jump to last post 1-50 of 50 discussions (99 posts)

What do you think the outcome of this presidency will be?

  1. profile image0
    mdawson17posted 8 years ago

    Do you think this presidency will be a successful one or will it turn out to be worse than the bush's term?

    1. profile image60
      tron612posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I think he's just as big as Idiot as bush if not worse
      we should impeach him NOW before its too late and what he's doing
      can not be undone well at least I didn't vote for him.

      1. tksensei profile image60
        tksenseiposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Impeachment is a very specific process to be used under very specific circumstances. Somewhere along the line it has become, in the popular imagination, just another way of saying "I didn't vote for him, I don't like him, wah!" This attitude is not serious, and diminishes our system of government.

    2. usmanali81 profile image60
      usmanali81posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      It will be worst.

    3. RichardSpeaks profile image79
      RichardSpeaksposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      It's already a success. The Obama administration has the Republican party on the ropes, whose best spokespersons are Limbaugh, Cheney, and Gingrich. You have to be in dire straits to have that trio leading your way.

      Now, once the tragic entanglement that the Bush administration left us with is cleared up, we will begin to see new strategies emerging from the Obama team. Then, we will be in a better place to predict his--and our--future.

      I am a registered Independent. I am an equal opportunity criticizer.
      www.spiritfeast.blogspot.com

      1. nicomp profile image59
        nicompposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        You hardly seem independent.

      2. tksensei profile image60
        tksenseiposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        How so, exactly?

        1. nicomp profile image59
          nicompposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          It's a success that Bush is gone, I guess. Anything a Liberal/Progressive/Democrat does must be correct because they only want the best for all of us. Anything a conservative/Republican does is evil because they are beholden to their oil-soaked cronies and they want to eat the poor.

          1. tksensei profile image60
            tksenseiposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            The really funny (sad) part is that there are plenty of liberals (plenty of people around here in fact) who earnestly and literally believe that.

            1. nicomp profile image59
              nicompposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              You're right. Obama continues the executive orders that Bush put in place to exempt phone companies from prosecution during warrantless wire-taps... no one says a word... because Obama "means well" and Bush was The Evil NeoCon.

          2. Paper Moon profile image82
            Paper Moonposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            I will go for the "It's a success that Bush is gone"
            as for the rest, it seems palozi is just as far to the left as cheny -gingrich are to the right.  Both poles are scarier than then plague.  Obama may not prove to be the savior that so many who fall for his cult of personality swear by, but ….(to the tune of the wicked witch is dead from wizard of Oz) Ding dong bush is gone the wicked wicked bush is gone.

  2. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    An attempt will be made to establish a dictatorship Chavez style.

  3. Research Analyst profile image79
    Research Analystposted 8 years ago

    too soon to tell!

  4. johnb0127 profile image75
    johnb0127posted 8 years ago

    I agree with ledefen.  He will mimic Chavez.  Him and obama are pretty close buds.  That or he will rule socialism.  Read Hal Licino's hub about Obama and how close he is to socialism; its scary!

  5. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 8 years ago

    It will be (and already has been in some aspects) one of the most successful presidencies we have ever had.  Obama is the first of a new generation and represents a different outlook from the politics framed through the lens of the 60's.

    1. tksensei profile image60
      tksenseiposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      In what way has it already been one of the most successful presidencies we have ever had?

      1. Mason Hymas profile image60
        Mason Hymasposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah Lita? in what way? huh? HUH?!

        maybe its successful if you believe in a omniscient, omnipotent government that should control everything.

        Oh and I bet He's edging out every other president in total platitudes spoken during a presidency. 

        SUCCESS!

        1. HealthCare Basics profile image81
          HealthCare Basicsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          I find that a bit offensive.... I am sure in your neck of the woods you have reasons to think this president is not up to par. Believe it, he promised change in government and it does not come overnight, but time will tell, and you might be surprised. We have just been through 8 years of crap, listening to a leader who couldn't even speak proper English, nontheless answer questions directly. Chill and give him time......

          1. Mason Hymas profile image60
            Mason Hymasposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            haha! my neck of the woods... you must mean the reddest state in the union smile I would be more optimistic about giving him time if i could see less spending, less superfluous legislation and stripping down to the most important and most effective.

            believe me when i say i'm not a party guy either. I just want as much freedom and and personal responsibility as possible and our government has just been growing exponentially, getting nosier and nosier, taking over more and more of our lives.

