Obama and Welfare: No, this is not your typical Obama thread

[volprof]

With all the anti-Obama threads on here, I figured I'd start one that calls into question his attackers. First of all, however, let me say that I am not so naive to believe that he has done everything perfectly; his term has had numerous flaws. Furthermore, I don't know if he is the man to get our economy back on track. However, if someone were to just read this forum and nothing else, they'd likely come away with the impression that not only did Obama get us into this mess in the first place but that he also stands against everything American and simply wishes for people to collect checks all day. I know many of you are fair, but this seems to be the impression that I often get when reading this forum. So here goes: I couldn't find a direct link to just the ad itself, but I did find a critique from The Young Turks that incorporates a full showing of the ad. (Yes, I know The Young Turks are progressive, but that should not subtract from their critique here.) And before I get 10-15 posts asking me this or that, I'll just go ahead and say that the vast majority of critics have found the Romney claims bogus at best. That's all. Obama is not the best, but he isn't the American-tanking prez he's made out to be either.

I don't know that I agree fully with his critique, but I think it's safe to say that Romney has an ace-in-the-hole as well, and not just Obama, when it comes time to voting bases.

Romney's Welfare Attack On Obama - YouTube

 

[volprof]

I'm sure this will go over well.

 

[Gramps]

I'm sure this will go over well.

You will be okay volprof if you have very Very thick skin because you will need it.....lol

 

[BigPapaVol]

touting trickle up economics and massive stimulus (rewards for donors) package as economic saviors is absolutely America tanking, since it's additive to the silliness of his predecessors and he knows it.

Is Romney better? Who knows, but at least Floyd thinks there's a chance. Obama's penchant for disingenuousness needs no hoopla, so what difference does it make if a potential successor has said penchant? There's still no chance at a better, non-government as the answer solution. In fact, the likelihood is that we'll get more handouts.

So I ask again, what difference does it make to point out that the pres' successor plays politics?

 

[volprof]

touting trickle up economics and massive stimulus (rewards for donors) package as economic saviors is absolutely America tanking, since it's additive to the silliness of his predecessors and he knows it.

Is Romney better? Who knows, but at least Floyd thinks there's a chance. Obama's penchant for disingenuousness needs no hoopla, so what difference does it make if a potential successor has said penchant? There's still no chance at a better, non-government as the answer solution. In fact, the likelihood is that we'll get more handouts.

So I ask again, what difference does it make to point out that the pres' successor plays politics?

BPV, I actually don't disagree with you on as many issues as you might think initially. I know, however, that you've said that Obama is expanding our bureaucracy, and that is true to a certain extent, but this seems to give the matter back over to states. Perhaps he's not a full-blown socialist after all. (And I'm not accusing you, BPV, of those accusations against Obama; just saying in general.)

 

[BigPapaVol]

BPV, I actually don't disagree with you on as many issues as you might think initially. I know, however, that you've said that Obama is expanding our bureaucracy, and that is true to a certain extent, but this seems to give the matter back over to states. Perhaps he's not a full-blown socialist after all. (And I'm not accusing you, BPV, of those accusations against Obama; just saying in general.)

We probably don't massively disagree, but you have some natural bent toward a social approach to life. I have absolutely none.

This isn't a states vs feds debate. It's about how to best deliver the America our founders framed to the populace. Obama views the solution as government driven and has been raised to believe that to his very core. I've seen no action from him that I believe reinforces individualism or personal accountability as our route to prolonging the America that we love.

If we want to pin our march to socialist ideals on anyone, it should really be the electorate for continuing to fill DC with careerists. Congress is the true cesspool. Any congress, aligned with a president, is going to idiotically presume a mandate and is going to jump in with both feet to try and preserve its majority. Every instance has been a debacle for Americans, particularly those paying taxes.

 

[volprof]

You will be okay volprof if you have very Very thick skin because you will need it.....lol

Haha! Yeah, sometimes that is required on here. We'll see how this goes over though. Initially I was thinking it wouldn't go over well at all, but after thinking about it a bit more, it could go one of two ways: (1) a lot of posters and their brothers get pissed and want to blow off stem about Obama here, or, (2) the Romney ad's falsehoods are just too far to overcome in this particular thread so skip out here and fight on another day somewhere else. We'll see, I guess.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Haha! Yeah, sometimes that is required on here. We'll see how this goes over though. Initially I was thinking it wouldn't go over well at all, but after thinking about it a bit more, it could go one of two ways: (1) a lot of posters and their brothers get pissed and want to blow off stem about Obama here, or, (2) the Romney ad's falsehoods are just too far to overcome in this particular thread so skip out here and fight on another day somewhere else. We'll see, I guess.

