Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
Research Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsResearch Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic

Regardless of ideologies, can anyone be effective as President?

It's probably time to dissolve the union in an any case. A centralized govt. can not anymore handle the complexities of our society. But how many of you could accept the U.S downgrading it's military superiority? There's too many ego's here who relish the idea of being a world superpower even though keeping that up is slowly eating away at our core. It's the only way this society is going to make a comeback imo. With a centralized govt. came economic centralization and THAT more than anything has killed us. We rely on too few people to do/make way too many things. We've lost the capitalist spirit, everyone just wants to go work for the big boys, ie roll over die. Men were meant to be more self sufficient than we currently are. Way more.
 
The effectiveness of the presidency is more of a function of money and control of the two houses of congress than anything else.

But doesn't that mean Barry should have been highly effective for his first ~2 years?
 
But doesn't that mean Barry should have been highly effective for his first ~2 years?

If he was a halfway decent president he would have.
 
But doesn't that mean Barry should have been highly effective for his first ~2 years?

Effective in the sense that he caused big things to happen. He was highly effective but not in the way you liked. You cant deny his "cause and effect" though in his first two years.
Irregardless of ideology
 
Effective in the sense that he caused big things to happen. He was highly effective but not in the way you liked. You cant deny his "cause and effect" though in his first two years.
Irregardless of ideology

He did a lot of damage IMO, but it could have been much worse.
 
The next president is screwed, regardless.

After that, it will still be a train wreck for a while. A huge swath of jobs are gone forever now and it would take at least 2-4 years to reverse that momentum. And even with that momentum reversed, the jobs that are already gone won't be returning.

We've also got people who are used to 2+ years of being unemployed. Over that period of time, people learn to adjust their lifestyles and survive around the subsistence income provided by our safety net (and perhaps some off-the-books side income). When it is time for those people to go back to work, they often choose that reduced standard of living @ 0 work hours/week instead of double (or more) of that income level at 50 work hours/week.
Yet again, I agree with you. People learn to live with less. Hard to say that's necessarily a bad thing ... Buddhists base an entire philosophy around it, y'know?

What would be interesting AS HELL?! (from a sociological perspective) If Ron Paul were to be elected because he wants to eliminate minimum wage.
 
Yet again, I agree with you. People learn to live with less. Hard to say that's necessarily a bad thing ... Buddhists base an entire philosophy around it, y'know?

What would be interesting AS HELL?! (from a sociological perspective) If Ron Paul were to be elected because he wants to eliminate minimum wage.

So what do you do?

Freeze the benefit levels and hope we don't keep trapping more people?

Expand and extend the benefits, knowing it will swell the rolls, with the hope we don't run out of money? Europe's experience suggests it may not end well.

Cut the benefits, push people out of the nest and hope they don't hit the ground?

I don't see the compassion in generational dependency on the government.
 
u don't have to see it

u just have to keep funding it until I find an angle to jump on Uncle Sug's gravy train



just sayin'

Can you hold out till 2012? That's gonna be a great tax year!
 
Top Bottom