            I'm gonna start making plans to go Galt soon wink

            please excuse my mildly offensive sarcasm. I apologize.

      2. HealthCare Basics profile image81
        HealthCare Basicsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Attempting to deal with the ignorance of the Bush administration on all counts of political venues. Taking a strong control of the recession we are now witnessing and providing loans to corporations with restrictions to streamline and stay afloat. GM, too bad, but if they could only build a car that last more than two years...This, by the way, is in hopes to prevent further job losses. Short term, the president forewarned businesses not to panic in the economic downturn by trimming employees to further unemployment which was mostly ignored.

        Additionally, he has been candid, wants out of the current war that is draining our economic resources, willing to make change in federal rights to minority groups, and attempting to repair old wounds with other countries not comfortable with our past administration.........

        1. Mason Hymas profile image60
          Mason Hymasposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          The last thing i want to see is the President of the United States taking strong control of an economy. If a company is worse than its competitors, let it die.

        2. tksensei profile image60
          tksenseiposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Ok, those are hopes and generalisms, not conclusions. You are saying you hope his proposals work out, that is NOT in any way an indication of being "one of our most successful presidencies ever" obviously.

  6. scheinandras profile image60
    scheinandrasposted 8 years ago

    I wish him the very best but I don't think his bosses will let him to do too many good...

  7. SparklingJewel profile image67
    SparklingJewelposted 8 years ago

    Obama is just as big a tool as Bush was and all previous presidents. the sooner everyone wakes up and focuses on the important stuff, like our constitutional freedoms that are continuing to be abused, the better off all of us will be.

  8. gamergirl profile image60
    gamergirlposted 8 years ago

    I'll tell you what I think of his presidency once his first term is over.  I refuse to stoop to naysaying and horrid levels of negativity just yet.

  9. flread45 profile image81
    flread45posted 8 years ago

    The out come will be so many taxes,the people of America will  fall into poverty and come under government rule such as the right to free speach,the right to bare arms.

  10. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 8 years ago

    The best possible outcome may be assisted by the open communication  Obama has directly with the people on the Internet.
    If Americans can make it known what they want, the government has a tool to use in convincing the admin to re-think unpopular decisions.

  11. tksensei profile image60
    tksenseiposted 8 years ago

    IMO, the best, worst, and most likely outcome is suggested by how Jimmy Carter turned out.

  12. HealthCare Basics profile image81
    HealthCare Basicsposted 8 years ago

    Mason, you don't want a president to take control of our economy. Well, who the hell do you think was doing it before this president took over...... The answer, friend, was "NO ONE" who was accountable to anyone. The greedy were running our corporations and banking industry, and they knew well before hand this blow-out would eventually happen. Investigate how many of them had "golden parachutes" before the s*it hit the fan...

    1. Mason Hymas profile image60
      Mason Hymasposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      smile or was it the governments push to provide affordable housing that caused the whole sub-prime crisis?

      you can count on one thing. Business will try to get as much money as possible. It good business. And when government incentives previously stupid business practices and suddenly makes its profitable, then who's to blame? the greedy(money hungry) capitalists or the greedy (vote hungry) politicians?

      whatever. forums are only beneficial when fresh views are expressed and neither of ours are. time for bed. sleep well my optimistic friend.

    2. nicomp profile image59
      nicompposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, but you weren't paying attention. The problem was *over regulation* caused by decisions made during the Clinton era (Franklin Raines) when Freddie was obligated to buy up risky loans from commercial lenders, and political grandstanding by Democrats on the Financial Services Committee (Barney Frank) which forced banks to loan money to people who they knew couldn't pay it back.

      In 2003 your nemesis Bush asked for separate government oversight of Fannie and Freddie; he was shot down by Mr. Frank.

      Meanwhile the Republicans in Congress danced and spent as all this went on. There's enough blame for both sides of the aisle.

      1. tksensei profile image60
        tksenseiposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you for that excellent post!

