Barack Obama: 4 Years In Review

[The Evenstar]

We could cut a few billion from defense, pull some troops back, we could also get rid of some agencies, then stop giving money to countries that hate us.

Oh, and show me how he has cut spending?

US foreign aid is 1.5% of the total budget. Cutting it out would be like you saying, "Man, my cash flow sucks, I gotta save some money. I know, I'll stop buying a pack of gum once a week. That'll do it."

Sheesh.

Yes, but we got to start somewhere, It's not a whole lot of money, but it's something.

Besides, they'll hate us for us, we don't need to pay them for it.

[Farnhamia]

US foreign aid is 1.5% of the total budget. Cutting it out would be like you saying, "Man, my cash flow sucks, I gotta save some money. I know, I'll stop buying a pack of gum once a week. That'll do it."

Sheesh.

Yes, but we got to start somewhere, It's not a whole lot of money, but it's something.

Besides, they'll hate us for us, we don't need to pay them for it.

Name some names.

[Vazdania]

Yes, but we got to start somewhere, It's not a whole lot of money, but it's something.

Besides, they'll hate us for us, we don't need to pay them for it.

Name some names.

Egypt was quite rude to Mrs. Clinton

[Farnhamia]

Name some names.

Egypt was quite rude to Mrs. Clinton

Remind me.

Actually, never mind.

[Rereumrari]

Yes, but we got to start somewhere, It's not a whole lot of money, but it's something.

Besides, they'll hate us for us, we don't need to pay them for it.

Name some names.

Do you really need everyone to explain everything for you? Maybe take a break from being the "khan of spam" and watch the news every now and then.

[The Evenstar]

Yes, but we got to start somewhere, It's not a whole lot of money, but it's something.

Besides, they'll hate us for us, we don't need to pay them for it.

Name some names.

Egypt, Libya.

http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/

[Vazdania]

Egypt was quite rude to Mrs. Clinton

Remind me.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/egyptian ... ca-monica/

[Mavorpen]

Name some names.

Do you really need everyone to explain everything for you? Maybe take a break from being the "khan of spam" and watch the news every now and then.

"HOW DARE YOU ASK FOR EVIDENCE!?"

[Farnhamia]

Name some names.

Do you really need everyone to explain everything for you? Maybe take a break from being the "khan of spam" and watch the news every now and then.

The typical answer of the person who ignores requests for sources.

[Mavorpen]

Remind me.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/egyptian ... ca-monica/

I didn't know a few protesters represents an entire country.

[Jinos]

He was at best, "OK" but he is very clearly a "Blue Dog" and not actually a liberal.

So come 2016 can we get a REAL liberal on the ticket?

[Vazdania]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/egyptian ... ca-monica/

I didn't know a few protesters represents an entire country.

they do not most certainly, but one should be nice to a country who gives them CHEEK loads of money, wouldn't you think?

[Mavorpen]

I didn't know a few protesters represents an entire country.

they do not most certainly, but one should be nice to a country who gives them CHEEK loads of money, wouldn't you think?

"I gave those stoopid slaves a house to live in! Why would they protest? Ungrateful assholes!"

[Vazdania]

they do not most certainly, but one should be nice to a country who gives them CHEEK loads of money, wouldn't you think?

"I gave those stoopid slaves a house to live in! Why would they protest? Ungrateful assholes!"

hahaha XD

[The Evenstar]

I didn't know a few protesters represents an entire country.

they do not most certainly, but one should be nice to a country who gives them CHEEK loads of money, wouldn't you think?

They hate us, and we pay them for it, that's my point. They want us dead, and least we could do for ourselves is stop giving them extra spending money.

[Vazdania]

they do not most certainly, but one should be nice to a country who gives them CHEEK loads of money, wouldn't you think?

They hate us, and we pay them for it, that's my point. They want us dead, and least we could do for ourselves is stop giving them extra spending money.

Egypt has been a great mediator for us in the Middle East...so its sort of an investment...sort of...I'm still pissed at them for the Palestine/Gaza-Israel incident that happened just recently....

[The Evenstar]

They hate us, and we pay them for it, that's my point. They want us dead, and least we could do for ourselves is stop giving them extra spending money.

Egypt has been a great mediator for us in the Middle East...so its sort of an investment...sort of...I'm still pissed at them for the Palestine/Gaza-Israel incident that happened just recently....

They were, but their new president even came out and said that he doesn't consider the US and Egypt allies anymore, and barely didn't anything when our diplomat died over there late last year.

