General Politics Thread

[Vulgotha]

I give this about 5min before somebody rushes in and puts a glorifying positive spin on Obama and these strong armed federal policies in general.

Probably somebody with the screen name: "Holder_pls_do_me"

[btbam]

Curious silence on this topic by some.

It's been a pretty interesting 3.5 years so far.

-Fiscal responsibility promised, but not even a single budget has been passed because of how outlandish they have been.
-The administration sicked the EPA on Texas because it's an economic beacon for the US. So, they tried to change the regulation that would have caused serious harm to the Texas economy, the State fought back AND WON in the courts.
-Tried to push the employee free choice act (skewing the balance of power to the unions) through to pay the unions back for all the contributions but no luck.
-Passed health care reform with the ultimate goal of driving private insurers out of the market and create a single payer system. Once that was accomplished, it would end up being a BIG win for unions as they would ultimately be government workers and would end up unionized. But now chances are it's going to be over turned.
-There are more and more of his fundraisers that were appointed to the Energy Department, many of which have connections to all the bankrupt green energy companies that billions of tax payer dollars have been dolled out to.

.... the list goes on...

I know there are a few good things that he's done, but he's far too irresponsible with tax payer money and to concerned with growing the power and scope of the federal government. I'm not sure if Romney would be much better, but he I don't think he could be any worse.

If you look at the states that were hit least in this recession, resource rich states like Texas did well. Same for Other states where the economy was driven by resources. Socialism at it's finest: let's make everbody mediocre. Let's take the one thing that helped these states do well in the bad economy and kill it....make em more dependent on the fed.

[weskurtz81]

Thought this was funny...



I do get tired of the mantra that the government "creates" jobs. Sure, if they spend tax proceeds that can create jobs out of thin air, or if they create new markets (see: carbon trading bs) they can create jobs, but the best way the government can facilitate the creation of jobs is by getting out of the way of the private sector and decrease uncertainty which spurs investment. It didn't just start with Obama, and I too have fallen into the trap, but it's pretty much BS that the federal government "creates" millions of jobs unless they spend trillions of dollars which I guess Obama HAS been doing... but where are all these jobs?

[Sub-stance1]

Lol....Fallon and Obama slow jamming the news.

[btbam]

Lol....Fallon and Obama slow jamming the news.

Lol obama pandering to youth voters...

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

[Morganator]

So Newt dropped out. Anyone still think I'm not on to something?... Anyone? By the way, the recent calculations show Ron Paul won Iowa and Minnesota with half the delegates for both. I guarantee you all, Ron Paul far surpasses anyone's expectations regarding his support and electability.

[Sub-stance1]

So Newt dropped out. Anyone still think I'm not on to something?... Anyone? By the way, the recent calculations show Ron Paul won Iowa and Minnesota with half the delegates for both. I guarantee you all, Ron Paul far surpasses anyone's expectations regarding his support and electability.

Newt has been politically dead for a long time now. Paul is on his last leg. Neither one stood a chance against Romney. They just don't have the funds.

[Morganator]

Newt has been politically dead for a long time now. Paul is on his last leg. Neither one stood a chance against Romney. They just don't have the funds.

Bullshit. Paul raised more than $10 million this last quarter and the vast majority came from small donations. Newt on the other hand is $5 million in the hole. He owes that money as most of his contributions have been in the form of business and private loans. I will say it again though. Wait to see what happens at the convention. Paul is picking up massive steam and momentum. I can guarantee you - no, I'll place a monetary wager - Paul will shatter a lot of egos. Either way, the establishment is finished.

Edit: CISPA was just rammed through the House this afternoon. Those fucking assholes in D.C. are nailing their political coffins. The Senate and House are up for elections this November and the verdict is gonna be one giant boot to the ass for the majority of Republican and Democrats. Count on it.

[weskurtz81]

Lol obama pandering to youth voters...

