Printable View
So tell me, what did you think of Obama's Job Plans Speech? Did you agree, disagree? What about it did you think were things that should be done, what about it are things that shouldn't be done? Will it be effective? And why? NO ad hominem attacks. No saying "Obama sucks". NO saying "palin sucks" NO saying "obama can't ever do anything right" No saying "republicans are evil". Lets have an intelligent discussion. What did you think of the Jobs Plan?
I'm just about to bump an old thread about this. Basically it stirred concerns in me that there is a fundamental problem with modern economic thinking and people keep trying the same old things. 'Creating' jobs for the sake of supplying wealth reflects an unthinking continuation of an outdated paradigm.
Here's an article roughly about why:
Are jobs obsolete? - CNN.com
Good riddance. Jobs are for fools. That reminds me of this, especially point 14: "There can be infinite growth within a finite world. (The Growth Fallacy)"Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Sorry to go off topic. They mentioned that he is counting on the bill to be shut down so he'll have a strong clear example of Republican obstructionism for his explanation of his job performance for the next election. Once I heard that, that's all I could think about. I hate politics.
It's a short-term solution to bring down the high unemployment rate. Politicians need only think ahead four years at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Wow Xei, I love that article. I agree with alot of it. However lots of jobs are still needed but as we advance technologically, we should shift our focus from trying to just pump out jobs in order to create wealth, to actually doing things that are meaningful to society and to ourselves.
I didn't really watch it, since I didn't expect him to say anything new. And from what I heard, it sounds like that is exactly what he said.
He suggested tax breaks for hiring employers, tax breaks for middle class families, tax breaks for small businesses. Higher taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations not hiring, jobs to help rebuild and fix infrastructure, jobs to help fix education and schools, review of all regulations, additional spending cuts, reform of Medicare and medicaid. He claims it will all be paid for through spending cuts. That is basic outline of speech. He also stressed that this satisfies both parties and that it needs to be voted for now.
And some advice, it's always good to keep yourself informed on things like this, even if you think you'll disagree with it. Ignorance is the best way to be manipulated :p
I never thought of it that way :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
On one hand, having a president for even a decade is a scary thought. On the other hand, if they know they get 8 years max, what incentive is that to create a long lasting policy for all our futures sake? And arent there many politicians that only get 2 years?
When he starts talking about ending the federal reserve, I'll take him seriously.
I agree juoara. Honestly I think that having a two term limit on the presidency is counterproductive. Because then all there focused on is getting reelected, not on progress. And if anyone does make progress, then they're out the door in max of 8 years anyways and the progress could be risked. Some people argue that two terms prevents tyrannical presidents from staying in office forever, but this is a democracy, if a president was truly tyrannical, we wouldn't re-elect him. So idk what the answer but I think the term limit and the term length need to be changed to allow a president to actually focus on growth and progress; not re-election.
Even if a president could get elected multiple times, he would still be worrying about each election.
True. So why not extend the presidency period to say 8 years. And then halfway let voters decide whether or not they want an election. That way if the president is doing good he can carry out a full 8 years. If not the voters will decide to have an election, and then may or may not remove him from office depending on who wins. But the campaigning won't be able to start until less than a year before the say 4 year mark because they won't know for sure if there's gonna be an election or not. This is good because then as a nation we can spend more time working towards solutions then trying to remove the president from office and put up the next guy. Campaigning as it is today is a waste of time and money. It normally goes, first 2 years is spent trying to block the president from doing anything productive, last two years is spent campaigning and getting ready for the next election. This is extremely inefficient and is why we can never get anything done that is meaningful, it's all politics. People don't actually care about working towards a solution, they care about painting the current administration in a light that helps them get put to power. Whether it's the media or politicians. So one suggestion is 8 year terms with 4 year optional election if voters deem it necessary. By approval of the election would not take place until less than a year before the election, making it so we don't waste time on campaigning and discourages running for office mid term unless the current president is really screwing up. This allows the president to focus on actual goals and progress instead of re election, but he also must keep in mind that he can't do whatever he wants because there is the possibility of removing him from office mid ter. But before the election midterm takes place, a panel of non partisan reviewers must review everything the president has done so far and plans to do and presents it to public, if the public wishes to vote for another election. Then the public can decide if it is really necessary to try and remove the president from power based on non partisan, non biased facts.
This is just one option of how to reform the term system. Any other ideas?
How about we make the president a two year term with a one term limit. So you get elected once and you are done. And you can focus the entire two years on your office, and while that person is running the office others can campaign.
If it were to be a one term limit, it would need to be longer. Nothing can get done in two years. The presidency isn't a game, it's not like "ok two years up, now it's tommy's turn". If it were two years presidents would just rush things through and try to do as much as they can before they leave, not actually taking time to work towards a solution.
It is congresses job to pass laws, it is the presidents job to enforce the laws. He doesn't need more time to 'get stuff done'.