  13. HealthCare Basics profile image81
    HealthCare Basicsposted 8 years ago

    No apology necessary. Here is just a bantering of ideas and personal beliefs. One thing though to keep in mind, if we all had the total freedom from all government, then who would be keeping the helm steadfast and forward. Somebody has to be in control, with help from our representatives we elect, to move forward and unbiased.  Good night, it's late... smile

  14. onthewriteside profile image61
    onthewritesideposted 8 years ago

    Commies
           \
            \
           Dems             
              \               
              Socialists-----|---Libertarians--Objectivists--Anarchy
              /               
           Reps             
            /
           /
    Fascists
                                                       
    LEFT                    MID                            RIGHT

    This is how I see the way the political structure should be referred to.  How can you consider Fascism as being a right-winged philosophy and Communism as a left-winged philosophy when they both are laden with socialist doctrine?  IMHO, we need to get back to the Constitution...it's what made this country special.  And the puppeteers pulling the strings of both the Dems and the Reps are not going to let that happen.

    1. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Umm, that's an interesting diagram, definitely something to ponder about smile

      And yes, good point about socialists/fascists. For some reason people en masse can't grasp it...

    2. Aya Katz profile image88
      Aya Katzposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Good diagram! However, why do you think Objectivists are closer to anarchy than Libertarians? (And aren't Objectivists just one subcategory of Libertarians, anyway?)

      1. onthewriteside profile image61
        onthewritesideposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Aya, yes you are correct...but objectivism could be viewed as a sort of far right libertarianisn...besides...i had to fit them on the line somewhere!  hehe

  15. goldentoad profile image61
    goldentoadposted 8 years ago

    Obama has already spoken a couple of complete sentences in proper English. He's already done more than Bush.

    1. profile image0
      nazishnasimposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Also, he hasn't choked on a biscuit yet nor been hit by a shoe!

  16. puppascott profile image79
    puppascottposted 8 years ago

    I have my suspicions, comrades.

  17. profile image69
    logic,commonsenseposted 8 years ago

    What most people don't realize is that except for abortion and stem cell research, Bush was just another Democrat.  Look closely at his spending record and his policies.
    How would he be judged if 9-11 did not happen and he did not go to war with Iraq?
    One thing above all else, while he was president we were not attack on our own soil since 9-11.  I am guessing we will not be able to say that about Obama.  I hope I am wrong, but my gut feeling is it is going to happen.

    1. goldentoad profile image61
      goldentoadposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      How many people died in Iraq though? Bush doubled up on the death toll from 9-11.

  18. profile image69
    logic,commonsenseposted 8 years ago

    Pretty sure Bush did not kill anyone.
    I guess the question we will never know the answer to, is how many lives were saved?  Maybe none, maybe millions.  No one knows.  Myself, I prefer to err on the side of caution.  If someone attacks me, I am not going to lay down.  If it costs me my life, then so be it.  I am going to take as many of the bastards with me as I can.  I spent some time in the military.  I had no desire to die.  But I would gladly give my life to protect our way of life for my family and fellow countymen if it became necessary.  Freedom isn't free and what our founding fathers sacrificed to give us the country we have today can not be measured.  So anything I can contribute, even my life, pales in comparison.  I believe you will find that most members of the military would agree.

    1. profile image0
      nazishnasimposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Boy, are you sadist.

    2. goldentoad profile image61
      goldentoadposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      But they didn't attack us.

    3. Jewels profile image81
      Jewelsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Glad you said 'most', cause those who had a few limbs shot off are not quite as accommodating in their praise of the purpose of the Iraq war as you are.

  19. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 8 years ago

    Yeah... Liberal/progressive night crew is here.  Yawn.  Looks like they got this wrapped up. I can go to bed.

  20. cheaptrick profile image75
    cheaptrickposted 8 years ago

    another disaster,why stop now?...feed your head...

  21. tksensei profile image60
    tksenseiposted 8 years ago

    So we've established that for the misty-eyed bobby sockers who swoon at his every teleprompted word, Obama is a "success" because...he is not someone else...


    ...wow...


    ...that...that is something alright...


    ...start making room on Mt. Rushmore...

  22. Jewels profile image81
    Jewelsposted 8 years ago

    How come Bush didn't use a teleprompter?  Just wondering.

    1. goldentoad profile image61
      goldentoadposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Can't read.

  23. tksensei profile image60
    tksenseiposted 8 years ago

    He did, quite often.

