The Inauguration of America's new pres.

ZenCat said:
I've got to say, this is a day I never imagined would come. But I attach so many meanings to that statement.

When I was born, John F. Kennedy was president. Then Johnson, then Nixon (who I watched resign), then Ford, then Carter. And then I came of voting age in the Regan era. So I've been through Regan (twice), Bush the First, Clinton (twice) and Bush (twice). That's my entire life up till now. And at best I felt ambivalent about my country's Leader. At worst I felt loathing. The last 8 years drained me almost completely of love for and hope for my country.

Until this year, I had never voted FOR my leader, only against the one I disliked more.

I get the cynical mindset so many are expressing, I really do. I've held it myself for virtually all of my adult life.

But I'm relieved to find at my age that I'm still capable of hope and inspiration, and for the first time not only have I voted FOR my leader, I have seen him take office. I find myself thrilled with the feelings of loyalty and allegiance in myself. I had no idea they were there. I plan to cherish them for as long as I possibly can.
Click to expand...

My cynicism is rooted in different causes then just the last 8 years (although being kicked off the human rights commission, launching an illegal preemptive war, and the creation of the Homeland Security nonsense have really just been...grand), as I understand that politics doesn't solve problems. Real change is made by the invention of new technologies (think about how much the automobile has changed our society), and by ideological shifts in the populace (Oh, we're safe...(enter 9/11)...OMG MILITARISM AND SUSPENSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS). Sure, politics can help bring along new technologies (by funding scientists) and can help ideological shifts happen (Emancipation of slaves has eventually led to the ideological shift of racial tolerance), but it's not the direct cause of progress like the 2 things mentioned above are.

The best he can do is help things along...but in a capitalist society you can't just hotfix the economy and expect it to be all great. You can't just make a law and expect the problem to go away (drug laws...). Obama is just a politician, and so will have these limitations.
 
There are small people that do great things, when we finally notice them; I think the next few months will determine just how much influence the new President will have on America.
A few things he said during his inauguration I found to be significant. He said that it doesn't matter how big or small the government is--just how well it works. That's something people have forgotten, and something that they need to be reminded of. Optimistically, we can hope that he will bring us together with points like this; it's no use dividing ourselves over pointless topics and issues, when the real issues are lost in the details.

The best he can do for us is remind us how great America could be, and how united we could become. If he could do that, then he really could be a great president.
 
gloomy-optimist said:
There are small people that do great things, when we finally notice them; I think the next few months will determine just how much influence the new President will have on America...
The best he can do for us is remind us how great America could be, and how united we could become. If he could do that, then he really could be a great president.
Click to expand...

GO - Good to see you back...I agree with you and others on many of your comments.

I also keep hearing myself say here, it is not how great America was or could be, but how great America actually IS. This can never be lost. With Obama, people are beginning to remember again what many have forgotten.

In terms of seeing how he does in the short run, let's be practical and compare it to our own lives to keep things in check. I personally couldn't design a house in a day. For those of you in school, a paper or hard final may take a week or so to adequately prepare for. Do we really suppose that a few months will tell all about Obama? I say this with all due respect and practicality. It will take years. However, he IS in power and he WILL use it. Make no mistake about that. That is the nature of power and why he is there to begin with. Michelle will also be a real asset to him.
 
HS! TELL US! You were There!

Speak Now! Or I swear I'll jump thru my monitor and shake it out of you!

I'm not a cryer but I was actually tearing up during the Inauguration and parade!

Tell! TELL!
 
alcyone said:
HS! TELL US! You were There!

Speak Now! Or I swear I'll jump thru my monitor and shake it out of you!

I'm not a cryer but I was actually tearing up during the Inauguration and parade!

Tell! TELL!
Click to expand...

What do you want to know?

The speach, the balls...got pics...

AWESOME NIGHT. FLEW BY IN LIKE 2 SECONDS. FASTEST DAY OF MY LIFE.
 
The whole thing was a blur. A dream. Like I mentioned earlier, I didn't got to the swearing in because, well, first there was no guarantee I'd get in even with tickets, but I really wanted to be in a nice warm place watching on tv.

His speech was brilliant. Interestingly, the swearing in part. For VP's it is much lengthier than the President. My husband said it is REALLY hard to do. Nerves and so forth. The Presidents gets broken down differently than the VP.

Anyway, his speech, the music, the poetry, oh and the reverend's speech...the symbolism of it all...the renewal of faith...

I really liked so many of his points and could go on and on and on...

Where should I post pics...my blog, maybe, member photos?
 
The vibe was hope, anticipation, relief, hope, pride, respect, honor, and love, so much love.
 
alcyone said:
Blog I'd say.
Click to expand...

Ok, go to swimming upstream blog...

Freezing, freezing cold...like about 25 degrees. Oddly it was really easy to get into the city as long as you drove up and around from MD side. Georgetown was very quiet at dinner, it was odd. Then we realized...wait this stuff goes in the blog too.

Cheney pulled his typical Dr. Strangelove stunts. Lots of good humor and good will.
 
gloomy-optimist said:
He said that it doesn't matter how big or small the government is--just how well it works.
Click to expand...

And he was wrong. It sounds good until you think about what the difference is. Efficiency is about doing more faster with less. So how do you separate the size of government from the efficiency?