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

Sure, they are the easiest to pander to! Politics at it's best! He really is one heck of a politician, and the ignorant youngsters he is pandering to simply see "cool" and "free" and don't care about much else. 3%, 6%, a person with drive can make it work. He mentioned $1,000, but over what period of time is that? The life of the loan? He's taking every chance he can get to play his political game, and he's damned good at it, using the bully pulpit to the max.

[btbam]

Sure, they are the easiest to pander to! Politics at it's best! He really is one heck of a politician, and the ignorant youngsters he is pandering to simply see "cool" and "free" and don't care about much else. 3%, 6%, a person with drive can make it work. He mentioned $1,000, but over what period of time is that? The life of the loan? He's taking every chance he can get to play his political game, and he's damned good at it, using the bully pulpit to the max.

Speaking of which, gop shold be raising a stink right now. He has travled to swing states to speak about tuition costs to college students ons taxpayer dime. He didnt call it campaigning but it clearly is. That violates campaign finance laws...glad to see my taxes going to reelect him.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

[plustheharm]

He's "pandering" to a demographic that would directly see a hit from the student loan interest inflation. I worked for a group that was contracted by the Department of Education and the Financial Aid "game" is already flawed. This is a serious issue and of course he's going to address it. He's clearly passionate about it, unlike Romney who is clearly not worried about it and treats it as an afterthought. Politics at its finest though, I wouldn't - nor couldn't - disagree with that. But he's not the only one that plays a base up. It's just so easy to spin this and it's just another means of directing away from the actual issue. And a lot of people seem to be missing the point that prospective college students, those taking out loans in the future, are the ones that will be seeing the change. Why wouldn't you play to them? Or is it only a negative when the "opposition" does it?

[btbam]

He's "pandering" to a demographic that would directly see a hit from the student loan interest inflation. I worked for a group that was contracted by the Department of Education and the Financial Aid "game" is already flawed. This is a serious issue and of course he's going to address it. He's clearly passionate about it, unlike Romney who is clearly not worried about it and treats it as an afterthought. Politics at its finest though, I wouldn't - nor couldn't - disagree with that. But he's not the only one that plays a base up. It's just so easy to spin this and it's just another means of directing away from the actual issue. And a lot of people seem to be missing the point that prospective college students, those taking out loans in the future, are the ones that will be seeing the change. Why wouldn't you play to them? Or is it only a negative when the "opposition" does it?

He's not passionate about it at all. In 08 he talked about student loans and interest rates and then he was silent on the issue for 3.5 years. Suddenly he is in campaign mode and goes back to a bunch of idiot college students who think Obama will lessen their debt burden. That's what makes it pandering. I'll put good money on the table now if he gets reelected you won't hear about it again.

[weskurtz81]

He's "pandering" to a demographic that would directly see a hit from the student loan interest inflation. I worked for a group that was contracted by the Department of Education and the Financial Aid "game" is already flawed. This is a serious issue and of course he's going to address it. He's clearly passionate about it, unlike Romney who is clearly not worried about it and treats it as an afterthought. Politics at its finest though, I wouldn't - nor couldn't - disagree with that. But he's not the only one that plays a base up. It's just so easy to spin this and it's just another means of directing away from the actual issue. And a lot of people seem to be missing the point that prospective college students, those taking out loans in the future, are the ones that will be seeing the change. Why wouldn't you play to them? Or is it only a negative when the "opposition" does it?

What hit would they see? Is there a different way to approach this such as trying to decrease the cost of tuition? Seriously, I hear a lot of hub bub about this but no real substance. If a college student gets a loan that doesn't accrue interest until after they graduate and that they don't have to pay on until after they graduate, how would this be such a negative impact?

My problem is the dude is nothing like what he campaigned he would be, every chance he gets he tries to convince the people that the government is the answer to their problems when in many of the cases the problems are created by the government. He said he was going to be fiscally responsible and he's been nothing of the sort, actually he's been the polar opposite. It goes on and on.

So, he used a figure of $1,000, but over what period of time do they see an additional $1K increase? Is it $1k a year, the life of the loan.... $1K can mean a lot of money or hardly any depending on the context.

