Don't like Obama's policies? How would you have done it better?

I see so many, many, many people on here complaining about Obama. There are probably a dozen posts on this portion of ATS speaking about Obama in some form or another, typically in a negative manner.

So you don't like his policies? Here are some questions you actually have to ask yourself:

Which policies do you not like?
Why don't you like them?
Can you provide evidence of their negative impact?
How would you have done things differently?
How would this have been better to what Obama did?


Try to stick to one policy at a time and see if you can actually do things better.


Now, I'm not saying I agree with everything Obama has done, but the amount of categorical hate of his decisions on here is staggering. So I'd like to pick people's brain on these issues and try to understand them a bit better.

hi denver here i read your forum post its very intresting i like it and i should reffer it to our friends.Thanks for submit this type of forum.
Find A Lawyer

I would have:

1-nullified the federal reserve act by executive order, and nixed all our debt, and ended federal taxes in one fell swoop with a pen.

2- Ended all foreign occupations.

3-Ended social security

4-Threatened nuclear attack on any foreign bankers that whined about my policies.

5-Legalized all drugs, including RX, ect.

6-ended the powers of the CIA, and all Federal police agencies.

7-Donated all Federal property to the states in which they are located including military hardware nukes, ect.

8-Formed a council of 50 state governors who control the defensive force that was the U.S. military.

9-Nullified congress.

10-Nullified the Senate.

11- Nullified the Supreme Court.

12- Fired myself.

reply to post by denver09

hi denver here i read your forum post its very intresting i like it and i should reffer it to our friends.Thanks for submit this type of forum. Find A Lawyer

what the ****?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Which policies do you not like?

Lets start with the Stimulus

Why don't you like them?

It doesn't work. Its misdirected. Its like some college freshman got a one-day lecture on Keynesian economics and decided he could fix everything.

Can you provide evidence of their negative impact?

yea... first



second the banks are still not lending

How would you have done things differently?

would have spent the money buying the troubled assets that sparked this crisis like tarp was supposed to before it was hijacked by incompetence and special interest.

How would this have been better to what Obama did?

i give you this quote

It is easy to say the program wasn’t necessary, despite Paulson’s arguments, because the TARP money wasn’t used to buy toxic assets. TARP money was instead used to buy preferred stock in banks, shoring up their balance sheets by giving the federal government part ownership of the banks. Nine of the largest banks were forced to issue stock to the Treasury, paid for with TARP money, even though several of the banks tried to opt out. Secretary Paulson said that if some of the big banks participated and others didn’t, it would identify their varying levels of weakness, which Paulson believed was undesirable. Instead of buying up toxic assets, the TARP money was used to partially nationalize the banking industry. It was also used for a federal takeover of AIG (after it was initially rescued by the Fed) and the bailout of Chrysler and General Motors. When the auto companies initially approached Secretary Paulson for a share of the money, he said it was only to be used for the purchase of toxic assets from financial institutions. But when Congress wouldn’t bail out the auto industry, Paulson changed his tune. Was it necessary to appropriate $700 billion to buy toxic assets? In hindsight, we can see the answer is No, because the money wasn’t used that way.

SanFran Examiner


We had our solution. it was a simple and brilliant plan and we flushed it down the drain and followed it with another $787b. Obama used the crisis to start his admin off with a big spending bang, arguing that big spending bangs will solve any crisis. The lack of targeting that amount of money tells me that he either didn't understand the problem, or figured it'd work itself out in the next 4 years while he made some splashes in the mean time.

FAIL

I would not have distracted the American, population during one of the biggest white colar crimes in our History, of Mankind with a H1N1 scare.

I would have done not taken lobbyist money from the banks that ripped the American, tax payers off.

Thats about as far as I will go, because I don't want to get mad.

I believe no politician anymore..

In 2010, not one of them want to do what is best for the people...

They just lie, and do whatever they can to get POWER...





I would have done it better in so many ways, I would prob.have been assassinated by now..