  24. Eaglekiwi profile image74
    Eaglekiwiposted 8 years ago

    I dont care if they use a teleprompter or not,
    What has that got to do with anything?, seriously.
    My hopes for a great leasder ,is that he makes decisions that will benefit all the people fairly and with justice. smile
    Being able to communicate effectively with other Global leaders is a positive step for peace!

    1. tksensei profile image60
      tksenseiposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Um, you need to reconcile those two statements.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image74
        Eaglekiwiposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Um, effective communication is not limited to 'media performance'( God help us all,if that were the case) only, so um ,no reconciliation needed.

  25. tksensei profile image60
    tksenseiposted 8 years ago

    *sigh*

    Ok, so if he is only an effective communicator when he has his teleprompter, then the whole 'communicating effectively with global leaders,' etc. remains very much in question, right? Come on...

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image74
      Eaglekiwiposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      grrr..( when people sigh..)
      Ok ,when  Pres.Obama is sat down with say , the leader of India ( pick any leader),or in a closed meeting...does he have a prompter? No he does not .Now move forward now to announcements and news reports of those meetings...he has a prompter, um , whats the big deal.(its a logical practical media practice)
      My point is the leadership and decision making goes on behind closed doors( no prompter)
      The reporting side ,media ( with /without prompters)
      No big deal ..

      there is a cliche 'the proof is in the pudding'
      if a President is leading well , people are at least listening.
      thats a pretty damn good start in my opinion.
      America had got tired of listening to George Bush,least the ones who didnt vote for him.
      Pres Obama won ,so obviously he communicated effectively to "be heard" and even now globally people are "listening" again

      1. tksensei profile image60
        tksenseiposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        That's the point, he does not. That is where he is of very uncertain 'skill' as far as we now know.



        That's the point. That is the only part we see.




        My point too. And that is where we don't yet know if he has any particular skill. So far his interactions with foreign leaders that we have been privy too have not been overwhelmingly impressive. Bush was a horrible public speaker, but he forged close personal relationships with a number of foreign leaders. I hope we eventually see some proof that Obama has any skill in this more important area. I hope it doesn't turn out that foreign leaders see him as some lightweight they can do the superficial smile and hug thing with and then disregard as they make actual policy decisions, but I wonder...I wonder...



        That is not necessarily an indication that a president is leading well, as history shows.



        Now we are back to the 'teleprompter' communication skill again.

    2. profile image0
      Star Witnessposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      listening to rush does not a good political analytic tool make

      it shows.

      1. tksensei profile image60
        tksenseiposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        I see. Do you listen to him? I don't.

        1. goldentoad profile image61
          goldentoadposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Who does TK listen to?

  26. Eaglekiwi profile image74
    Eaglekiwiposted 8 years ago

    Where did you go TK
    Still sighing lol

  27. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    Perhaps all those on the right should be labeled Libertarian and the dividing line be minarchist, objectivist and anarchist.

  28. profile image0
    Star Witnessposted 8 years ago

    where do socialist libertarians go?  how about communitarians?  anarchist socialists?

    1. Aya Katz profile image88
      Aya Katzposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Socialist libertarians are on the left, with all the other socialists. (In what sense are they libertarian? Self-expression and freedom of religion and freedom of recreational activities, such as sex and drugs? Most socialists are that, too.) Communitarians? Is that the new, politically correct word for communism? Left. Anarchist socialists? Sounds like a kind of socialist to me. Left.

      1. profile image0
        Star Witnessposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        research is a good thing.  stars told me

      2. onthewriteside profile image61
        onthewritesideposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        quite frankly they all sound like oxymora to me.

  29. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    Well if there were left wing broadcasters on talk radio, he'd probably listen to them.  Oh wait, there aren't any.  People must not want to listen to that garbage on the radio, the get enough of it from the TV.

    1. goldentoad profile image61
      goldentoadposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Rhetorical question genius since TK doesn't listen to anyone. Go back to gettin' beat up by Cold War Baby.

  30. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    Gotta love all the hatred around here.

    1. goldentoad profile image61
      goldentoadposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I just exhibit reflective behavior.

  31. Make  Money profile image73
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    Well at least it looks like Obama has realized that lese faire free market economics does not work.

