Obama ruining the country?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1249476452][quote author="Look4house" date=1249475756][quote author="tmare" date=1249471318]



Ok, let's start over. You seem to have a particular problem with education, what EXACTLY is your problem and how would you propose to fix it? I would also have to add that other people have problems with several of the issues that Obama is specifically trying to fix, but if you could clearly explain your problem and prescription for education, I might have a little better idea of where you are coming from.</blockquote>


If I have the crystal ball, I would be in Washington working with Mr. Obama. But let me say that our education system is broken for years. And funding is always the issue. Teachers are the one of the most underrated profession. It is hard to recruit the best when we pay teachers an avergae of $50,000. Teachers don't need to be the smartest academically, but they need to be the best in bringing out the potentials of each student, promote teamwork, encourage critical thinking, and prepare students as leaders. We need to ensure candidates find the job to be satisfying and rewarding. An incentive-based pay scale has been proposed and teachers will be rewarded based on productivity. We want to encourage teachers and students work together and communicate effectively.



Cost of higher education is spiraling out of control. And it is an extemely difficult issue to correct. I am not a big fan that college sports generate big time revenue and help coaches make millions and there should be laws/tax laws (capitations) to channel some of these money into the classroom for students and professors.</blockquote>


</blockquote>


no vas, I think you will be more productive in auditioning the late show, you have got the talent.
 
[quote author="Look4house" date=1249477287] Please explain how we are better so far (<strong>albeit only 7 months</strong>) with all that he has done. .</blockquote>
<fieldset class="gc-fieldset">
<legend> Attached files </legend> <a href="http://www.talkirvine.com/converted_files/images/forum_attachments/376_Ky5lHWpiJAln2i9n9A3R.gif"><img src="http://www.talkirvine.com/converted_files/images/forum_attachments/376_Ky5lHWpiJAln2i9n9A3R.gif" class="gc-images" title="bangHeadAgainstWall.gif" style="max-width:300px" /></a> </fieldset>
 
[quote author="Sunshine" date=1249477829][quote author="Look4house" date=1249477287] Please explain how we are better so far (<strong>albeit only 7 months</strong>) with all that he has done. .</blockquote></blockquote>


Haha! That sums it up.
 
[quote author="Look4house" date=1249477287][quote author="reason" date=1249473152]If this is an open discussion. Why the hell is it only a 'good discussion' when Look4house finds someone agreeing with him. If look4house wants this thread to be anti-Obama then re-name the thread title "Only anti-Obama comments here".



And if you talk crap about President Obama and his so call taxes. Why is it not relevant when GWB spent (wasted) billions upon billions on the Iraq War? If our tax dollars are going to be wasted. I rather it be wasted on the citizens of the USA.</blockquote>


I have never say it is good discussion when someone agrees. I just cannot find any good counter discussions with details that Obama is helping our country other than reading Bush is evil. Even if you approve the President to waste money on the country, are you okay that many millions of our tax money is going to bonuses for bank executives. It is a failure to not closely monitor where these money goes. <strong>But why are you okay that the President is wasting money on anything? That is called mismanagement</strong>.



[quote author="reason" date=1249473483]Just look at the title of this thread: "Obama ruining the country?" The answer is "NO". GWB ruined the country in the last 8 years. He left a mess for Obama to fix. Obama is only in Office for less than a year. And you expect him to fix 8 years of freaking mess?



Change the title of the thread.</blockquote>


I can't believe how many of you keep distorting the theme of the discussion. Just by saying Obama has not, did not, will not ruin the country doesn't mean a thing. We can't changed what has happened in the past. Obama promised changed for the better. Please explain how we are better so far (albeit only 7 months) with all that he has done. You can argue and give him credit that the economy does seem to stabilize a bit. The concern is we are spending so much money, a lot are probably unnecessary to so call stimulate the economy will be felt by every citizen down the road with inflation, higher taxes, and cutting public services, healthcare. Tell me it is not going to happen and why please.</blockquote>


This is going around and around. You keep saying, "Lets concentrate on Obama". While at the same time say, "Forget what GWB did." If you can forget what GWB did as far as wasting tax dollars on wars. Then lets forget about Obama wasting tax dollars, also. And why are you talking about mismanagement re: 7 mos. of Obama. And not refer that same thinking toward GWB of his 8 yrs in office? You just want to have it your way or the highway. <strong>What kind of discussion is this?</strong>

As far as your concern about millions of tax $ going to bank execs. You can stop your worrying. The banks have returned the TARP money. And some didn't even use it. You think millions are alot? Try billions that these bank execs. produced. Sorry, but I am going to have to use the "ignore" button.
 
[quote author="The_Maestro" date=1249480141][quote author=reason <strong>What kind of discussion is this?</strong>

</blockquote>Please stick to the discussion</blockquote>


Haha! That's just it. The only discussion is if you bash Obama. Otherwise, there is no discussion.
 
[quote author="tmare" date=1249476989]I am a teacher. I will be starting my 21st year this month. I completely agree that our system is broken. I agree with you on every point you have made but there are huge problems with trying to base teacher's pay on "productivity". The measures of productivity are extremely complex and we don't want a system that benefits those who teach in schools where the kids are already well equipped and easy to teach. This only discourages teachers from teaching the most difficult students. I definitely don't have all of the answers and I can become very frustrated with those who try to make the issue simple, it is not.

The sports for education system is also broken, but we live in a society where the best paid people are entertainers, and sports figures are essentially just entertainers. How to fix that one is another problem that I don't have any answers. I think that the issue of higher education and costs is actually not too far away from the issue of health care, the only difference is that everyone needs health care and it is only those of us lucky enough to have an early education that was good enough (or a family that could afford it) that are able to think about these things.</blockquote>


Here is the solution to the school system... multiply the teachers like tmare. She gets it. I wish I had more teachers like tmare in my school system, but instead I was stuck with coaches being teachers, the newbies more focused on test scores and not the actual students, and the senior higher paid teachers who were "this close" to retirement to give a f*ck about anyone other than those that did well in class. This seriously hinders those that test very highly, but don't get the attention from the coaches because they don't play sports or don't excel in sports, the newbies won't take the time to nurture a high test scoring student because they rebel and that is too much like work, and the old dolts don't even care to remember names let alone if a student is beyond the subject being taught. Don't get me started with my 11th grade English teacher, he can go f*ck himself. Like I have said, test scores are crap when it comes to evaluating a school.



1. Coaches should't be teachers. EVER! Especially if their kid is a student there. I have a great story about this and a fax machine purchase almost a decade later.



2. Newbies should be focused on improvement of students, not keeping the test scores high for those that are high. Gawd forbid you actually work and do your job in mentoring those who need it most.



3. Old dolts should be weeded out, unless they focus on improvement of students, and not keeping test scores high for those that are high, and when they will retire. We as taxpayers are not paying for this kind of crap, and you should actually do that thing... called... care about all your students, not your pension.



Yeah... I am a little bitter. I should have had more teachers that cared, and cared about many others like me. I/we were not dumb, as the test scores proved, but it was too much work for you to mentor us rebels. Many of us are doing quite well now (some have made more money in four years than you made in the four years we were there), but maybe we would have been doing it so much sooner if we had teachers that cared (and not have blown that money paycheck to paycheck). Maybe this is why tmare supports me, she sees the underlying intelligence of a rebel who gets it, but when properly mentored could be refined. Not me on blowing the paycheck, I saved, but I know many that didn't.

[/rant]



Ugh... if I ever become a parent... those teachers not like tmare are going to hate me.
 
[quote author="Look4house" date=1249462484][quote author="momopi" date=1249423931]That was a response to your original claim that "graduates are easily >$100,000 in debt when they are out of college". This is simply untrue for vast majority of college grads. Only for certain professions, such as medical school, you'd find average debt of just under $140k.



Perhaps you should have specified "medical school graduates are easily >$100k in debt when they are out of college" ? Then the question would be "How to make medical school more affordable"?</blockquote>


Why don't you show me how much it cost to go to UCLA for 4 years for a state and an out of state resident? If the student didn't get any grants or scholarships, how much debt would one need to bear? Okay, I know you are too busy to look it up. Average of $25,000/yr(resident), $39,000/yr(non-resident). And we are not talking about private universities. Professional degrees? Let's forget about medical school. How about law school, tuition alone $35,000/yr (resident). MBA? Tuition $31,000/yr.



If you don't think the cost of education is out of hand, maybe you are either super rich or don't have to worry about sending your kids to college.</blockquote>
Wow, I paid like $4k/yr back in 94-97.
 