The whole stimulus package was ill conceived. Big Banks got bail out money and then proceeded to buy up just slightly smaller Big Banks with OUR money. The average American who has either lost their house or seen their house go "underwater" has seen little if no help from the stimulus to speak of.

The various cash incentives.....First Time Home buyer, Cash for Clunkers ect failed to do anything other than apply a band aid on a gushing wound. They did not stimulate the economy to the degree necessary.

Various Road projects have had zero or very limited economic benefit. We had tons of road projects going on here already, most of the stimulus road work seems like fluff kinda repairs rather than badly needed work. That money could have been better spent, IMO.


Money from the stimulus bill could have been directed towards helping small business owners rather than multinational banks or failing companies. Someone please tell me the net job growth of the top 10 Tarp Banks, G.M. and Chrysler??? think that makes my point.

That's OK, in less than a month, hopefully things will be changing............

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
1. Which policies do you not like?
2. Why don't you like them?
3. Can you provide evidence of their negative impact?
4.How would you have done things differently?
5. How would this have been better to what Obama did?

1. I don't like the health care bill.
2. Obama's health care plan was written by a committee chairman whose says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes and financed by a country that is nearly broke.
3. Nancy Pelosi: We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.
4. We could have had tort reform and having companies band together to get cheaper insurance.
5. Congress could have read it. The President could have read it. We wouldn't be going into more debt and we would have lower health insurance rates.

reply to post by downtown436

Originally posted by downtown436
I would have:

1-nullified the federal reserve act by executive order, and nixed all our debt, and ended federal taxes in one fell swoop with a pen.

Collapsing our monetary system, angering Japan and China immensely, devaluing the dollar, and collapsing the federal government?

Why would you do it? How could this possibly work out in the long run?

2- Ended all foreign occupations.

How would you have possibly done this without the burden of massive bloodshed being upon your hands?

3-Ended social security

Why would you do it and how would it help in the long run?

4-Threatened nuclear attack on any foreign bankers that whined about my policies.

Now that's actually worse than anything any POTUS has done ever. What if the entire nation of Japan complained that it was being shorted on legally held debt? What if China put a trade embargo on the USA? What if our trading partners put an embargo on us not just because of the rash acts but because of the threat?

5-Legalized all drugs, including RX, ect.

There goes the FDA, we'll be back in an era where Coca-Cola can be sold as something good for people's teeth.

6-ended the powers of the CIA, and all Federal police agencies.

How would we enforce violations of interstate trade law without Federal police? How would the executive branch exercise any legal authority that it holds under the constitution to enforce breaches of law that are interstate?

And how would a nation without an intelligence agency survive in the information age?

7-Donated all Federal property to the states in which they are located including military hardware nukes, ect.

Now that's just a recipe for another civil war.

8-Formed a council of 50 state governors who control the defensive force that was the U.S. military.

...how is that even reasonable? 50 people can't control the armed forces jointly. I can hardly get 10 people to agree where to eat, how are we going to get 50 people to agree on military actions?

9-Nullified congress.

10-Nullified the Senate.

11- Nullified the Supreme Court.

All of which are unconstitutional.

12- Fired myself.

Honestly, you'd deserve it.

reply to post by snusfanatic

Originally posted by snusfanatic

Lets start with the Stimulus

Alright.

It doesn't work. Its misdirected. Its like some college freshman got a one-day lecture on Keynesian economics and decided he could fix everything.

I'm sorry, but how doesn't it work?

Can you provide evidence of their negative impact?

yea... first

second the banks are still not lending

How are those directly linked to the stimulus act? Care to provide evidence for it?

We had our solution. it was a simple and brilliant plan and we flushed it down the drain and followed it with another $787b. Obama used the crisis to start his admin off with a big spending bang, arguing that big spending bangs will solve any crisis. The lack of targeting that amount of money tells me that he either didn't understand the problem, or figured it'd work itself out in the next 4 years while he made some splashes in the mean time.