    Obama To Unveil Plan To Regulate Banks

    Report card: Obama's plan to fix financial rules

    U.S. Weighs Single Agency to Regulate Banking Industry

  32. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    Oh yeah, MM, if regulation works to well why didn't the SEC investigate the banks?  Why didn't Sabarnes-Oxley fix the problem?  Do you even know what those are?

    1. Make  Money profile image73
      Make Moneyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was a reaction to corporate scandals like Enron.  Note the word reaction, meaning after the fact.  The SEC completely closed a couple of online payment processors based in the US over the last couple of years leaving thousands of account holders from around the world in the lurch for thousands of dollars that were in their accounts that was completely lost.  I still use Paypal that is based in the US only because it is so widely accepted but I will never use another US based payment processor because I do not trust the SEC.  Yeah that's a good question, why didn't the Securities and Exchange Commission investigate the banks?  I've read that the FBI is now for predatory lending practices.

  33. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    Yep, MM, that's the best government can do.  React.  Too late.  Often times they create the environment in which things like Enron are able to grow.  California didn't eliminate price ceilings when they "ended" regulation over the utility companies.  But for Enron, this would have led to shortages.  This also allowed Enron to scam people and fleece America.  Had the CA legislature had the balls to truly de-regulate the industry, prices would have gone up for a time, people would have adjusted their habits and the price of electricity would have found equilibrium with the market.  In time, competition would force the price of electricity down and in order to survive companies would have to find ways to control costs.  Oh yeah and not piss off their customers so their customers would go to another company.  Thus the customers would benefit. 

    As for why the SEC didn't do anything.  It's politics man.  Do you really think the banks are going to give money to Congresscritters who are going to sic the SEC on them?  You've got to be kidding me.  Regulatory agencies, sooner or later, become beholden to the very industries they are trying to regulate.

  34. Make  Money profile image73
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    Ledefensetech are you aware that leaders from around the world have be calling for the US to regulate it's banks?  Thank God Obama listened.

    U.S. must fix its financial system, says Harper

    G20: France and Germany throw down the gauntlet

    World leaders call for more financial regulations ahead of G20 summit

    Congresscritters lol

    The fact that the banks have to bribe Congresscritters to get their way shows that lese faire free market economics does not work.

  35. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    Of course they have.  Since the US cut it's last tie to the gold standard in 1972, other countries have been forced to inflate their money supply so that they could continue to sell their manufactured products to the US.  Otherwise their exports would have become to expensive to export as the value of the dollar fell.  They want us to regulate our banks in order to get the bubble days back again, but you cannot re-inflate a bubble that has popped.  That's why all the money Bush and Co pumped into the economy to help the stock market went to housing not technology stocks.

  36. Make  Money profile image73
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    Actually other countries have had to inflate their money by printing more because the US has printed money to pay for wars.  US money was printed to pay for the Vietnam war and is happening again now to pay for both wars and the housing collapse.  That's one of the things the last G20 was about.  Canada promised 50 billion.  Sure it's so other countries can maintain their exports but in reality it's so the US dollar doesn't completely collapse compared to other currencies.  If that happened other countries would lose the exports to the US but also the US would not be able to afford to import the natural resources that it doesn't have to keep the American economy going.

  37. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    And to pay for the welfare state.  But yes, you're correct.  One of the ways states pay for wars.  They also mute discontent by paying for welfare items.  It's the old bread and circuses theme Romans used.

    Right now, nations can't afford to let the dollar collapse.  Their economies are so tied into being exporters to the US that it might hurt them more to let the dollar collapse than it would us.  They're playing for time which is scary when you think about who we have in charge right now.

    As soon as China, Russia, Canada, etc. retool their economies, they'll kill the dollar.  They'll do it even faster if we keep printing more money.  Rather than taking that factoid into account, Papa Obama is trying to increase the amount of money the government spends in certain areas, like healthcare.  What does he care?  When the bill comes due he won't be in office anymore.  That's why, long term, we're screwed.  We're led by people who have little concept of reality.

  38. Make  Money profile image73
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    I'd have to agree.  "We're led by people who have little concept of reality" and not just in the US.  As far as I'm concerned both deregulation and globalization suck.  Actually Canada would have been completely fine through this financial crisis if it weren't for NAFTA.  I have no doubt the next thing they will be saying is the North American Union will be the savior.  That will be the rally cry for many in all three countries.

