded. It was written down more then 2000 years ago. I am not going to pretend I am a bible guru, or even a proper christian, BUT i do know how to trust my gut.

Even if he doesn't make president, which I dont think he will. Watch out for him, and careful what we entrust him with...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illnillinois

What i mean by (End Times). We are living in the last days.. Its funny that I hear of Natural Disasters ALL over the US in the last year, and it doesn't really even make a bleep on most peoples radar. We are so Desensitized to events. The anti-christ isn't stupid. Obamas coment of "He'll be the gap between the EAST-WEST, "christians and Musslims" When there is 7 years of peace in the middle east, better start getting your bags packed, but pack lite..
Obamas "ability to gather the masses" People are blinded. It was written down more then 2000 years ago. I am not going to pretend I am a bible guru, or even a proper christian, BUT i do know how to trust my gut.

Even if he doesn't make president, which I dont think he will. Watch out for him, and careful what we entrust him with...

---

Actually the anti-christ was Emperor Nero.

Every person of every generation has thought the end of times is near. Every person of every generation has thought the Anti-Christ appeared in their life-time an that the end of times is near.

Seeing as how history repeats itself I have to side with this not being the end of times.

but I've been wrong before. Ignorane is bliss right? heh

let's check history a bit ... Nero, Hitler, Chairman Mao, and Stalin ALL promised 'change' :wtf: ... they delivered it, too ... :(