It won't raise any ire. You're just pointing out that both play politics and all the while decry their opponents' attempts. Neither can claim the high ground, but I will give that Obama's camp has gone to the bottom of the barrel with implying that Romney killed a cancer patient and lying about it at that. Romney doesn't have it in him to stoop there.

 

[volprof]

We probably don't massively disagree, but you have some natural bent toward a social approach to life. I have absolutely none.

This isn't a states vs feds debate. It's about how to best deliver the America our founders framed to the populace. Obama views the solution as government driven and has been raised to believe that to his very core. I've seen no action from him that I believe reinforces individualism or personal accountability as our route to prolonging the America that we love.

If we want to pin our march to socialist ideals on anyone, it should really be the electorate for continuing to fill DC with careerists. Congress is the true cesspool. Any congress, aligned with a president, is going to idiotically presume a mandate and is going to jump in with both feet to try and preserve its majority. Every instance has been a debacle for Americans, particularly those paying taxes.

I know we've disagreed elsewhere before about the Founding Fathers, but the Fathers were fairly conflicted. The debates going on today actually don't differ all that much from the debates going on then concerning Federalism vs. Democrat-Republicanism, or Republicanism (or whatever historians want to call it.) There were some Founding Fathers that might stand beside Obama today and some that obviously wouldn't.

 

[volprof]

It won't raise any ire. You're just pointing out that both play politics and all the while decry their opponents' attempts. Neither can claim the high ground, but I will give that Obama's camp has gone to the bottom of the barrel with implying that Romney killed a cancer patient and lying about it at that. Romney doesn't have it in him to stoop there.

I could be wrong but that cancer ad was founded by an Obama supporter and not Obama himself. Like I said, I could be wrong. The Romney welfare ad was founded by Romney himself, or so he claims at the end of the ad. Maybe there's a difference? Anyhow, you're right: that cancer ad accusing Romney is a low-blow from whoever sponsored it. It's unfair.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I could be wrong but that cancer ad was founded by an Obama supporter and not Obama himself. Like I said, I could be wrong. The Romney welfare ad was founded by Romney himself, or so he claims at the end of the ad. Maybe there's a difference? Anyhow, you're right: that cancer ad accusing Romney is a low-blow from whoever sponsored it. It's unfair.

Obama camp today finally said they were involved prior to the ad release and were well aware of the message.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I know we've disagreed elsewhere before about the Founding Fathers, but the Fathers were fairly conflicted. The debates going on today actually don't differ all that much from the debates going on then concerning Federalism vs. Democrat-Republicanism, or Republicanism (or whatever historians want to call it.) There were some Founding Fathers that might stand beside Obama today and some that obviously wouldn't.

I can't imagine any single one of them supporting federal HC or trickle up economics. That's silliness. You're the history guy and I'm not, but that's just not who they were.

 

[volprof]

Obama camp today finally said they were involved prior to the ad release and were well aware of the message.

I'm not disagreeing with you, BPV, but could you provide a link or something for that? I'll take you at your word on this one, but I've not been able to find anything saying that. That's not to say you're wrong at all; I just can't find anything to support that. No doubt the ad was out-of-line.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I'm not disagreeing with you, BPV, but could you provide a link or something for that? I'll take you at your word on this one, but I've not been able to find anything saying that. That's not to say you're wrong at all; I just can't find anything to support that. No doubt the ad was out-of-line.

I read it somewhere this afternoon.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/obama-camp-acknowledges-knowing-mans-story-131577.html

 

[milohimself]

Time to dust off my copy of the anti federalist papers

 

[volprof]

I can't imagine any single one of them supporting federal HC or trickle up economics. That's silliness. You're the history guy and I'm not, but that's just not who they were.

I can't really speak for that: obviously, nothing like a notion of nationalized healthcare (or even healthcare insurance) had ever come their way. It's unfair for me to say for certain that some of them would support Obama on this, but I also think it's unlikely that none of them would be completely opposed to this if they were living in the 21st Century (which is one of the reasons I don't pay as much heed to them as some do, simply because they couldn't possibly speak for all time in the late1700s- early 1800s). They set up the Constitution as a living document, which is to say that they at least realized they were historically limited.

