Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Obama this. Obama that.
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lithium



Joined: 18 Jun 2008

PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
BS.Dos. wrote:
^Nice.

I've just been talking to an FT from Ohio who reckons that only 10 of the 50 states actually make any money for the union. I can't verify what she said, but if it's true, wouldn't something a little more decentralized be more efficient, like a confederation perhaps?


At least our head of state is elected rather than being the product of centuries of in-breeding.

What does it mean to 'make money for the union'? Even if the reply to that question makes sense, how would changing the political structure of the nation change the economic productiveness of the allegedly under-performing states, if that is what is being claimed?


ACORN influenced election is actually something to brag about? Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BS.Dos. wrote:
I'm surprised to hear that Texas is pulling on DC. I'd have thought that it would've been the other way round tbh. I'm sure that I read on here a few weeks back someone was saying that Texas has a lower than average state tax band. Surely, If they're pulling more out of Washington than they're putting in, doesn't Washington have any say in how they (TX) set their state tax or are state taxes set by Washington?

I was in NY in Feb and had dinner with one of my GF friends who was telling me that for every dollar NY sends to Washington, they only get 0.80 cents back. He wasn't best pleased about it either.


State and taxes are entirely set by the States. The taxes don't leave the State.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
superacidjax



Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lithium wrote:
ACORN influenced election is actually something to brag about? Laughing


THANK YOU. Finally, it seems like someone else gets it. It's interesting how high Obama's approval ratings are, yet Congress' ratings are among the lowest in history. The interesting thing is that Congress is controlled by Democrats and the policies the leaders are supporting are those desired by the president.

Obama is not popular because of his policies, Obama is popular because he is a media-created star, while having no substantial experience in being a chief executive of anything, while Congress must live and die by policy proposals/legislation. Obama has never had to make a payroll, never had to hire or fire people and has no experience in budgeting. His 100+ days in the US Senate were simply an extension of his presidential campaign. He accomplished nothing in the Senate other than running for president. It seems like Americans do not actually like the socialization of America, if they did, then Congress' rating should be as high as the president's.

Obama is a good talker, but is painfully ignorant of economics. His Keynesian theories have been proven wrong over and over again throughout history, with the Japanese recession of the 1990s being the most recent example. You can't spend your way out of a recession.

If a family is in debt, the last thing they need to do is spend more money. Rather than proposing billions in new spending on ideological projects, he should be proposing cuts in government. He should be trying to put money into the pockets of taxpayers through tax cuts as opposed to increasing taxes. A bigger tax bill simply means less money for individuals to spend or invest. It's common sense.

The popular, classist crap suggesting that "Tax cuts for the rich are unfair" is such an ignorant position because who creates jobs? Who hires people? Who invests the most? The rich. If you stick it to the rich, they can afford it, but it will be at the expense of the poor who lose their jobs when the rich scale back because they have less capital.

The Democrats hurt the poor because they try to hurt the rich. The Law of Unintended Consequences.. Of course, I believe that they actually intend to keep the poor poor.. After all, what could be a better voting bloc than a large group of people dependent on government.

Who gets the stimulus money? Not me, not you (unless you work for ACORN or make stupid windmills.) Who pays for it? Taxpayers. The people that are more likely to vote for Obama Inc. tend to pay the least in taxes. It's really popular to spend other people's money.

The ignorant masses that voted for Obama seem to miss the concept that all of these nice-sounding projects aren't free. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

superacidjax wrote:
lithium wrote:
ACORN influenced election is actually something to brag about? Laughing


THANK YOU. Finally, it seems like someone else gets it. It's interesting how high Obama's approval ratings are, yet Congress' ratings are among the lowest in history. The interesting thing is that Congress is controlled by Democrats and the policies the leaders are supporting are those desired by the president.


I couldn't get past the last sentence quoted. It is not accurate.

Take a look, for example, at the student loan debates, in which Blue Dog Democrats are obstructing the President's desire for direct gov't loans (as opposed to current situation where gov't subsidizes private lenders).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
superacidjax



Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
Take a look, for example, at the student loan debates, in which Blue Dog Democrats are obstructing the President's desire for direct gov't loans (as opposed to current situation where gov't subsidizes private lenders).