I actually agree on this. I liked what TARP was supposed to be as Obama described it, not the bill he actually signed. I think he should have vetoed TARP and had them go back to the drawing board on it.

The first thing he did wrong was to not throw Bush & Chaney in prison.
His continuation of all the Bush policies and his bowing to all the Bush overlords showed he is just a tool of Bush.
I don't know why everyone calls him a socialist when he protects the Financial institutions.
The Bush tax cuts were a joke and a continuation of raising taxes elsewhere. Sounds like Obama to me.

Just think about it. We know Bush & Chaney committed serious war crimes. They also committed serious crimes against the US constitution.

Obama, Pelosi & Reid have done nothing against the men.Mama Clinton was part of the gang who went against Nixon and from her, nothing against Bush & Chaney. Tell me these people are not protecting the men & their initiatives.

reply to post by Doctor G


I'm not nearly naieve or blind enought to think any one person can change the gears of this machine at all. That being said the ONE thing I would have focused on would have been the dissolution or at least a massive overhaul of the Lobbyist system.

The only voices ANY politician should listening to and influenced by are their constituants and not just the corporate ones.

The first thing I would have done, re-instate Glass Steagall. The second, repeal every "free trade" provision passes since Nixon & sort out a way to get production back to America. I would say, moratorium on repossessions next, but maybe no one could have known about what is now coming to the fore re illegal repos. Considering he had his behind so up in the air about healthcare, he should have executive ordered a price freeze across the board until it could have been considered properly. I would have delegated that the DoD begin to do what they do to draw down our non combat related bases as quickly as possible. Troops returning from those bases would go to Homeland Security for borders & ports. Obviously, bases & infrastructure would have to be created (initially using funds from the old extra-national bases).
Instead of cash for clunkers/ cash for caulkers, I would have gone for solar retrofits & hemp production (talking about this at dinner. If the US were to strike up hemp production for textiles, cooking oil, fuel, paper goods, & cattle feed, I'm not sure enough could be produced within the US. It could require imports. What would that do FOR the 3rd world as well as ourselves?)
He has access to the stuff Bush/Cheney did and the means to not only bring them to justice, but turn the actors over to the International Criminal Court. Do I even need to say direct the Congress to repeal the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, the FISA business, etc?

Even now, the president is doing everything BUT dealing with our employment crisis- which, in addition to Wall Street IS our economic crisis. Now, he's going off on education. What's with that, anyway? None of this stuff matters if no one has a place to live, food to eat or a job. It's all been completely unrealistic. He REALLY shouldn't have the OFAs on the blogs telling people, sell your house/ get a used car or bike/ etc just so people STILL can't afford his big PhRma/ insurance company payoff.

Somebody posted what sounded like a really stiff, but really rational plan to reduce the size of our government last night. I want to say in comments at the Wall Street Journal. Basically, it was consolidating & eliminating different agencies. I didn't see anyone disagree or criticize it & several complimented it.

reply to post by Doctor G

Originally posted by Doctor G
The first thing he did wrong was to not throw Bush & Chaney in prison.

The President has no power to simply throw former Presidents and Vice Presidents into prison.

His continuation of all the Bush policies and his bowing to all the Bush overlords showed he is just a tool of Bush.

He's trying to end the tax cuts, trying to get out of Iraq slowly, trying to engage in more diplomacy, disregarding the 'One Percent' doctrine of Cheney, and trying to implement universal healthcare.

He may be continuing some Bush policies, but not all of them.

I don't know why everyone calls him a socialist when he protects the Financial institutions.
The Bush tax cuts were a joke and a continuation of raising taxes elsewhere. Sounds like Obama to me.

How does it sound like Obama? Have you not been following the news? He's trying to repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy,

Just think about it. We know Bush & Chaney committed serious war crimes. They also committed serious crimes against the US constitution.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we have time to address the issue.

Obama, Pelosi & Reid have done nothing against the men.Mama Clinton was part of the gang who went against Nixon and from her, nothing against Bush & Chaney. Tell me these people are not protecting the men & their initiatives.

So you would rather we stage a divisive set of political trials of former leaders than actually address the issues that they caused in our nation?

I'm sorry, but a call for blood solves nothing.

reply to post by DogsDogsDogs

Originally posted by DogsDogsDogs
The first thing I would have done, re-instate Glass Steagall.

Ok, how would you have Congress do this?

The second, repeal every "free trade" provision passes since Nixon & sort out a way to get production back to America.

Again, how would have had Congress do this?

I would say, moratorium on repossessions next, but maybe no one could have known about what is now coming to the fore re illegal repos.

How would you have had Congress do that?

Considering he had his behind so up in the air about healthcare, he should have executive ordered a price freeze across the board until it could have been considered properly.

That would be a directly unconstitutional act.

I would have delegated that the DoD begin to do what they do to draw down our non combat related bases as quickly as possible. Troops returning from those bases would go to Homeland Security for borders & ports. Obviously, bases & infrastructure would have to be created (initially using funds from the old extra-national bases).

This wouldn't have worked out. Shutting down bases doesn't create money, it makes you lose money. To close down each base would have its own cost between moving equipment, transporting troops, clearing out any information that we don't want our enemies obtaining, and dismantling the building itself. Do this to all the bases and we're at a deficit.

And putting troops at the borders? Always a sure way to inflame tensions between nations.

Then there's the problem we'd have with Korea, as our troops are one of the few things stopping all out conflict there.

Instead of cash for clunkers/ cash for caulkers, I would have gone for solar retrofits & hemp production (talking about this at dinner. If the US were to strike up hemp production for textiles, cooking oil, fuel, paper goods, & cattle feed, I'm not sure enough could be produced within the US. It could require imports. What would that do FOR the 3rd world as well as ourselves?)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how hemp production would help anything. Any numbers you can share to show how it would help?

Though I support solar retrofits, the problem is that the technology hasn't advanced to the point where it's cheap enough to be implemented without massive subsidies to offset the initial cost.

He has access to the stuff Bush/Cheney did and the means to not only bring them to justice, but turn the actors over to the International Criminal Court.

Do I even need to say direct the Congress to repeal the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, the FISA business, etc?

FISA I don't have as much of a problem with as it actually has judicial oversight, I'd prefer to simply amend it. The other two I would agree with. But again, the problem is that those have to all be passed through Congress.

Even now, the president is doing everything BUT dealing with our employment crisis- which, in addition to Wall Street IS our economic crisis.

Ok, but how would you solve it?

Now, he's going off on education. What's with that, anyway? None of this stuff matters if no one has a place to live, food to eat or a job. It's all been completely unrealistic.

I'm sorry, but education is actually the best way to increase job growth. Our education system is going down the toilet. Unless you really want us to get those manufacturing jobs back from China at Chinese conditions, you're going to have to invest in it.

We need a workforce that has at least a minimum level of education and we need skilled workers and professionals that are up to international standards. If you want to get high tech jobs you need educated workers.

He REALLY shouldn't have the OFAs on the blogs telling people, sell your house/ get a used car or bike/ etc just so people STILL can't afford his big PhRma/ insurance company payoff.

I'm sorry, but those sort of make a difference. The only way we're going to have national fiscal responsibility is if we have individual fiscal responsibility.

Somebody posted what sounded like a really stiff, but really rational plan to reduce the size of our government last night. I want to say in comments at the Wall Street Journal. Basically, it was consolidating & eliminating different agencies. I didn't see anyone disagree or criticize it & several complimented it.

That doesn't mean it was good. I've seen people post all sorts of unrealistic ideas to get rid of different agencies, but none of them address how ridding ourselves of these agencies would alter the domestic landscape.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


The poor economy is NOT directly linked to the stimulus act because the stimulus act was just a bunch of money thrown to the wind instead of a serious effort to fix the problem. That's my whole point. i'm sure it's employed some people, i'm sure there's been more than just fraud and cronyism but on the whole has it done what Obama promised it'd do? No. The unemployment chart is proof that it has not done what he promised it would do, so is the article from 2 years later about banks not lending. It didn't fix the problems it was meant to fix.