  39. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    Globalization is pretty much unstoppable.  It's been building since the dawn of history.  Deregulation is actually a good thing.  You've admitted that the best government regulation can do is react.  Too late.  A free market puts the focus back on the customer, where it should be.  If I can't expect a handout from the government I'd better be doing the best I can to please my customers, or I'll go out of business.  That's the rest of the regulation vs deregulation argument.

  40. Make  Money profile image73
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    Not necessarily.  Some Canadian politicians have drawn concern with the buy American cry in the states saying protectionist measures like that is what caused an extended depression in the 30s.  With the buy America cry in the states some municipalities here in Canada are counteracting with buy Canadian.  See NAFTA is an agreement between the countries, not the provinces/states or the municipalities.

    No I didn't admit that the best government regulation can do is react too late.  Canadian banks were regulated before the financial crisis and it's been said they are the strongest in the world.

    1. ledefensetech profile image79
      ledefensetechposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.  That officially started phase 2 of the Great Depression.  Yeah, this buy in America crap is just more of the same, the wrapping is just different.  It's like opening a business and expecting people to beat a path to your door.  It doesn't work that way, you have to give people a reason to buy your stuff.

      NAFTA isn't really free trade.  The only thing a free trade agreement should say is "You don't put tariffs on my stuff and I won't do the same to yours".  Period, the end.  Anything else is protectionism.  The reason you want trade is that everyone does something really, really well.  If you let them spend all of their time doing that, you get an abundance of goods.  That helps keep prices down and raises the standard of living for everyone.  Protectionism takes away from that.  Since you now can't spend all of your time doing what you're good at, you have to make up the deficit that you used to get through trade.  So you waste time, resources and energy to do stuff you're not as good at and everyone loses.  That's why the division of labor is a bedrock of classical economics.

  41. lxxy profile image60
    lxxyposted 8 years ago

    To be honest, I'm up in the air about all of it.

    I so far don't like many of the policies and meandering, but I recognize that the Presidential seat has not been without purpose for many generations at this point.

    Obama will probably leave our nation forever changed, or begin the path to it. Whether it's a good change or not, that's entirely up to history.

    But don't be surprised when they roll out the "Amero" currency.

  42. Make  Money profile image73
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    Your right, NAFTA is not only not free trade, it's not even fair trade.  NAFTA has not brought us stuff that is done really, really well.  Since NAFTA Canada has cut it's subsidies to farmers while the US has increased it's subsidies to farmers that mostly produce genetically modified foods that nobody wants and they are refusing to label them.  The increase in Mexicans sneaking over the US border is because NAFTA did a number on Mexican farms.  US produce sells for less than Mexican produce in Mexico putting farmers out of business.  The mess Mexico is in is directly related to NAFTA.  Smugglers from Columbia used to bring drugs in through the Caribbean.  Now they are moved to Mexico over land from Columbia then being shipped in trucks because of the NAFTA agreement and Mexican drug lords are fighting for the share.  There can still be trade between our countries without NAFTA, like there was before NAFTA.

  43. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    I'm not so against genmod stuff as I used to be.  The reason being that if we went back to organic farming we'd need three times the farmland under cultivation to produce the same amount of food.  I do think we need to investigate how our body uses genmod food as opposed to organic because I'm also a great believer in the Law on Unintended consequences.  Furthermore we shouldn't be paying subsides to farmers at all.  It only encourages them to plant for the sake of planting, not planting for what people need.  I've heard farmers are planners.  They have to plan for effects that won't be felt for a year.  Since it takes at least a year to recover from a mistake, if you recover at all, you need to encourage them to be good planners.  OPM is never a good way to encourage people to be careful.

    People who make Genmod foods are going about this all wrong.  They're trying to take the easy way out.  If it were me I'd be publishing studies that were peer reviewed out the wazoo showing how genmod foods don't do anything different than organic foods.  I'd be playing up the increased yields and benefits of that.  Of course if I found that something I was selling did have adverse actions, I'd pull it.  Without a good reputation in business, you don't have a business, you have a bankruptcy waiting to happen.

  44. lxxy profile image60
    lxxyposted 8 years ago

    Genetically modified food is a safe thing, for sure.

