Barack Obama: 4 Years In Review

[The Blaatschapen]

What witch hunt?

They're planning to burn Julian Assange at the stake for witchcraft. Assange uses the internet, which isn't in the Bible, so Obama is supporting a plan backed by religious conservatives to have Assange tried and burned.

If I recall correctly....

Assange is also the same weight as a duck.

[Toronina]

He's okay, 7/10, better if he stops the witch hunt against Julian Assange

What witch hunt?

They plan to have him extradited to Sweeden to stand trial for rape, simply because he didn't use a condom with a hooker, then have him stand trial in the US where he is likely to be executed without trial

[North Franklin]

What witch hunt?

They plan to have him extradited to Sweeden to stand trial for rape, simply because he didn't use a condom with a hooker, then have him stand trial in the US where he is likely to be executed without trial

I doubt that...if memory serves we didn't even execute Saddam without some semblance of a trial.

[Nadkor]

What witch hunt?

They plan to have him extradited to Sweeden to stand trial for rape, simply because he didn't use a condom with a hooker, then have him stand trial in the US where he is likely to be executed without trial

Liar.

[New England and The Maritimes]

They plan to have him extradited to Sweeden to stand trial for rape, simply because he didn't use a condom with a hooker, then have him stand trial in the US where he is likely to be executed without trial

Liar.

In fact, I couldn't find a single bit of truth in that entire post. Kind of astonishing.

[FedSex]

1. Why is wealth redistribution such a bad thing?

Let's look at it this way: You're a high school student who works really hard and gets good grades. The guy next to you is a poor student who half-asses all of his assignments. One one test, you get an A, and Joe gets a D. Your teacher decides that your grade was unfair, so he takes some of your grade and redistributes it to Joe. Now you both have equal grades.

The welfare system is okay for a short amount of time for people who actually need it, but there are whole lot of people who mooch off the system generation after generation. Need examples? My aunt and her family. The mother of one of my old friends. Welfare has good intentions, but it causes a serious decline in social and economic situations. There's a saying that goes "Give a man a fish, he has food for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he has food for life." Instead of taking someone else's hard-earned money and giving it to someone who didn't earn it, provide them with a job so they can earn their own money.

[Frisivisia]

1. Why is wealth redistribution such a bad thing?

Let's look at it this way: You're a high school student who works really hard and gets good grades. The guy next to you is a poor student who half-asses all of his assignments. One one test, you get an A, and Joe gets a D. Your teacher decides that your grade was unfair, so he takes some of your grade and redistributes it to Joe. Now you both have equal grades.

The welfare system is okay for a short amount of time for people who actually need it, but there are whole lot of people who mooch off the system generation after generation. Need examples? My aunt and her family. The mother of one of my old friends. Welfare has good intentions, but it causes a serious decline in social and economic situations. There's a saying that goes "Give a man a fish, he has food for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he has food for life." Instead of taking someone else's hard-earned money and giving it to someone who didn't earn it, provide them with a job so they can earn their own money.

The funny thing about that is that it's a bad analogy and that's not how redistribution works.

[Mavorpen]

Let's look at it this way: You're a high school student

No.

The welfare system is okay for a short amount of time for people who actually need it, but there are whole lot of people who mooch off the system generation after generation. Need examples?

No, I don't need your cherry picked asinine anecdotes.

Instead of taking someone else's hard-earned money and giving it to someone who didn't earn it, provide them with a job so they can earn their own money.

Hence why we have job training for people on welfare.

[Frisivisia]

Liar.

In fact, I couldn't find a single bit of truth in that entire post. Kind of astonishing.

And where the fuck is Sweeden?

[Vurran]

I agree with him on the majority of issues, so I'll have to go with a 'great president.' Most of this thread includes my main reasons (helped stop a crumbling economy, health care reform), and also how he supports overturning Citizens United. Plus he's got swagger, so that's nice too.

[Arkinesia]

A lame neo-liberal taking over for a lame neo-conservative after a pretty decent Third Way president.

Bleh.

[Farnhamia]

In fact, I couldn't find a single bit of truth in that entire post. Kind of astonishing.

And where the fuck is Sweeden?

It's not a where, it's a what, specifically the sound a Scandinavian makes when you sneak up behind them and goose them.

[Enadail]

A lame neo-liberal taking over for a lame neo-conservative after a pretty decent Third Way president.

Bleh.

What? What actually liberal stuff has Obama done? This guy is at best moderate, at worst, conservative.

[New Rogernomics]

And where the fuck is Sweeden?

It's not a where, it's a what, specifically the sound a Scandinavian makes when you sneak up behind them and goose them.

I just plan to play with their hair, and run away.

[Valtakuntia]

He was stupid.

What a deep, insightful post.

I concur.

He was stupid.

I never thought of it this way before.

I know, right?

[SaintB]

Tries hard, good effort. Most of his time in office has been spent dealing with a corrupt, inefficient, and spoiled congress that refuses to work with him on anything.

[FedSex]

Let's look at it this way: You're a high school student who works really hard and gets good grades. The guy next to you is a poor student who half-asses all of his assignments. One one test, you get an A, and Joe gets a D. Your teacher decides that your grade was unfair, so he takes some of your grade and redistributes it to Joe. Now you both have equal grades.

The welfare system is okay for a short amount of time for people who actually need it, but there are whole lot of people who mooch off the system generation after generation. Need examples? My aunt and her family. The mother of one of my old friends. Welfare has good intentions, but it causes a serious decline in social and economic situations. There's a saying that goes "Give a man a fish, he has food for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he has food for life." Instead of taking someone else's hard-earned money and giving it to someone who didn't earn it, provide them with a job so they can earn their own money.

The funny thing about that is that it's a bad analogy and that's not how redistribution works.

More than you think it does. Of course, that wouldn't happen in a classroom setting, but it's an example. Our nation's definition of "fair" is absurd. Think of how many people slammed Mitt Romney for being so wealthy. They hated how he actually earned the multi-million he's worth (yeah, yeah, I know you're going to say that he inherited most of his money from his daddy, but the truth is he donated ALL of the money he inherited, earned it all back, and donated a huge chunk of that too). Are we really going to smash on someone's name because of their success?

On a different note, raising ridiculously high taxes on the wealthy is even less fair. 10% of $400,000 is already a lot more than 20% of $40,000. No matter how high the tax rate is, the burden will be on all classes one way or another.

Yeah, that derailed, yeah, yeah, I just had to say it. My point is, people should have to work for what they get. Welfare systems ("redistribution of wealth") in the way they're implemented here completely go against that ideology.

Let's look at it this way: You're a high school student

No.

The welfare system is okay for a short amount of time for people who actually need it, but there are whole lot of people who mooch off the system generation after generation. Need examples?

No, I don't need your cherry picked asinine anecdotes.

Instead of taking someone else's hard-earned money and giving it to someone who didn't earn it, provide them with a job so they can earn their own money.

Hence why we have job training for people on welfare.

1. You are quite terse. Though I guess that works when you have nothing valuable to say.
2. Those were just two vague-for-privacy-reasons examples I thought of off the top of my head. It would be very unnecessarily draining to come up with everyone that I knew that was on welfare.
3. It doesn't matter if the people don't actually participate in the job training, or if they don't use what they learn. Of course, the system is the reason why unemployment appears to have gone down. The unemployment rate is defined by people who are actively looking for work, but are unable to find it. When they stop looking for a job, they are technically not unemployed. The more people who are no longer part of the statistic, the lower the rate is.

[Frisivisia]

The funny thing about that is that it's a bad analogy and that's not how redistribution works.

More than you think it does. Of course, that wouldn't happen in a classroom setting, but it's an example. Our nation's definition of "fair" is absurd. Think of how many people slammed Mitt Romney for being so wealthy. They hated how he actually earned the multi-million he's worth (yeah, yeah, I know you're going to say that he inherited most of his money from his daddy, but the truth is he donated ALL of the money he inherited, earned it all back, and donated a huge chunk of that too). Are we really going to smash on someone's name because of their success?