The misspending of Tarp and Stimulus money are not the CAUSE of the unemployment rate, they're just what our politicians were off di**ing around with instead of fixing things Which, in my book, counts as misguided and failed policies.

Your question about directly linking unemployment to the stimulus is like saying: "Ok, so instead of coming to your house to put out the fire, you allege that the fire men were at O'Malley's pub enjoying beers.....do you have any direct evidence that those beers set your house on fire?"

I'm willing to give Obama credit where credit is due, but that's not what this thread is about. I don't see how it's any more logical or praiseworthy to be wholly unable to assign blame where blame is due.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You asked how Glass-Steagall would be re-instated & the "free trade" stuff repealed? By legislative process, expedited. Rather than simply go back to a law that had worked for what? 60 +/- years? the Congress put on their usual kabuki, screwed around & came up with some watered down bill that tried to make it LOOK like they did something, when they really didn't. What a joke! You act as though you are somehow "inside". Look at Paul Voelker's & Elizabeth Warren's writings with regard to "financial reform".
Concerning the repeal of bills, was such a damned mess created in passing these bills, that undoing them would be "too complicated" or whatever? Ever hear of 'you broke it, you bought it'? The Congress screwed it up. They can jolly well figured out a way to fix it. The REALITY is that these bills were never intended to be beneficial- they didn't even CONSIDER damage (well, others did- and warned people. Washington didn't) to the US economy. They were nothing more than steps toward globalization- which of course, MUST go on regadless of the harm it causes.

These are tiresome & childish questions. When you asked, one would assume that you had the capability to grasp the answers. Wny, mommy?....Why?....Why? Price freezes have happened in the past (I believe under Nixon, at least)

Re executive orders LOL! You're kidding! The precedent has been set more than a dozen times over. See also Patriot Act, Military Commissions, etc. No WONDER the democrats were so silent while their constituents were so outraged. They couldn't wait to get any & all of these guns in their hands. Obama is not one bit better than Bush. At *least* Bush didn't cram Washington's greedy hands so far into our pockets- OR into our private lives, that he crammed the "health industry" boondoggle down our throats!

I will give you an analogy. We are buying $5 a day worth of distilled water for cooking & drinking. We can continue WASTING that money (& dealing with the mountain of plastic refuse) or we can invest a greater lump sum to install a reverse osmosis system. It pays for itself.
Inflame tensions? LOL I should have seen THAT one coming, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Willfully not protecting this country's borders is dereliction of duty & failure to uphold his oath of office (a verbal contract?) in the real world.
You seem to think that if you repeat lies enough, people will believe them.

Korea? hmmm Do we *inflame* a nuclear (that's noo-klee-are) armed nation with a leader bat# crazy enough to use them or do we let South Korea go- as we should have in the first place (ditto Viet Nam)? What to do? You need to make up your mind. "Terrists" justify the destruction of US rights + protecting US borders against drug related violence AND potential terrorists Oh NOOOOO + what about KOREA?
Your agenda is showing.
Besides, with all the new little Commies pushing their socialist line & the "red diaper baby" in the WH, are Y'All now saying the plan is for the US to go communist but oh, we need to protect the "free world". I'm surprised you guys can keep your story straight (lol oh wait. Never mind)

Of course you don't. 1. Your corporate bennie-friends like Du Pont, the oil companies, & Monsanto would be lol pretty "inflamed". And 2. God Forbid, you might actually DO something to help the environment & bring back jobs/ America's economic viability. How would you push your globalist energy taxes/ schemes themes then? Or put people in dire enough straits that they might accept (dream on, bebe) communism?
One of the problems His Celebrity-ness & the democratic minions have is arrogance. How arrogant is it that you guys think that people are so STUPID that they don't comprehend what you're doing? (Clue: that was how Bush got Obama & the democrats elected. That's right. It wasn't "you". It was that people utterly rePudiated your "opponents". Get ready)

I'm actually not familiar enough with either program, but if I understand "clunkers" as described by people I know who participated, that amount would have covered solar panels for at least half of the peaked part of our roof. Arranging new cars, cheaper for people was a feel good. Never mind the waste that happened as a result. Heh. Real "green".