[quote author="Look4house" date=1249462484]

Why don't you show me how much it cost to go to UCLA for 4 years for a state and an out of state resident? If the student didn't get any grants or scholarships, how much debt would one need to bear? Okay, I know you are too busy to look it up. Average of $25,000/yr(resident), $39,000/yr(non-resident). And we are not talking about private universities. Professional degrees? Let's forget about medical school. How about law school, tuition alone $35,000/yr (resident). MBA? Tuition $31,000/yr.



If you don't think the cost of education is out of hand, maybe you are either super rich or don't have to worry about sending your kids to college.</blockquote>
</blockquote>


This is not about the cost of attending UCLA. This is about your original statement, which reads:



[quote author="Look4house" date=1249360798]

3) How come graduates are easily >$100,000 in debt when they are out of college, and I am not talking about private colleges. What about people that graduated from a professional/graduate schools?</blockquote>


Just as you can cite high figures from UCLA, I can cite low figures from Cal State Fullerton and University of Phoenix, both of which offers graduate degrees. But that would be intellectually dishonest.



I'm from a relatively poor family, my parents worked in restaurants and supermarkets. I started working at 16 pushing shopping carts, and couldn't afford to attend 4-year college out of HS. So I went to Fullerton JC, then transferred to CSUF. I worked and went to school part-time, took me 10 years to finish with a MBA. I borrowed about $20k in student loans, which I'm still paying monthly. I didn't borrow any money from my parents or relatives, but did live at home until I graduated.



I had many friends from better-off families who were able to attend 4-year colleges out of HS. But I don't point at them and say "they must be super rich blah blah", that would be ghetto-minded. Yes, I do think college tuitions are high and UC is charging too much. But at the same time, I don't have a sense of entitlement that says parents, society, or government owes me a cheap college education and my own apartment. My parents provided for my room and board until I was 28. I think that's pretty generous of them.



======================================================



As for expensive out-of-state tuitions, those who wish to attend college out of state can look into the Western Undergraduate Exchange program to save a few bucks:



<a href="http://wue.wiche.edu/">http://wue.wiche.edu/</a>



For example:

<a href="http://www.ss.unr.edu/records/residency/">http://www.ss.unr.edu/records/residency/</a>

<a href="http://www.ss.unr.edu/ops/apply/costestimator.asp">http://www.ss.unr.edu/ops/apply/costestimator.asp</a>



<em>

Western Undergraduate Exchange (WUE)*



The Western Undergraduate Exchange is an undergraduate tuition program which allows students to study at the University of Nevada at a special reduced rate. <strong>WUE students are not subject to out-of-state tuition charges</strong>. To be eligible, apply by February 1st for Fall semester or November 1st for Spring semester. New Freshman must earn a 3.0 academic GPA in the academic core courses. Transfer Students must earn a 3.0 transfer GPA in at least 24 transferable semester credits. WUE status is available for residents from one of the following states:



Alaska | Arizona | California | Colorado | Hawaii | Idaho | Montana | New Mexico | North Dakota | Oregon | South Dakota | Utah | Washington | Wyoming</em>
 
Bush presided over the worst terrorist attack in this nations history.

An attack launched by Al Qaida that could have been stopped by the Clinton Admin.

Al Qaida had already committed an act of war against the US by bombing the USS Cole on 10/12/00.

Clinton had Osama Bin Laden in his cross hairs and didn't pull the trigger.



<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/">Osama bin Laden: missed opportunities</a>



?The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.?



So when you say Bush inherited from Clinton a world at peace that is a blazing misrepresenation of the truth.



The first Bush forced Sadam Hussein out of Kuwait in the first gulf war. Saddam signed a cease fire as the US armed forces were marching toward Bagdad. Part of the Cease fire agreement was to allow Weapons inspections. During the Clinton Admin it was almost nightly news that Saddam was at it again making the inspectors wait while trucks drove away.



Saddam was like a little kid that had their hands behind their back. What you got in your hand Saddam? Nothing. Show me then! No I don't have anything. Anyone with kids will tell you that you better look to see what is in his hands. Clinton sat around saying ok I will close my eyes and when I open them show me your hands.