On a different note, raising ridiculously high taxes on the wealthy is even less fair. 10% of $400,000 is already a lot more than 20% of $40,000. No matter how high the tax rate is, the burden will be on all classes one way or another.

Yeah, that derailed, yeah, yeah, I just had to say it. My point is, people should have to work for what they get. Welfare systems ("redistribution of wealth") in the way they're implemented here completely go against that ideology.

40%, apparently ridiculously high.

[Mavorpen]

1. You are quite terse. Though I guess that works when you have nothing valuable to say.

As opposed to using really stupid analogies such as the "high school grade" one?

2. Those were just two vague-for-privacy-reasons examples I thought of off the top of my head. It would be very unnecessarily draining to come up with everyone that I knew that was on welfare.

Obviously.

3. It doesn't matter if the people don't actually participate in the job training, or if they don't use what they learn. Of course, the system is the reason why unemployment appears to have gone down. The unemployment rate is defined by people who are actively looking for work, but are unable to find it. When they stop looking for a job, they are technically not unemployed. The more people who are no longer part of the statistic, the lower the rate is.

And this is relevant why?

[FedSex]

More than you think it does. Of course, that wouldn't happen in a classroom setting, but it's an example. Our nation's definition of "fair" is absurd. Think of how many people slammed Mitt Romney for being so wealthy. They hated how he actually earned the multi-million he's worth (yeah, yeah, I know you're going to say that he inherited most of his money from his daddy, but the truth is he donated ALL of the money he inherited, earned it all back, and donated a huge chunk of that too). Are we really going to smash on someone's name because of their success?

On a different note, raising ridiculously high taxes on the wealthy is even less fair. 10% of $400,000 is already a lot more than 20% of $40,000. No matter how high the tax rate is, the burden will be on all classes one way or another.

Yeah, that derailed, yeah, yeah, I just had to say it. My point is, people should have to work for what they get. Welfare systems ("redistribution of wealth") in the way they're implemented here completely go against that ideology.

40%, apparently ridiculously high.

Uh, yeah, almost half of your income is a bit high, regardless of what you make.

[Mavorpen]

Uh, yeah, almost half of your income is a bit high, regardless of what you make.

Nah.

[Romalae]

My opinion:

[Natapoc]

For a president, Obama has been fairly effective and "honest", source: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

However, I will give him no praise. He's still a right-leaning neo-libral with an imperialist war policy.

[FedSex]

1. You are quite terse. Though I guess that works when you have nothing valuable to say.

As opposed to using really stupid analogies such as the "high school grade" one?

2. Those were just two vague-for-privacy-reasons examples I thought of off the top of my head. It would be very unnecessarily draining to come up with everyone that I knew that was on welfare.

Obviously.

3. It doesn't matter if the people don't actually participate in the job training, or if they don't use what they learn. Of course, the system is the reason why unemployment appears to have gone down. The unemployment rate is defined by people who are actively looking for work, but are unable to find it. When they stop looking for a job, they are technically not unemployed. The more people who are no longer part of the statistic, the lower the rate is.

And this is relevant why?

1. It's actually a very popular analogy. I'm fully aware that it doesn't make sense, and wouldn't happen in the real world (I would hope not), but that's not the point. Believe it or not, it's very similar to how redistribution works, and it's just about as fair.
2. Uh, yeah. Relatively long list of people/families.
3. Because people aren't working for their welfare.

Quick semi-relevant question: What do you think of the government literally handing out free cellphones to people on welfare? Is that fair and sensible?

[North Franklin]

On a different note, raising ridiculously high taxes on the wealthy is even less fair. 10% of $400,000 is already a lot more than 20% of $40,000. No matter how high the tax rate is, the burden will be on all classes one way or another.

The difference being, the person with $400,000 will still end up with a lot more than the $40,000 taxed at a 20% rate. The burden will always be supported mainly by the middle class, simply because of the sheer numbers, but a higher tax rate on the upper class, even one the same as that on the middle class would help alleviate that burden.