Yeah, but Y'All LOVE that Patriot Act/ the rest of it dontcha? Totally different when the gun is in YOUR hand. Why you've even got a gulag for "dissenters"- your very own tropical version of Siberia. How apt.

How would I solve the jobs/ economic problem? (but whyyyyy, Mom-my?) I already told you. Glass Steagall, re-regulate with the time tested, repeal free trade, not 1 new industry that would literally explode farming & manufacturing, but easily half a dozen & probably more.

Here's something funny (well, not in a ha-ha kind of way) Just read an article on how appliance/ repair jobs were going away. These communist countries that you guys revere so much- they have VERY limited choices and dare say what Western "luxuries" (like outrageously priced blue jeans) they had, few could afford (we can surmise what "few" could actually afford those). It is environmentally wasteful, detrimental to the economy on many levels & supporting a country that we are *supposedly* trying to restrain, militarily, to keep throwing away necessary objects rather than repairing them. Gee thanks, Free Trade Globalism. I can be a wasteful consumer, an environmental cretin AND support regimes (woops! I mean AMERICAN corporations in countries RUN by regimes) who oppress their citizens and regularly violate human rights and the planet ALL in one swoop.
You guys are just brilliant, I tell you!

Our education system is going down the toilet because we've got union teachers who are functionally illiterate (I'm not kidding- elementary school teachers who can't spell cat or string a sentence together- or even carry on a simple conversation about politics or world events without that deer-in-the-headlights look because they have no clue where some countries even are). We're spending a fortune feeding kids when they ought to be eating at home but they can't because their DAD (or their mother) can't get a job in this country that will support a family. We've got "leveling" programs that disrupt class time & hold other students back. And a "testing" system to try & cover the whole failure up. Everyone is graded on a "curve" so that nobody (their parents) gets their widdle feewings hoit. And these bums get graduated from college. I know this is true in education, medicine, economics & politics. Again- is it any wonder we're messed up.

OFAs- LOL Why yes, yes they do. How's that workin out for ya? LOL Not so much. I have never seen the level of anger, disgust & utter revulsion- and despair, that we have now. Here's another clue: you guys are *creating* racism & class warfare- where it never existed before. Just as many people "blame" God for the fundamentalist wacko & become agnostic/ atheist (I almost lost my own faith over it), you are creating a really bad situation in the same way. YOU are pushing people to the brink of civil war and innocent people caught in the crossfire will NOT be seeing you in a favorable light when the shooting stops. You are generating a backlash- just as Bush/Cheney did. People are fed up with being jerked around.

I'm just a halfway intelligent person, but it looked good. Our government is gigantic, redundant & wasteful. The greedy, nepotistic political class is bleeding us dry. We don't need you. You screw up everything you touch & make our lives miserable.
Just because the communists managed to prevail in the other 2 major revolutions doesn't mean it will happen again. I'm optimistic that we have evolved way beyond that.

Originally posted by DogsDogsDogs
You asked how Glass-Steagall would be re-instated & the "free trade" stuff repealed? By legislative process, expedited. Rather than simply go back to a law that had worked for what? 60 +/- years? the Congress put on their usual kabuki, screwed around & came up with some watered down bill that tried to make it LOOK like they did something, when they really didn't. What a joke! You act as though you are somehow "inside". Look at Paul Voelker's & Elizabeth Warren's writings with regard to "financial reform".

You're misunderstanding what I meant. You seem to be living in a fantasy world where all 538 members of Congress are being directly controlled by the Presidency. Can you please show me how you would influence the decision from the position of POTUS?