You're right. That is a substantial policy difference. Clearly, that's the reason for the approval rating disparity.

..it's rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Hater Depot



Joined: 29 Mar 2005

PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

superacidjax wrote:
If a family is in debt, the last thing they need to do is spend more money.


Doesn't this analogy break down when you factor in the facts that the federal government is immortal, is able to borrow at extremely favorable interest rates, is much more easily able to raise new revenue streams, and doesn't really have that much waste in its budget to begin with? Families cut back because they have to live on more or less fixed incomes and also have to worry about saving for retirement and the kids' college education, and because luxury expenses like eating out and having cable TV can represent a significant chunk of their income. The government doesn't have to worry about how it spends its golden years, nor does its budget contain a large percentage of frivolities.

Besides, there are times when even that family has to go deeper into debt. Maybe one of their kids gets leukemia.

Quote:
There is no such thing as a free lunch.


Yet you imply that cutting government spending has no costs of its own and is thus a free lunch.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BS.Dos.



Joined: 29 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yankee Doodles: Obama in Cartoons
By Ali McConnell
BBC News

"He's superman at the moment - young, black, good-looking, progressive," says British cartoonist Andy Davey.

So perhaps it's not surprising you have to look hard to find an unflattering cartoon of the new US president. With the end of his first 100 days in sight, the Political Cartoon Gallery in London is putting on an exhibition of original cartoons of Barack Obama. It charts his rise as an outside candidate for the Democratic Party nomination to his first few months in the White House. Political cartooning is usually a negative art-form but with Obama there's a sense of hope.

Dr Tim Benson the founder of the gallery, Dr Tim Benson, says he's assembled more than 60 cartoons from British publications and they're almost all positive. "It's as if Bush was the Antichrist and the world's in such a mess that Obama is seen as an angel," he says.

In a relatively short time in the public eye, Barack Obama has been depicted as Saint Barack the Divine, as the sun dispelling the dark clouds of his predecessor, and compared with a Greek god taking the world on his shoulders. "Political cartooning is usually a negative art-form but with Obama there's a sense of hope," says Dr Benson.

So has that sense of hope and the new president's undoubted popularity put him beyond criticism? Or are people perhaps treading more carefully because he's black? "There are more interesting things about him than his colour," says Martin Rowson of the Guardian newspaper. "For example, he has sticky-out ears, a long chin and a pipe-cleaner body. He's also got good eyebrows and his eyes are rather close together - that gives you a good original template."

And there's no doubt the character will change with time, shaped by events. Mr Rowson makes the comparison with the early days of the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "When I first started to draw Blair he was puppy-like, but he became more raddled with time. I used his teeth as a sort of political barometer."

Andy Davey, cartoonist with the Sun newspaper says he's enjoyed drawing Barack Obama so far, but doesn't feel anyone's come up with the defining caricature of the new president yet. "None of us can draw Bush without seeing Steve Bell's monkey. Steve Bell or Gerald Scarfe tend to set the benchmark and others follow," he says.

"There's usually an event horizon after which the likeness has been nailed. It can be something as simple as shifting a line by a couple of millimetres."

Much to criticise

On the other side of the Atlantic, Ted Rall, President of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, says President Obama is enjoying an unusually long, deep honeymoon with the majority of US cartoonists. "Most of us are being taken in by his charm and charisma. It's difficult not to like him - he's competent, smart and it's such a relief after what went before." He acknowledges that there are some cartoonists who are critical of the president and his policies, mainly those on the right and a handful of liberal democrats. But among some, he says, it has almost become a "cult of personality."

"I feel that when I agree with what the president's doing it's not a good time to do a cartoon," he says. "But there is much to criticise. The bailout, for example. It's perceived that he's helping the multi-nationals, but not ordinary people." Despite his popularity, it is in the US where people have come to grief over what have been perceived as racist depictions of the new president.

In February, the New York Post drew widespread criticism for a cartoon of a policeman shooting a chimpanzee dead. The New Yorker also found itself in hot water during the election campaign when it tried to satirise some of the more outlandish right-wing attacks on the Obamas. Despite these hiccups, Mr Rall says race hasn't generally been an issue in how people draw the president. He wonders, however, whether the fear of being accused of racism could lead to self-censorship.