And, no matter what party it is, bullshit is bullshit, and this guy is FULL of it.

[plustheharm]

He's not passionate about it at all. In 08 he talked about student loans and interest rates and then he was silent on the issue for 3.5 years. Suddenly he is in campaign mode and goes back to a bunch of idiot college students who think Obama will lessen their debt burden. That's what makes it pandering. I'll put good money on the table now if he gets reelected you won't hear about it again.

You're looking at an impending hike, a pretty drastic one, and he's using this chance to address the issue. If they prevent the increase then, unless some other need arises, what is he going to address on the matter? Sure, there are other issues - schools pushing to certain banks for their own agenda - but that has been going on for ages. This is an immediate issue and he's talking about it. Maybe trying to capture some extra votes? Wouldn't deny that, and wouldn't be the first time, but that doesn't make his comments / views on the matter any less relevant.

And these "idiots" aren't necessarily the ones he is pandering to, he's using them as an example. Using his own experience as an example. The interest hike would hit those future students taking out loans, not these other students that are already swamped in student loans and future debt. I don't know if you've had to deal with student loans, payments and the like, but they're a heavy burden that weighs on the individual for a considerable amount of time. This wouldn't help the cause. And when education has a direct influence on the economy, this does nothing but potentially hurt that.

So, he used a figure of $1,000, but over what period of time do they see an additional $1K increase? Is it $1k a year, the life of the loan.... $1K can mean a lot of money or hardly any depending on the context.

And, no matter what party it is, bullshit is bullshit, and this guy is FULL of it.

How is what he is speaking on bullshit? He's traveling and speaking on the importance of education and the importance of student loans that allow many students to complete said education. Said education then has a direct influence on the economy. An increase in student loan interest rates has a direct hit on this. This could result in countless individuals not seeing a higher education.

And it's a lot easier said than done to simply say "decrease the cost of tuition, the cost of a good education." And the amount of interest that accrues on a loan AFTER the fact, when someone is then tasked with finding a legitimate job that pays legitimate wages, well, it shouldn't have to be spelled out. It only increases the burden. Something that is already present. But, since it's already an issue, can't get much worse, right?

Let's talk more about Ron Paul. Apparently we need to pay more mind to Ron Paul.*

*Which I don't mean negatively. I do like Ron Paul, at least, more than I don't. But we all know who is going to be the nominee.

[btbam]

You're looking at an impending hike, a pretty drastic one, and he's using this chance to address the issue. If they prevent the increase then, unless some other need arises, what is he going to address on the matter? Sure, there are other issues - schools pushing to certain banks for their own agenda - but that has been going on for ages. This is an immediate issue and he's talking about it. Maybe trying to capture some extra votes? Wouldn't deny that, and wouldn't be the first time, but that doesn't make his comments / views on the matter any less relevant.

And these "idiots" aren't necessarily the ones he is pandering to, he's using them as an example. Using his own experience as an example. The interest hike would hit those future students taking out loans, not these other students that are already swamped in student loans and future debt. I don't know if you've had to deal with student loans, payments and the like, but they're a heavy burden that weighs on the individual for a considerable amount of time. This wouldn't help the cause. And when education has a direct influence on the economy, this does nothing but potentially hurt that.



How is what he is speaking on bullshit? He's traveling and speaking on the importance of education and the importance of student loans that allow many students to complete said education. Said education then has a direct influence on the economy. An increase in student loan interest rates has a direct hit on this. This could result in countless individuals not seeing a higher education.

Let's talk more about Ron Paul. Apparently we need to pay more mind to Ron Paul.

You don't understand, he is not addressing the issue nor will he. It's a campaign speech. And I call them idiots because they are going to drink his kool-ade and vote for him anyway. Think it's a coincidence that he is going to college campuses in swing states to talk to a part of his core just when the general election starts?