Concerning the repeal of bills, was such a damned mess created in passing these bills, that undoing them would be "too complicated" or whatever? Ever hear of 'you broke it, you bought it'? The Congress screwed it up. They can jolly well figured out a way to fix it.

Again, as POTUS how would you have gotten Congress to do it in two years?

The REALITY is that these bills were never intended to be beneficial- they didn't even CONSIDER damage (well, others did- and warned people. Washington didn't) to the US economy. They were nothing more than steps toward globalization- which of course, MUST go on regadless of the harm it causes.

This is a bit more conspiracy theory than I was looking for here. This sort of talk is better suited for different parts of the forum.

These are tiresome & childish questions. When you asked, one would assume that you had the capability to grasp the answers. Wny, mommy?....Why?....Why?

And you're saying I'm childish? I'm quite sure I have more than the capability to grasp the answers but I'll refrain from the sort of insult you've deserved.

Price freezes have happened in the past (I believe under Nixon, at least)

Can you show me the situation?

Re executive orders LOL! You're kidding! The precedent has been set more than a dozen times over.

I'm sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right. Price controls through acts of Congress in times of crisis are all right by the law, but I don't support furthering the abuse of Executive power under bush.

See also Patriot Act, Military Commissions, etc. No WONDER the democrats were so silent while their constituents were so outraged.

Well, the PATRIOT Act was something that got rushed through in a time of panic and would have passed without a single democratic vote. Military commissions would have also passed without a single democratic vote.

Again, how would you, as POTUS deliver on the promises of repealing those acts?

They couldn't wait to get any & all of these guns in their hands. Obama is not one bit better than Bush. At *least* Bush didn't cram Washington's greedy hands so far into our pockets- OR into our private lives, that he crammed the "health industry" boondoggle down our throats!

Now you're just going off topic. Instead of showing how you'd actually do something you're just here to spew your baseless ideology out when there are dozens of other threads for you to do that.

Inflame tensions? LOL I should have seen THAT one coming, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Willfully not protecting this country's borders is dereliction of duty & failure to uphold his oath of office (a verbal contract?) in the real world.
You seem to think that if you repeat lies enough, people will believe them.

I'm sorry, but historically the amassing of troops on borders of nations has lead to conflicts. Typically the shared borders of nations are supposed to be considered good will gestures and only immigration is supposed to be enforced. Taking the entirety of our military and stationing them at the borders would do a lot to inflame relations with Mexico and Canada would see it as a pointless and childish gesture.

The Oath of Office doesn't give the POTUS a duty to militarize our borders unnecessarily.

Korea? hmmm Do we *inflame* a nuclear (that's noo-klee-are) armed nation with a leader bat# crazy enough to use them or do we let South Korea go- as we should have in the first place (ditto Viet Nam)? What to do? You need to make up your mind. "Terrists" justify the destruction of US rights + protecting US borders against drug related violence AND potential terrorists Oh NOOOOO + what about KOREA?
Your agenda is showing.

Wow, now you're just turning me into a Bush themed straw man. Your ignorant argumentative methods are ridiculous and I'll only ask you one more time to refrain from such childishness. If you continue these pointless personal attacks and logical fallacies I'll simply ignore you.

We pull out of Korea, a storm could ensue. We have attempted repeated multilateral talks with the North and tensions are on a rollercoaster there. Our withdrawal of troops could set off the powderkeg.

And I'm not saying that there's any justification for the destruction of rights. I'm asking you how the hell would you get all of these things through Congress? The POTUS isn't given a magic pixie wand upon assuming office that grants the ability to instantly pass legislation. It's a difficult process.



I just decided to ignore the rest the second I saw "red diaper baby". You're off topic.

The topic is: How would you have done it better?

To do. To accomplish. To actually get things through Congress. Be thankful I'm not even asking to factor in the court of public opinion.

reply to post by downtown436


Holy crap! I'll vote for you anytime, then after your political "blitzkrieg" on most if not all federal run mafias I'll then help to impeach you!