If it was pre-revolution, yeah, I would see your point.

[Vazdania]

Egypt has been a great mediator for us in the Middle East...so its sort of an investment...sort of...I'm still pissed at them for the Palestine/Gaza-Israel incident that happened just recently....

They were, but their new president even came out and said that he doesn't consider the US and Egypt allies anymore, and barely didn't anything when our diplomat died over there late last year.

If it was pre-revolution, yeah, I would see your point.

I can see your point

[Grenartia]

General Welfare means basically ensuring that the people have an adequate standard of living. I.E., they aren't starving, dying of exposure to the elements, have adequate medical care.

Wealth Redistribution helps provide that standard of living.

1. If anything, Wealth Redistribution does the exact opposite, it robs people of any standard of living they might have had.

There are these things called Implied powers.

2. An "implied power" isn't a power at all, it's a lie made up to justify ever new expansions of government.

1. Source?

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers

Implied powers, in the United States, are those powers authorized by a legal document (from the Constitution) which, while not stated, seem to be implied by powers expressly stated. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States against the protests[1] of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers.[2] Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the "general welfare clause" and the "necessary and proper clause" gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law.

Later, directly borrowing from Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the implied powers of government in the court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. This was used to justify the denial of the right of a state to tax a bank, the Second Bank of the United States, using the idea to argue the constitutionality of the United States Congress creating it in 1816.

In the case of the United States government, implied powers are the powers exercised by Congress which are not explicitly given by the constitution itself but necessary and proper to execute the powers which are.

Considering the fact that I can't afford insurance, and I have a pre-existing condition or two, AHA sounds like a good deal.

*shrug* Don't blame me or the rest of the world for your bad life decisions, if you made more you'd be able to afford insurance and then the AHA would seem like what it is: Theft.

MY bad life decisions? I'm 18, and focusing on school. I've never done anything stupid to myself that would give me any permanent injury/disablity. I did NOTHING to give myself my pre-existing conditions (ADHD and bipolar disorder). My mother tried to get me on the state's health insurance last year, but I was denied because "she made too much money", even though we barely had anything to eat. Tell me, what the fuck did either of us do?

Also, before you judge somebody, maybe you should walk a mile in their fucking shoes.

The United Kingdom. I maintained a work rate in excess of a hundred hours a week for about a year without ever having less than half of my income coming from government aid and without ever making enough to practically live on.

Then you're doing it wrong. Working, living, all of that...

What do you do, by the way?

So you're telling somebody they're doing something wrong, and you don't even know what they're doing?

I guess you'd have to have some sort of gov't free gun program.

Nah, if they offered, I'm sure everyone in my town would let them borrow a rifle here, some ammo there...

We're neighborly types.

Alright, jokes over, seriously if you can't afford insurance that's your problem, whatever happens happens.

BULLSHIT.

If someone robbed, raped, and shot you tonight, how many people outside of your immediate family and friends would give a fuck tomorrow?

Not his friend. I would.

I would. And, in the case of another NSer, many do and have done so already (myself included). And judging by how many people here want justice for that person, your argument seems to have fallen apart, HDYDL.

Most of NSG.

Heartwarming, truly.

The world would go on without a care, however, and so would I.

Hey, 9/11 killed a shitton of people, and impacted a shitton more people's personal lives. But none of them were people I know, so why should I give a shit about Al Queda? Why should I give a flying fucking shit about anybody else? [/blatant sarcasm]

Except, you kind of need workers to...work. You also need consumers to...consume. You didn't take basic economics in High School, did you?

Eh, we've got enough people who work hard, play by the rules, and are rewarded because of it. We don't need the undesirables, tbh.

We also have a fuckton more people who work hard, play by the rules, and get fucked over despite it. Including most everybody I know.

1. Why is wealth redistribution such a bad thing?

1. 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.

2. 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. 3. 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.

1. That's actually a rather shitty comparison. Because no matter how bad of a grade Joe gets, he'll still have a bed and food and shelter. It doesn't work like that in the real world.

2. I'm convinced that the 'lazy moocher' stereotype is just a small minority of people being made out to be the vast majority.

3. I'm all in favor of making it a more streamlined system, eliminating those who don't need welfare but get it anyways. But when more 'successful' people catch all the fish in the pond, despite not needing all of them, does that mean that the man who just learned to fish should be allowed to starve?

40%, apparently ridiculously high.

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

So long as you have more than the cost of living, plus some, I don't see the problem.