Big government "works better" for big projects, but those big projects could be done better by somebody other than the government. The government necessarily creates inefficiencies, because it must get its money from tax revenues, and therefore the funds have cost a certain amount in time and paperwork simply by being gathered. The process of distribution creates waste. Smaller government allows a healthier economy, which in turn boosts the resources for the government.
 
Yep, well I took from that comment that a Democratic vs. Republican, big gov't vs. laissez faire, is no longer the right approach. I didn't hear anything about efficiency as much as rethinking what actually works and what is required. I see a difference in the two.
 
Last edited:
Well, I took it more from this point; given the size of America and the many tasks the government must regulate, the government would be comparatively larger than many other governments. However, a "smaller" government would be more efficient--IF it runs correctly.

Either way, there are arguments to both; the point is, if it doesn't run efficiently, if it doesn't work well, then it's not doing its job. Rather than focus on just the size, we need to figure out what needs to be done--what needs to be cut, what may need to be added--to create the most efficient government possible.

I honestly could care less how big or small the government is, but whichever turns up, I want it to work well; I want it to be stable, I want it to be efficient, and I want it to keep its goals in mind.

That's the message I got from what he said, and I disagree with your opinion that it is wrong.
 
gloomy-optimist said:
I honestly could care less how big or small the government is, but whichever turns up, I want it to work well; I want it to be stable, I want it to be efficient, and I want it to keep its goals in mind.

That's the message I got from what he said, and I disagree with your opinion that it is wrong.
Click to expand...

Perhaps my perception of his meaning was colored by my knowledge of his intent. He intends to make government bigger. That's how most government officials like to do things: if something isn't working, they don't reform it or remove it; they just create more government involvement in an attempt to fix it. The bigger government gets, the more internal problems it has. Coming from Ron Paul, the same statements would carry promise, but coming from Obama, they foreshadow his Change We Can Bereave In.
 
TheLastMohican said:
Big government "works better" for big projects, but those big projects could be done better by somebody other than the government. The government necessarily creates inefficiencies, because it must get its money from tax revenues, and therefore the funds have cost a certain amount in time and paperwork simply by being gathered. The process of distribution creates waste. Smaller government allows a healthier economy, which in turn boosts the resources for the government.
Click to expand...

And who, do you think, is going to fund a multi-billion dollar enterprise like the space program? No private individual could dream to do it, and no corporation is going to find it profitable enough to do it, so that leaves only the government.

Who is going to make sure the big corporations and banks don't just run all over us like they did in the early 20th century? Who would prevent them from all raising prices at the same time, gouging customers together so that they all benefit while the customer loses out? Who would prevent monopolies that gouge the customer from forming? Who would make sure companies didn't dump their excess waste into oceans, and cause extreme levels of pollution in search of the cheapest product?

Who would fund the scientists that are trying to advance the knowledge of the human race just for the sake of the knowledge? Big companies generally only fund scientists that can make a product to make them more money. No one would care to fund the scientists (or the universities that fund the scientists) that are trying to find out how the inside of a black hole works...


So no, I disagree that someone else can do such projects. Ok, some of them they COULD do, but it's not practical to assume they ever WOULD do these things...because the only people with enough money, besides the government, to fund such projects are major corporations...and they generally only care about their bottom line.
 
Duty said:
And who, do you think, is going to fund a multi-billion dollar enterprise like the space program? No private individual could dream to do it, and no corporation is going to find it profitable enough to do it, so that leaves only the government.
Click to expand...

Is the space program something that we cannot live without?

Who is going to make sure the big corporations and banks don't just run all over us like they did in the early 20th century? Who would prevent them from all raising prices at the same time, gouging customers together so that they all benefit while the customer loses out? Who would prevent monopolies that gouge the customer from forming?
Click to expand...

These were all taken care of by legislation decades ago. It is a form of government regulation of the economy, but in my opinion an appropriate form, and generally harmless to our efficiency. (Nowadays, however, those measures might not be necessary, due to size and diversity of the market.)

Who would make sure companies didn't dump their excess waste into oceans, and cause extreme levels of pollution in search of the cheapest product?
Click to expand...

Again, this is fair regulation, because it is preventing a public nuisance.

Who would fund the scientists that are trying to advance the knowledge of the human race just for the sake of the knowledge? Big companies generally only fund scientists that can make a product to make them more money. No one would care to fund the scientists (or the universities that fund the scientists) that are trying to find out how the inside of a black hole works...
Click to expand...

If people want the research done badly enough, they will pay for it. If they would choose not to pay for it, is it fair to confiscate their money and then use it for purposes that they would not have deemed worthy on their own?

So no, I disagree that someone else can do such projects. Ok, some of them they COULD do, but it's not practical to assume they ever WOULD do these things...because the only people with enough money, besides the government, to fund such projects are major corporations...and they generally only care about their bottom line.
Click to expand...

I don't think that everything the government does can or would be done by anyone else. The government does a lot of pointless things, after all, and the market is based on supply and demand. The point is that private companies could provide the essential services, usually with better quality and efficiency than the government (both because of the tax system as I explained it, and because competition for the consumers' dollars results in better service than a monopoly such as the government has). Things like the space program are nice to have around, but would the citizens hand over the necessary funds voluntarily? That is what should matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top