Saddam played the wrong game had he opened up ALL of his weapons facilities to inspection there is NO WAY Bush would have had any reason to bomb Iraq. Even if there were no WMD's the cease fire required Saddam to submit to weapons inspections and he refused.



This goverment also has checks and balances in place and if the Democrats so chose they could have blocked the Iraq War Resolution in the Senate. 29 Dems voted Yay and 21 voted nay. If they all voted Nay and you add in the independant vote of nay and the one republican vote of nay you have the bill being defeated 62 nays to 48 yays.



No unjust war. So any dem that voted Yay in the Congress and Senate should all be considered an idiot for voting yay. Send them all home folks.



Who was the president when the Glass Stegal act was repealed? Most people now agree that is where this whole banking mess started. If you don't know it was Clinton.



So if we want to play it was all Bush's fault lets see.



9/11 could have been averted had Clinton declared war on Al Queda and taken a more aggressive action agains Al Qaida and killed Bin Laden.

Iraq war could have been averted if Clinton had some cajones and insisted Sadam submit to weapons inspections with the threat of force.

The Banking collapse may have been averted if Clinton didn't sign the Glass Steagall act.



Now Clinton is a hero because he got Lisa Ling's sister out of N. Korea.

Oh and lets not forget that Clinton signed the Telecom Deregulations Act and presided over the .com boom that stimulated the economy.

Once the Bust occured and the Telecom's were going bankrupt Clinton was long gone.

Heck lets throw Enron in here to boot.



<strong>So what did Bush inherit again?</strong>



Did I miss anything?
 
I sure dont see George Bush or Dick Cheney coming out of their Bunkers anytime soon. To go anywhere soon. To help anybody soon. Do you ?



Personally I am rally proud of Billy. And is it just me or did I fell safer and make more money during the Clinton Years ? I dont recall all these dead soldiers and wars either.



Oh well. 9/11 justifies everything for conservatives. Kind of like the Burning of the Reichstag did for another political party and its World Agression.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1249513338]Kind of like the Burning of the Reichstag did for another political party and its World Agression.</blockquote>


<img src="http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/large/HolyGrail061.jpg" alt="" />
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1249513338]I sure dont see George Bush or Dick Cheney coming out of their Bunkers anytime soon. To go anywhere soon. To help anybody soon. Do you ?



Personally I am rally proud of Billy. And is it just me or did I fell safer and make more money during the Clinton Years ? I dont recall all these dead soldiers and wars either.



Oh well. 9/11 justifies everything for conservatives. Kind of like the Burning of the Reichstag did for another political party and its World Agression.</blockquote>


<strong>That is very insulting comparing somebody to a Nazi.</strong> That truly crosses a line.



There are Soldiers dying in Afghanastan. North Korea is not suspending their nuclear program. Iran is continuing there quest for nuclear capabilities.



Wait look at BUSH and CHENEY they are war mongers. Don't look at what happened before or after just focus on those TWO.



How safe you feel now?



I am sure you did make more money in the Clinton era. Everyone was with false profits. How many people lost their shirt from the Enron collapse? The MCI collpase. All the fraud these companies comitted to boost profits.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1249513338]I sure dont see George Bush or Dick Cheney coming out of their Bunkers anytime soon. To go anywhere soon. To help anybody soon. Do you ?



Personally I am rally proud of Billy. And is it just me or did I fell safer and make more money during the Clinton Years ? I dont recall all these dead soldiers and wars either.



Oh well. 9/11 justifies everything for conservatives. Kind of like the Burning of the Reichstag did for another political party and its World Agression.</blockquote>


Do you deny the USS Cole was bombed?

Do you deny that Clinton could have Taken Bin Laden out?

Do you deny that Clinton and his admin also said Saddam had WMD and said they are dangerous?

Do you deny Saddam was not allowing weapons inspections?

Do you deny that the cease fire required allowing weapons inspections.

Do you deny that Clinton repealed Glass Steagal?

Do you deny that Clinton signed the Telecom deregulation act?

Do you deny the Dems could not voted for the Iraq invasion?



Wich part is innacurate.



Left wing wackos seem to believe that Clinton and Obama do no wrong and anything bad that happened must be Bush's & Cheneys fault.



<strong>Now I didn't use 911 as a justification for anything.</strong> I said that it could have been Avoided if Clinton had taken Bin Laden out after the USS Cole attack.
 