    In fact, it'll create better yield in crops and the likes, as it has begun to with farmers here in North America.

    The hoopla over GM foods is either caused by people who are just plain ignorant of the possibilities, those suffering from paranoia, or those who are paid by "all-natural" food producers.

  45. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    That's why I'd market the heck out of it.  I'd start with pictures of starving kids around the world and show US farmers raising more and more crops then cut to a picture of those kids being fed.  The scientific reports would be good to counter marketing from "natural" people.  I just can't understand why they're being so dumb about it.  Well I can, they're relying on the FDA.  A better idea would be the Underwriter's Laboratory of genmod foods.

    1. lxxy profile image60
      lxxyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Haha, Underwriter's Labs...FDA...nah, see, you're forgetting that in the good ole' USA as long as you got the cash, you're free to be brash. Consumerism is just another war, and genmod versus natural is merely another front.

  46. Make  Money profile image73
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    We are kind of getting off the topic here but I am directly opposed to genetically modified foods.  And I am not just plain ignorant, not paid by organically grown food producers and I am not paranoid, although some in here may say different. smile

    Some African countries have refused food aid because it was genetically modified food.  That is just one example of how GMs are not accepted around the world.  This has been fun but I'm going to have to take off.  See you.

    Edit - I guess getting GMs into the discussion isn't really getting off topic when you consider "consumerism is just another war" between countries for their own produce.  See you.

    1. lxxy profile image60
      lxxyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Hey bud, I appreciate your view.

      I do understand your fear, for frankenfood can cause unforeseen issues. But that's also drugs, too, that those whacky germans like to create. Go Pfizer! Go Bayer! On Dasher!

      Speaking of such, do you not find it funny that BAYER has a whole slue of GM crops?

      1. Make  Money profile image73
        Make Moneyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        There you go.  Did you know that BAYER was also involved with the "experiments" carried out in NAZI concentration camps?  Okay I'm off now.

        1. lxxy profile image60
          lxxyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Yes sir, they also caused the bees to get messed up a few years ago...when they were all disappearing.

  47. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    Actually UL is a pretty cool little company.  They've been in business for over a century now.  If you look at a lamp or other electrical good, you will see the UL brand on it.  Companies would kill to get the authorization to use that brand and UL fights aggressively to protect that brand.  They test the heck out of stuff and they're like the Consumer Reports of their field.  That's how you know you're not buying something that will kill you or is shabbily made.  Using that template, we could increase the safety of other markets as well.

    http://mises.org/story/3440

    1. lxxy profile image60
      lxxyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I'm definitely down with UL. I apologize, I was being a little screwy before. The whole thing, though, comes from this: to put a brand on anything, to call it "without fault," is to put something on a pedestal where upon it's easily torn down from if one kid sticks it in his mouth.

      I'm totally fine with UL, but most people don't quite know what they do. I hope at some point they will gain more exposure, and have an easier time explaining away their methods to the average consumer.

      Neat link, bookmarked.

  48. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    Accidental cross pollenization worries me more with GM crops. You know the kind that they make to produce drugs and stuff getting into the crops that are to be used for food.  At a guess this is why drug companies have those fields of GM crops.  Those should be grown underground with in a level four containment environment.  Can you imagine what would happen if that stuff got into the food.  Get your daily dose of thorazine here.  Oh wait, we already get that from our water.

  49. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    MM, it's not like Bayer had any choice in the matter, it was do what the Reich wanted or get lined up against the wall.  Would you have the balls to stand against the power of the Third Reich?

    1. lxxy profile image60
      lxxyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Money=Power

      Power was given to the Third Reich in the form of American Dollars, via many people...most notable, General Motors and Ford. Without their contributions, World War II and Germany's Third Reich could not have happened.

      Isn't capitalism grand?

  50. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    Money was given to the Third Reich until they stopped paying the Versailles debt.  In fact the Allies used the money we gave the Germans to pay their debt, to pay the debt they owed us.  You'd never guess that from the way the French and British complained about the debt and kept asking us to forgive their debt. 

    I have more linky goodness for you:
    http://tinyurl.com/n72crj
    Describes the bubble economy of 1929.
    Hmm. I'll have to look for the other.  It described the above scenario during the 1920's I have it saved somewhere, but I'm not quite sure who the author is, so I can't provide a link yet.

 
working