Person A makes $600 a month, and is charged 0% tax. Person B makes $3000 a month, and is charged 50% tax. Cost of living is $500. A portion of Person B's taxes (about $600, the other $900 goes to things like infrastructure and education) goes to help Person C, who cannot find a job, despite their best efforts.

Tell me, what's wrong with this scenario? Person B STILL makes over 3 times the cost of living, and Person C doesn't starve.

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?

I think its an excellent idea. Cellphones are rather a necessity. Here's a handy list of things a person would need a cellphone for:

-keeping in touch with one's children to make sure they're safe when they're away from home
-calling 911 in an emergency
-having an alarm function so that they have something to wake them up so they can go to work on time and not loose their job for being late
-having a way that people who want to contact the person (such as potential employers) can contact them

I fail to see the negatives.

[Daistallia 2104]

Domestic Policy: C some good, but too many give always to Wall Street and the PPCA was another
Foreign Policy: F - war crimes

Also, for those excusing the war crime of continuing operations at the Guantanamo Bay facilities, note that Obama continues to ignore his own executive orders for it to be closed and signed both the 2011 and 2012 NDAAs. You cwould claim congressional obstruction if he had vetoed them and been overridden, but he didn't.

[Enadail]

Domestic Policy: C some good, but too many give always to Wall Street and the PPCA was another
Foreign Policy: F - war crimes

Also, for those excusing the war crime of continuing operations at the Guantanamo Bay facilities, note that Obama continues to ignore his own executive orders for it to be closed and signed both the 2011 and 2012 NDAAs. You cwould claim congressional obstruction if he had vetoed them and been overridden, but he didn't.

He's signed an executive order to close it, and Congress has continually failed to and disallowed locations for the prisoners to be transferred to. He could close it down right now, but then all the prisoners would either be left to freedom or execution, neither of which is acceptable. He could perhaps be more forceful about it, but he should hardly take the brunt of the blame for the lack of closing.

[Frisivisia]

Domestic Policy: C some good, but too many give always to Wall Street and the PPCA was another
Foreign Policy: F - war crimes

Also, for those excusing the war crime of continuing operations at the Guantanamo Bay facilities, note that Obama continues to ignore his own executive orders for it to be closed and signed both the 2011 and 2012 NDAAs. You cwould claim congressional obstruction if he had vetoed them and been overridden, but he didn't.

NDAA was necessary to fund the military, and cut back on the powers of the State.

[Daistallia 2104]

Domestic Policy: C some good, but too many give always to Wall Street and the PPCA was another
Foreign Policy: F - war crimes

Also, for those excusing the war crime of continuing operations at the Guantanamo Bay facilities, note that Obama continues to ignore his own executive orders for it to be closed and signed both the 2011 and 2012 NDAAs. You cwould claim congressional obstruction if he had vetoed them and been overridden, but he didn't.

He's signed an executive order to close it, and Congress has continually failed to and disallowed locations for the prisoners to be transferred to. He could close it down right now, but then all the prisoners would either be left to freedom or execution, neither of which is acceptable. He could perhaps be more forceful about it, but he should hardly take the brunt of the blame for the lack of closing.

The 2011 and 2012 NDAAs were the bills disallowing it. Obama signed both.

[Enadail]

He's signed an executive order to close it, and Congress has continually failed to and disallowed locations for the prisoners to be transferred to. He could close it down right now, but then all the prisoners would either be left to freedom or execution, neither of which is acceptable. He could perhaps be more forceful about it, but he should hardly take the brunt of the blame for the lack of closing.

The 2011 and 2012 NDAAs were the bills disallowing it. Obama signed both.

Disallowing what, locations? That the NDAA disallowed the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners is news to me... source? To the best of my knowledge, Congress never even considered the notion formally, so I'd love to see that text.

Also, you are aware that those wills had necessary military funding attached? Not signing them would more or less have been akin to shutting down the US military, while in two major theaters. Not exactly a possibility.

[Earth and the Colonies]

Domestic Policy: C some good, but too many give always to Wall Street and the PPCA was another
Foreign Policy: F - war crimes

Also, for those excusing the war crime of continuing operations at the Guantanamo Bay facilities, note that Obama continues to ignore his own executive orders for it to be closed and signed both the 2011 and 2012 NDAAs. You cwould claim congressional obstruction if he had vetoed them and been overridden, but he didn't.

No, no, no. He receives an F- in foreign policy for sanctioning the killing of American citizens overseas without trial or any remote semblance of due process. Anwar al-Awlaki's death was impeachable by any standard of the law.