This thought is echoed by Martin Rowson in London. "There's always a slight issue when you draw someone that you can be accused of dealing in stereotypes," he says. "Sometimes a climate is deliberately fostered whereby if you attack someone, special interest groups will attack you. For example, I drew a cartoon of Ariel Sharon looking fat and arrogant, which he was. But portraying him like that you're accused of being anti-Semitic."

While some politicians will undoubtedly be irked by their caricatures, Tim Benson says for most it's a sign they've made it. Winston Churchill, he says, memorably pointed out that as a politician you should be worried when your caricature disappears from the cartoons. There's little sign of that happening just yet to President Obama - but in time they may become a little less sympathetic.

The exhibition "Yankee Doodles! President Obama in cartoons" will be on show at the Political Cartoon Gallery in London from 23 April - 13 June 2009.

This one's good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pluto



Joined: 19 Dec 2006

PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This thread reminded me that the President talks too much. Obama just needs to cool it and not beat the bully pulpit every chance he gets. There will be diminishing returns after a while and then even negitive equity from exhausting all of his political capital.

Quote:
A week ago today, Barack Obama signed the largest spending bill in U.S. history. Yesterday he hosted a "fiscal responsibility" summit at the White House (a guilty conscience, perhaps?). Tonight, President Obama will deliver his first State of the Union address and issue a new round of lavish demands on the public purse.

In recent weeks, the president has been anywhere and everywhere, with a campaign-style blitz of media appearances and town hall meetings. But, hard as it is to imagine in this era of the omnipresent president, there was a time when presidents weren't seen much and were heard even less. There might be a lesson there for Obama.

Our founding fathers didn't want a president who'd perpetually pound the bully pulpit. They viewed presidential speechifying as a sign of demagoguery, and thought Congress should take the lead on most matters of national policy. They expected the nation's chief executive to pipe down, mind his constitutional business, and keep his hands to himself.

The "permanent campaign" that dominates modern presidential politics would have appalled our forefathers. Accepting the 1844 Democratic nomination, James K. Polk described the custom of the time: "the office of president of the United States should neither be sought nor declined."

When 19th-century candidates spoke publicly, they sometimes felt compelled to apologize, as 1872 Democratic contender Horace Greeley did, for breaking "the unwritten law of our country that a candidate for President may not make speeches."

From Washington to Jackson, presidents gave about three speeches a year on average. In his first year in office, President Clinton gave over 600. Things have changed, but it's not clear they've changed for the better.

Obama's address tonight isn't technically a State of the Union (SOTU) address, purists insist, since he's only been in office a month. But with members of both Houses and the Supreme Court in attendance � standing to clap for every outsized promise � it will look and quack like one.

In early SOTUs, presidents rarely went on at Castro-like length. George Washington's first SOTU was a humble affair, just over 1000 words, devoid of imperious demands for congressional action.

That wasn't humble enough for President Thomas Jefferson, however, who disapproved of his two predecessors giving the SOTU in person before Congress assembled. Jefferson saw that practice as "an English habit, tending to familiarize the public with monarchical ideas," much like the British king's "speech from the throne."

So our third president wrote out his SOTU speeches and had them hand-delivered to Congress. The Jeffersonian custom held for over 100 years, until the power-hungry Woodrow Wilson overthrew it. Of 219 SOTUs, only 71 have been delivered in person.

It's hard to imagine the camera-and-mike-hungry Barack Obama simply "mailing it in." But maybe he ought to think about making himself a little scarcer and pounding the pulpit less. If the president became less frantically visible, that might benefit the country and the president himself.

Today's president is a constitutional monstrosity: a national talk-show host with nuclear weapons. When the president dominates the airwaves, promising to cure all manner of economic and social ills, that leads the public to expect a presidential rescue plan for anything that ails the body politic.

The predictable result is an executive branch that rides roughshod over congressional prerogatives. The mortgage bailout Obama announced last week is a case in point, since the bulk of the plan, which has enormous repercussions for the U.S. economy, is being enacted without any action by Congress. A less vocal, less omnipresent president might help us right the constitutional balance of powers.