[weskurtz81]

You're looking at an impending hike, a pretty drastic one, and he's using this chance to address the issue. If they prevent the increase then, unless some other need arises, what is he going to address on the matter? Sure, there are other issues - schools pushing to certain banks for their own agenda - but that has been going on for ages. This is an immediate issue and he's talking about it. Maybe trying to capture some extra votes? Wouldn't deny that, and wouldn't be the first time, but that doesn't make his comments / views on the matter any less relevant.

And these "idiots" aren't necessarily the ones he is pandering to, he's using them as an example. Using his own experience as an example. The interest hike would hit those future students taking out loans, not these other students that are already swamped in student loans and future debt. I don't know if you've had to deal with student loans, payments and the like, but they're a heavy burden that weighs on the individual for a considerable amount of time. This wouldn't help the cause. And when education has a direct influence on the economy, this does nothing but potentially hurt that.

Let's talk more about Ron Paul.

So, over a 20 year period a student with about $11K in loans would have to pay about $20K back instead of $15K, that's over a 20 year period. Will it have an impact on students after graduation? Sure, but is an extra $5K over 20 years or $250 a year in additional loan repayment costs really going to prevent people from getting an education and surviving after they are done?

They say the extension will cost the tax payers $6 Billion in the first year alone.

Anyway, I understand the issue, I don't think it's as big of a deal as people make it out to be, and I think our glorious leader is not doing a very good job of leading. Seriously, this dude demonizes the opposition every chance he gets and then he wonders why they aren't willing to play ball... he's not a leader.

[plustheharm]

You don't understand, he is not addressing the issue nor will he. It's a campaign speech. And I call them idiots because they are going to drink his kool-ade and vote for him anyway. Think it's a coincidence that he is going to college campuses in swing states to talk to a part of his core just when the general election starts?

He is "addressing" the issue by speaking on the matter, bringing light to a subject that will become a hot button topic. It's a push by him, and others, to drum up support in the hopes that Congress will extend the lower interest rate of student loans. He's bringing light to an issue that needs to be addressed. At this point he can really only do that, draw attention and address the impending change.

So, over a 20 year period a student with about $11K in loans would have to pay about $20K back instead of $15K, that's over a 20 year period. Will it have an impact on students after graduation? Sure, but is an extra $5K over 20 years or $250 a year in additional loan repayment costs really going to prevent people from getting an education and surviving after they are done?

They say the extension will cost the tax payers $6 Billion in the first year alone.

It's a crucial point when people are leaving school that struggle to find solid standing, and this wouldn't help that. People often struggle to find work after they leave school as it is, even more so these days, and so a real issue could get potentially ... er ... realer. The ramifications encompass a large variety of issues that could hinder an individual from finding employment for various reasons.

Anyway, I understand the issue, I don't think it's as big of a deal as people make it out to be, and I think our glorious leader is not doing a very good job of leading. Seriously, this dude demonizes the opposition every chance he gets and then he wonders why they aren't willing to play ball... he's not a leader.

It is a pretty big deal. And no one is suggesting this outweighs any of the other issues in size or scope. Much of this talk has come up over the course of the last couple days as he hits these universities and speaks on the matter. I thought the economy was a pretty big deal? This has a direct correlation between the two; education and the economy.

I'm not denying that he isn't using this opportunity to garner some favorable support, but he's using a relevant platform to speak on an important matter. At least one that some see as having some importance.

[DayWalker]

back from my semi annual ban

wes- FYI apparently there's a rule on this video game internet forum about calling people a troll



I'm sure everyone has seen this by now...

this is at one of the greatest bars EVER in my college town. So cool.
Wish I ha been able to drive up...

[weskurtz81]

wes- FYI apparently there's a rule on this video game internet forum about calling people a troll

ROFL!!!! Apparently.... it's more of a guideline than a rule.

I don't really disagree with extending the lower rate, I just don't care for the politics surrounding this whole deal and how divisive our current President is. I know he's a smart dude, I am sure he's doing what HE thinks is best, but I really don't care for how he approaches the opposition in most cases.

[DayWalker]

kinda of a weak argument though... "if we don't increase interest rates the tax payers lose XXX dollars"

same can be said about any tax increase...

personally- college allowed me to get a good job/salary... and as a result I pay more in taxes... I can stimulate the local economy... I am unlikely to ever need any kind of government assistance (knock on wood)...