[quote author="Look4house" date=1249360798]



{snip}



3) How come graduates are easily >$100,000 in debt when they are out of college, and I am not talking about private colleges. What about people that graduated from a professional/graduate schools?



. . .



Anyone kind to provide words of wisdom on the above?</blockquote>


Oooh! Oooh! I know the answer to this one, at least as it relates to California. And it's not wisdom, just history. In one of the economic downturns and concomitant budget crunches, then-Governor Pete Wilson required the UC's to raise graduate school fees to the equivalent price of private school (and some other state schools') graduate tuition. He did this by cutting the amount of state monies directed from the CA budget to the UCs and via his ability to appoint people as Regents, who would vote for the plan.



There is also the theory that looser lending to students via student loans has allowed higher ed institutions to raise tuition and fees. In other words, tuition and fees would not rise if the many self- and assisted funding students had no way to pay them. It's an interesting theory. I haven't seen any studies on it, whether correlation or causation. If anyone knows of any, I would be interested in looking at them (for no reason other than I am huge policy geek).



And I <em>really</em> have neither the time nor inclination to get sucked into this thread so this will very likely be my only response. If someone is willing to be persuaded about anything else discussed here (assuming I have something useful to add), I'll put in the time and effort. If the thread is nothing more than "You're wrong" and "No, you're wrong," participation in it is simply wanking, and far less satisfying to boot.
 
So that's how easy it is, huh? Clinton had Osama bin Laden in the crosshairs so he should have just pulled the trigger. Oh, how simple life must be. Assuming he'd pulled the trigger on his own. You don't think there'll be an uproar from the other side of Congress? As for asking Congress to go to war on an illusive non-conventional organization, you really think the enemy will stick around or run into hiding? Like I said, such a simple task.



By the way, you are very naive to blame 9/11 on Clinton. To blame that attack of 9/11 on one man's shoulders is funny, indeed. The last time I remember the reason behind it was due to our intelligent agencies not communicating with each others. Remember connecting the dots? Guess not. 2001 was so long ago, I suppose.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1249515314]<strong>Now I didn't use 911 as a justification for anything.</strong> I said that it could have been Avoided if Clinton had taken Bin Laden out after the USS Cole attack.</blockquote>


<em>*Crap. In for a penny, in for a pound, I guess.*</em>



I am less sure about the cause and effect relationship of the removal of bin Laden on the ability of the Taliban / Al Qaeda to survive. The Taliban existed before bin Laden's ascendence in the organization, and its independent cell-like structure allow it to survive even as individual people and cells are picked off. Certainly bin Laden's money helped the Taliban / Al Qaeda (as did the US's), but it appears that they also get funding from other ventures (e.g., the sale of drugs and gems).



Also please recall that the causes of the September 11th terrorist attacks were studied by a bi-partisan Congressional commission that produced a voluminous report. I doubt that would have been necessary if the facile explanation of "It was all Bill Clinton's fault" was accurate.
 
[quote author="EvaLSeraphim" date=1249516718][quote author="trrenter" date=1249515314]<strong>Now I didn't use 911 as a justification for anything.</strong> I said that it could have been Avoided if Clinton had taken Bin Laden out after the USS Cole attack.</blockquote>


<em>*Crap. In for a penny, in for a pound, I guess.*</em>



I am less sure about the cause and effect relationship of the removal of bin Laden on the ability of the Taliban / Al Qaeda to survive. The Taliban existed before bin Laden's ascendence in the organization, and its independent cell-like structure allow it to survive even as individual people and cells are picked off. Certainly bin Laden's money helped the Taliban / Al Qaeda (as did the US's), but it appears that they also get funding from other ventures (e.g., the sale of drugs and gems).



Also please recall that the causes of the September 11th terrorist attacks were studied by a bi-partisan Congressional commission that produced a voluminous report. I doubt that would have been necessary if the facile explanation of "It was all Bill Clinton's fault" was accurate.</blockquote>


Eva, be careful, you're being sucked into this thread. It's like some sort of sick, self-destructive disease.
 
<img src="http://www.bltserv.com/images/handshake300.jpg" alt="" />





Lets not forget who gave Saddam those weapons of mass destruction.

He sure didnt make them in his Easy Bake Oven. Thank you Ronald Reagan

and Big Don the Rummy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top