Moreover, it's not clear that all this speechifying is doing the president himself much good. After Obama announced his housing plan, one headline writer put it this way: "Obama Speaks, Market Listens, Sells Off."

When there's no escape from our national talk-show host-when he appears constantly above every gym treadmill-is it any wonder that we typically want his show cancelled just a few seasons in? Is it any wonder we get sick of him?

There was wisdom in the old ways. A president who talks less might be able to make his words matter more. And a president who promises less might be able to deliver more of what he promises.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pluto.

Oratory is Obama's strength. He might as well employ it. I liked your article, however.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Pluto



Joined: 19 Dec 2006

PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
Pluto.

Oratory is Obama's strength. He might as well employ it. I liked your article, however.


It certainly is, though he should utilize his oratory skills more smartly and sparingly. It's like listening to your favorite song when you were a kid. A song that you play over and over. It's nice at first but it just gets tiring after awhile.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pluto wrote:
Kuros wrote:
Pluto.

Oratory is Obama's strength. He might as well employ it. I liked your article, however.


It certainly is, though he should utilize his oratory skills more smartly and sparingly. It's like listening to your favorite song when you were a kid. A song that you play over and over. It's nice at first but it just gets tiring after awhile.


I agree. But for the first 100 days during an economic crisis, its okay. I'd like to see him be more sparing in the future, however.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The popular, classist crap suggesting that "Tax cuts for the rich are unfair" is such an ignorant position because who creates jobs? Who hires people? Who invests the most? The rich. If you stick it to the rich, they can afford it, but it will be at the expense of the poor who lose their jobs when the rich scale back because they have less capital.

The Democrats hurt the poor because they try to hurt the rich. The Law of Unintended Consequences.. Of course, I believe that they actually intend to keep the poor poor.. After all, what could be a better voting bloc than a large group of people dependent on government.

Who gets the stimulus money?


Who creates jobs? Mostly small businesses, especially small start-up entreprenuerial businesses and they are not rich. One of the big new sources of jobs is going to be in alternative energy as it expands due to the investments the government is making.

The Dems want to keep the poor poor? Are there any other conspiracy theories you like to engage in?

Who gets the stimulus money? I smell a whiff of jealousy here. Is this why you don't support the idea of getting the economy going again...you don't feel you are directly getting a piece of the pie? When the money is spread around the middle class, we all benefit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eperdue4ad



Joined: 22 May 2006

PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

superacidjax wrote:


Who gets the stimulus money? Not me, not you (unless you work for ACORN or make stupid windmills.) Who pays for it? Taxpayers. The people that are more likely to vote for Obama Inc. tend to pay the least in taxes. It's really popular to spend other people's money.

The ignorant masses that voted for Obama seem to miss the concept that all of these nice-sounding projects aren't free. There is no such thing as a free lunch.



There's a popular misconception (esp from folks down in tha' Southern USA) that only the poor vote Dem. How does a Southern White Boy distinguish himself from those lower than himself? Jump in on the "hard earned money" bandwagon, citing high taxes, bootstraps, etc. and vote Republican.

Unfortunately it is not that simplified. Look at a Red State/Blue State map from 2000-on, when the terms came about. Electoral geography shows that the highest-taxed states, and counties within, are Dem leaning.

My family owns a house on Capitol Hill. I taught at a private school in one of the 3 wealthiest counties in the nation, those which surround DC. Overwhelmingly, my friends, neighbors, and coworkers vote Dem.

There are people who are willing to forfeit a tax cut to better the entire country (infrastructure/public works, education incentives, etc) and not just things which benefit "my backyard."

And YES, we need to focus on alternative energy. It is foolish and short-sighted to shrug off dependence on foreign oil. On oil, period.

What should not be missed is-- for every starry-eyed citizen shown in the last 5 minutes of local news, there are plenty of people who are Pro-Bama who are also willing to give a little. For every member of the "ignorant mass[es]" there are people who realize the US is in trouble. Doing more of the same (i.e., tax cuts plus nothing) isn't going to be the cure.

I'd like to reinforce the stereotypes that all Dems are frothing at the mouth over our new media star... but the reality is that we are not ecstatic, but patient and hopeful (if a little smug at times Rolling Eyes )

And, oh crap YES, the man has made some decisions that I don't agree with lately.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International