... so I don't see why you can't cut people a break on interest rates... they still have to pay back the principle.

education = great equalizer

[Sub-stance1]

Bullshit. Paul raised more than $10 million this last quarter and the vast majority came from small donations. Newt on the other hand is $5 million in the hole. He owes that money as most of his contributions have been in the form of business and private loans. I will say it again though. Wait to see what happens at the convention. Paul is picking up massive steam and momentum. I can guarantee you - no, I'll place a monetary wager - Paul will shatter a lot of egos. Either way, the establishment is finished.

LOl...10 million doesn't last long when your campaigning. Especially when one ads cost millions of dollars. Romney has money plus all the big rich guys are throwing all their money his way. Paul is really not a factor anymore. This is his last dance.

[Morganator]

LOl...10 million doesn't last long when your campaigning. Especially when one ads cost millions of dollars. Romney has money plus all the big rich guys are throwing all their money his way. Paul is really not a factor anymore. This is his last dance.

If you say so but Paul and his campaign have been way more strategic in their expenditures than Romney by avoiding the money-black holes like Florida. I think you're completely wrong in regards to Paul's "chances".

[Bigdoggy]

He is "addressing" the issue by speaking on the matter, bringing light to a subject that will become a hot button topic. It's a push by him, and others, to drum up support in the hopes that Congress will extend the lower interest rate of student loans. He's bringing light to an issue that needs to be addressed. At this point he can really only do that, draw attention and address the impending change.



It's a crucial point when people are leaving school that struggle to find solid standing, and this wouldn't help that. People often struggle to find work after they leave school as it is, even more so these days, and so a real issue could get potentially ... er ... realer. The ramifications encompass a large variety of issues that could hinder an individual from finding employment for various reasons.



It is a pretty big deal. And no one is suggesting this outweighs any of the other issues in size or scope. Much of this talk has come up over the course of the last couple days as he hits these universities and speaks on the matter. I thought the economy was a pretty big deal? This has a direct correlation between the two; education and the economy.

I'm not denying that he isn't using this opportunity to garner some favorable support, but he's using a relevant platform to speak on an important matter. At least one that some see as having some importance.

he is addressing the issue by speaking on the matter which is what he's been doing the entire time even a little bit before 2008 without any ACTION period. blindly support the guy, fair enough but don't sit here and spew false hope when everyone here knows he talks and talks and talks but where is the actual support. I can pretend to support stuff to but I know for a 100% fact that every single person on here would call me out on it, this isn't the case with Obama. people running around with blinders on. ugh

yet the same exact people in this topic saying the exact same thing without knowing anything at all. 100% fact that some people in this topic only picked and choosed what kind of debate to research. I already see zero experience.

[plustheharm]

Whoa, easy there, big boy. I'm not wearing any blinders and I don't believe I've been running around in here making excuses for what Obama hasn't done, or trying to talk up something that I don't agree with myself. I don't stand behind him 100% and there are certainly issues I don't share the same view as him on.

So, chill the hell out. I only piped up because I worked in a field that was involved with financial aid and I saw no one really commenting on the actual issue, but instead just the man that was talking about it. Typical.

I'm not an Obama apologist, but thanks for trying to paint me as one and thanks for providing another comment filled with more negativity than thought.

And I'm not sure what you think I was "researching." It's more a matter of common knowledge than not. I may not have had to rely on student loans, but that doesn't mean I can't see the importance of them.

[Sub-stance1]

If you say so but Paul and his campaign have been way more strategic in their expenditures than Romney by avoiding the money-black holes like Florida. I think you're completely wrong in regards to Paul's "chances".

The only thing Paul can do is run as a third party. Who do you think that will hurt? My guess is that it would hurt the Republicans. He won't get enough support in a general election. His foreign policy views are too unpopular and he seems to be too stubborn to modulate them. If he is ever gonna be president, he will need more support from his party.