 

[volprof]

Time to dust off my copy of the anti federalist papers

No doubt. haha!

 

[milohimself]

I wonder how the debates between the fathers would have gone had modern economics not been a nascent field of study

 

[BigPapaVol]

I can't really speak for that: obviously, nothing like a notion of nationalized healthcare (or even healthcare insurance) had ever come their way. It's unfair for me to say for certain that some of them would support Obama on this, but I also think it's unlikely that none of them would be completely opposed to this if they were living in the 21st Century (which is one of the reasons I don't pay as much heed to them as some do, simply because they couldn't possibly speak for all time in the late1700s- early 1800s). They set up the Constitution as a living document, which is to say that they at least realized they were historically limited.

Regardless, independence was at their very core. It drove their thinking. It was the crux of the federalist vs states rights debate. Minimalist government was what they wanted.

 

[volprof]

I wonder how the debates between the fathers would have gone had modern economics not been a nascent field of study

I don't know if you're getting at anything in particular or not, but just another reason why they were historically-limited.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I don't know if you're getting at anything in particular or not, but just another reason why they were historically-limited.

Sounds like an excuse to dismiss what they held dear. Rationalization of your own beliefs, if you will.

 

[volprof]

Regardless, independence was at their very core. It drove their thinking. It was the crux of the federalist vs states rights debate. Minimalist government was what they wanted.

Sounds like an excuse to dismiss what they held dear. Rationalization of your own beliefs, if you will.

The Whiskey Rebellion and Alien and Sedition Acts suggest otherwise. On the one hand, we have precedent for a national tax against the businessman (whiskey and corn producers) at their seeming disadvantage, and, on the other hand, we have the power of the executive to deport whomever he wishes and to prosecute whoever criticizes him in the media. Although very different, this sounds a lot like today's debates, wherein we wonder about the powers of the Federal government and the executive. Which just goes to show that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[volprof]

This is also to say that not everything representing the "American way" is unabashedly good, no matter what politician, Democrat or Republican, says.

 

[volinbham]

With all the anti-Obama threads on here, I figured I'd start one that calls into question his attackers. First of all, however, let me say that I am not so naive to believe that he has done everything perfectly; his term has had numerous flaws. Furthermore, I don't know if he is the man to get our economy back on track. However, if someone were to just read this forum and nothing else, they'd likely come away with the impression that not only did Obama get us into this mess in the first place but that he also stands against everything American and simply wishes for people to collect checks all day. I know many of you are fair, but this seems to be the impression that I often get when reading this forum. So here goes: I couldn't find a direct link to just the ad itself, but I did find a critique from The Young Turks that incorporates a full showing of the ad. (Yes, I know The Young Turks are progressive, but that should not subtract from their critique here.) And before I get 10-15 posts asking me this or that, I'll just go ahead and say that the vast majority of critics have found the Romney claims bogus at best. That's all. Obama is not the best, but he isn't the American-tanking prez he's made out to be either.

I don't know that I agree fully with his critique, but I think it's safe to say that Romney has an ace-in-the-hole as well, and not just Obama, when it comes time to voting bases.

Romney's Welfare Attack On Obama - YouTube

Look at the premise in your post - you think the majority of posters on here blame Obama for everything. That is simply not true. Sure, the vast majority disagree with his policy prescriptions and his approach but you are doing a typical Obama straw man argument here; start with an extreme premise then show that premise isn't true.

Both candidates are appealing to their bases and both routinely play fast and loose with the facts. Of the two candidates it's pretty clear to me which one seeks to maintain/expand the entitlement view of government as major provider and which at least talks about slowing that progression.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Look at the premise in your post - you think the majority of posters on here blame Obama for everything. That is simply not true. Sure, the vast majority disagree with his policy prescriptions and his approach but you are doing a typical Obama straw man argument here; start with an extreme premise then show that premise isn't true.

Both candidates are appealing to their bases and both routinely play fast and loose with the facts. Of the two candidates it's pretty clear to me which one seeks to maintain/expand the entitlement view of government as major provider and which at least talks about slowing that progression.

Copy and paste talking points, what do you expect?