Results 1 to 10 of 10

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default A Politcal Question (I Apologize)

    People are always saying blame Congress instead of blaming the President, I heard it during Bush and now during Obama.

    Now my question is why does everyone say the prosperity in the 90s was due to Clinton? Should it not be the Congress and Newt Gingrich we should be giving credit to?
    Quote Originally Posted by Merrin
    The hyped abomination has been slain by the hand of the righteous—let it rot in the pit of death and decay that it has prepared for itself.
    Official Human Advocate

    I'm 1.000 in World Wars...

  2. #2
    Normal User US1 Player
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    167

    Default

    I personally (and most people I know IRL) blame Bush, Obama, and Congress for this shit hole we are in.
    FLAMING DRAGON
    The Rock
    Lord Onyx
    Mad Knight

  3. #3

    Default

    It's not really a political issue actually, as it happens in many areas. People tends to give credits to a single man even though so many more were involved, but usually they'll also target that same man should things go wrong unless the feedback is coming from a supporter, in which case it's never the person's fault (which is not entirely wrong, because there is more than 1 man in a team).

    Just take a look at people on this forum criticizing Tasos or Aventurine, Valve/Gabe Newell (HL3). Not the best examples however. Scott Jennings posted a very nice example of this on his blog, but that was somewhere 2010-2009 so it's a bit hard to find.

    Another exemple would be Wikileaks/Julian Assange. There are so many people behind Wikileaks yet it's as if Julian Assange was the sole member when you read some articles or hear people talk about him.
    Irenor Rainstone
    "Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Einstein
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

  4. #4

    Default

    Many people don't realize that Clinton period really ended in 2003, Bush period in 2011 and Obama period still starting to show.

    Running a country is like driving a long and heavy locomotive with bad brakes. For some time it will still be going in the direction you were driving it due to inertia even if you suddenly jump off the train and someone replaces you and wants to change the direction. When Bush came to power, the results of Clinton's administration were still manifesting themselves for a few years afterward. Similarly, the results of Bush and his administration have been manifesting themselves until very recently. Now the "train" will be going Obama's way and we will see the results after 2-4 years even if there will be a new president and administration in place.

  5. #5

    Default

    As politics has always been described to me, the president doesn't actually have the power to do much of anything, and it's congress that actually gets the shit done. I get that the majority will always blame or praise the president, but in actuality shouldn't we blame congress during the past two administrations, and praise the congress of the 90s? As they are the ones who put the policies in place for the economic boom of the 90s, not Clinton. Or should we be praising the congress during the first Bush since it's effects weren't felt until after their term?
    Quote Originally Posted by Merrin
    The hyped abomination has been slain by the hand of the righteous—let it rot in the pit of death and decay that it has prepared for itself.
    Official Human Advocate

    I'm 1.000 in World Wars...

  6. #6
    9000+ PirateGlen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    9,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honorius View Post
    As politics has always been described to me, the president doesn't actually have the power to do much of anything, and it's congress that actually gets the shit done. I get that the majority will always blame or praise the president, but in actuality shouldn't we blame congress during the past two administrations, and praise the congress of the 90s? As they are the ones who put the policies in place for the economic boom of the 90s, not Clinton. Or should we be praising the congress during the first Bush since it's effects weren't felt until after their term?
    There's a million ways you interpret all political acts. Your interpretation that diminishes Presidential influence is based on a purely structural analysis. There are many other ways that the Constitution doesn't structurally impose for the President to influence national politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reigngod View Post
    Deductive reasoning has noing to do with logic. In fact deductive reasoning is illogical. Go define logic and come back to the discussion an educated man.

  7. #7
    3000+
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Agon
    Posts
    3,341

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honorius View Post
    People are always saying blame Congress instead of blaming the President, I heard it during Bush and now during Obama.

    Now my question is why does everyone say the prosperity in the 90s was due to Clinton? Should it not be the Congress and Newt Gingrich we should be giving credit to?
    I blame us, as citizens, for harboring such greedy bastards and spawning something known as American Greed.

    People really don't see the alarming thing about all of this mess. It's a social problem, not so much a problem with the suits.
    We should celebrate March 2013 as the month Off-Topic went Full Retard.

  8. #8
    8000+
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    8,076

    Default

    I blame my balls

  9. #9
    5000+ GirlyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    5,050

    Default

    some President said "The bucks stops here" so seeing as how the President signs shit and can execute executive orders and assassinate US citizens I'd say that's pretty much true.

    Don't Presidents also force things through congress somehow? Like Obama will slap a 100,000 page bill into congress and give people 24 hours to read before they vote for it and if they don't sign it he threatens to declare martial law and shit?

  10. #10
    2000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honorius View Post
    People are always saying blame Congress instead of blaming the President, I heard it during Bush and now during Obama.

    Now my question is why does everyone say the prosperity in the 90s was due to Clinton? Should it not be the Congress and Newt Gingrich we should be giving credit to?
    For the last 100 years, we have been riding the boom/bust cycle. Every boom is fueled by market manipulation, artificial demand, and an expansion of the monetary supply. Busts always follow because eventually, the government's manipulations can no longer entice the ever increasing amount of artificial demand required to keep the bubble expanding.

    The bubble pops, many are ruined, and the elite few who traded their bubble-gained, counterfeit currency for real wealth early on make bank.

    Meanwhile the populace at large becomes ever more impoverished, and relegated to ever more menial work.

    To be honest, the chief factor behind the coloring of our impressions of Presidents is not their party, not their politics, not their polices--rather it is merely whether or not they happen to preside over a bubble or a burst. The other factors are important, of course, but pale in comparison. For instance, there would be little complaint about Obama, despite his tyrannical actions, and despite his anti-liberty stances, if he had been president during a boom cycle.

    What most people fail to realize, is that, as a whole, the entirety of the last 100 years has been one continuous, expanding bubble--the monetary bubble. The money supply expands and inflates perpetually, and at an ever increasing rate. For the last century we have been building a mountain of counterfeit currency, piling it higher and higher in an attempt to outrun the swiftly gaining realization: the mountain is made of nothing, it is an illusion. It is like a cartoon character running off a cliff, in the air--once he realizes there's nothing there, he falls.

    The minor booms and busts we have experienced were merely incidental hiccups on the surface of the mountain. They were but isolated patches of that realization of nothingness. And the holes they created in the mountain were quickly forgotten by piling on ever more false, fiat 'money'. The oligarchy hands out more inflation, and the people obliviously exchange their real wealth for it.

    This is how we have progressed for the last century. But now, that ultimate bubble is beginning to burst. The mountain itself has started to evaporate. The concentration of wealth at the top of the mountain has grown too burdensome for the inflationary imaginations of the people to support, and the burst of the housing bubble blew out too much of the mountain's base. It's all coming down.

    But the oligarchs have played their hand well. 10% has more real wealth and capital than almost everyone else combined. When the mountain collapses, they will be landing on us--and it is we who will have to bear the full weight of supporting them.
    Last edited by Shaehl; 10-10-2011 at 17:28.
    ~Greatness Incarnate~

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •