In just about any post about President Obama, someone brings up that if you don't like him it's because your a republican. Do people actually expect that only republicans dislike him? I mean seriously, I've talked to a lot of people, including a lot of people that voted for him that don't like his politics or decisions or wish they hadn't voted for him. I guess the reason I'm writing this is to says to those who use that excuse, open up and look around. It's not just republicans anymore. I don't like his politics and I am NOT a republican!
or your racist if you don't like him (rolls eyes)
Not liking the President's politics is completely different than the insane hate right wing nuts have for their President. There are Oil Barrons and Insurance company executives hiring Goons to destroy the man for Corporate Profit. But, there is nothing wrong with your legitimate policy difference with President Obama. Please tell me you understand that portraying the First Black President as Hitler or a Witch Doctor is sick, twisted, insane, and evil.
So what do you think about Valarie Jarrett and her running public housing in Chicago into the ground while she made a multimillion dollar salary? She'd have made out like a bandit if the Olympics had come to Chi-town as they have to bulldoze her handiwork to the ground because maintenance has been so spotty it would cost more to fix than to destroy. But it must be OK, because she's one of the Anointed Ones from our Glorious Leader. How could he make a mistake such as that. Oh wait, he also had Van Jones working for him too.
How is that any different from the Oil Barons and Insurance company executives. Looks like we're exchanging one set of goons for another set of goons to me. Some of us are just better at ignoring race when it comes to screwing people over than others.
Why do these one or two slumlords bother you more than the millions of slumlords out here in our cities? Hum. Anyway, like Sally said give us some solutions. Tell us what President Ledefensetech would be doing instead of President Obama. Please be specific. No more bitching and moaning.
You didn't answer my question. But to answer yours, they bother me because they are close to a person who holds an office that has far too much power, much more than was originally invested in the office by the people who established our government. They believed, quite rightly, that such power could do great harm.
Obama has surrounded himself with slumlords, Communists, terrorists and thugs. I'm not quite sure what that says about him personally, but giving people like that any sort of power is a bad thing.
As for what I'd do. Well first the IRS and Federal Reserve would be gone. Next I'd get the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments repealed. That should put us square on the road to recovery. Next, hmmmm. I'd repeal the Fair Labor Standards Act, an oxymoron if there ever were one, and I'd lobby for the elimination of the FDA, FCC and all government agencies that attempt to control the economy.
As for healthcare, I'd ask the states to seriously consider eliminating the state boards and barring the AMA from any regulatory decisions. I'd also eliminate the patent monopoly that drug companies enjoy after they develop a drug. Finally I'd eliminate all forms of welfare, corporate and otherwise.
It's just a way for his supporters to confuse the issue now that more and more people are turning against his policies.
I have never heard anyone say it is only Republicans who don't like him. His policies have not had enough of a chance to know if they will or won't work, if they don't I will be the first person to admit that. However, I feel you have to give someone a chance first. People did not start attacking Bush from the minute he was elected, only after he did things they did not agree with.
Bush has a reputation from not being particularly visible until 9/11; and, in general, he has often been called names that suggest he wasn't very visible for most of his Presidency. People have given numbers regarding how many press conferences Bush held versus Obama. Obama has made himself very visible, and he's attempted to make those major changes he promised right from the start. As a result, he's been more of a target.
They started attacking Bush before he was inaugurated.
UW, anyone even slightly acquainted with history could tell you his policies won't work and why they won't work. It's not just a matter of letting his polices work and watching the outcome. I, personally, might cut him more slack if I could find one example of his policies actually working in the real world, but you can't. That is why more and more people are opposing his policies.
There you go again, assuming just because someone disagrees with you they don't know history at all... Then you'd better tell the entire G20 that they are doing it wrong, maybe they will listen to you...
It's funny how France and Germany ignored the rest of the G20 and they're seeing real economic growth. Just wait, the rest of the world will sink into depression more and more over the next few months.
By the way, you never cited an example where a society successfully spent it's way out of a depression. Try to find one, rather than attempting to confuse the issue.
Whats also funny is France and Germany are leaning more right these days, Coincidence?
Well there's right and there's right, if you get my meaning. Russia could also have been said to go to the right, but doing it their way is still the wrong way to go. It's more accurate to say that their economic policies have become more free as opposed to more regulated.
Umm, yes. Not only economic, civil liberties are significantly increased, in fact more than economic ones. Why do you think it is the wrong direction?
By nationalizing industries, Russia will wind up curtailing civil liberties as well. When you nationalize something you give it government backing and that has the effect of withering the market because the government backing kills competition. Less competition means less choice. Less choice means that living expenses goes up and the standard of living declines. That causes political unrest, which leads to curtailment of civil liberties. There are plenty of occurrences throughout history I could name.
Getting rid of Communism was only a part of the solution for Russia, now they have to complete their market liberalization. Like the US, the current Russian economic model owes more to the National Socialist model than a free market one.
Umm, looks like one of us is having a temporary lapse of reason. I will readily admit that it is me if you show me how one can nationalize state property... And Soviet State owned all of it, and then some...
Sorry Misha, I was talking about how Putin began nationalizing certain industries after he assumed power from Yeltsin. The evolution of the Russian economy since then has been more along the lines of the National Socialist model than the Communist one. Both types of economies are examples of centralized control of the economy, the state being the agent of control.
LOL Gotcha now
Well, I would think is was a bit more complex than that cause it was more of mafia clans fighting for their share of what was left of the USSR. Yet I definitely see where you are coming from, and agree to an extent. By my thoughts and observations Putin built a sort of oligarchy. I only wonder where timocracy went? But then again, democracy in Russia lived just for several months before turning into tyranny, so I could have missed a short period of timocracy
From what I understand many of the Mafiya came from RIF'd KGB agents and others involved in the national security branches of the Soviet Union. They had access to training, manpower and equipment that your common variety thug didn't. It would have been in the best interests of the nascent Mafiya to stymie any real efforts as reducing crime and establishing the rule of law. That may be why there was never a timocracy. Or it may be that it very quickly shifted to a plutocracy and Putin is just an extension of that plutocracy.
Your right... You cant spend your way out of a depression. You need a massive war to do that...Wait a minute...Didn't Bush try that? Yea, I think he did. And he put this country into a recession that President Obama is trying to save us from. You sound scholarly for a minute then you conveniently ingnore the fact that President Obama is setting up policies that will improve our economy over the long term. He is not just SPENDING his way out of a depression. Go do your research.
Try again, we didn't get out of the Depression until 1946-1947, after the end of WW II. We'll see if you still feel the same way a year from now.
Sorry to disappoint, but Alan Grayson is just another political shill. The Repbublicans didn't start the "death panel" rumors, the public did:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.actio … 4697241980
I'd rather see more members of Congress vote their conscience and not vote according to a party line. Either party.
Now you did it! You gonna git me banned. Saying the death panel rumors were started by regular people is an outright lie. It was started by bought and paid for Republican politicians. Grassley, Palin, And of Course Betsy. Check out Betsy's Waterloo. You are a smart man, so you know that was a false statement. Stop assuming everybody else is stupid.
http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.co … an-vs.html
The problem is that I don't essentially disagree with those death panel rumors. Government run healthcare is basically unsound. Look at all the trouble Social Security is having today. They're going to have to cut benefits soon. That, too, will happen with government run healthcare, sooner or later. It may not be in our lifetimes, but it will happen. I'm not willing to pass that sort of legacy off to my kids or grandkids.
The problem we have with healthcare is that there are not enough providers, we have massive government intervention already that strangles competition and we have regulations that benefit doctor's salaries at the expense of their patients.
That is one thing I don't hear anyone talking about. It really does come down to simple economics. If you increase the supply of healthcare, healthcare costs will go down. Why you do think that politicians aren't asking questions related to healthcare supply?
Dont change the subject, dont blame doctors or patients, and Please dont hide behind your kids. A government plan would force insurance companies to lower their premiums, and force them to stop denying treatment to people and letting them die. The only people it would hurt is Insurance Company Executive. The would have to settle for maybe 10 Million dollars a year instead of the 50 or 60 Million they make now. They are making these millions while people are dying because they were denied treatment by an INSURANCE COMPANY not the GOVERNMENT. People are dying because the INSURANCE COMPANY will not pay for a surgery they need or cancer treatments that would save their life. So they die instead of putting their kids in the street.
Once again, I will ask you not to assume the rest of us are stupid.
I've never said you're stupid, I just don't think you thought all the ramifications through of what you're proposing. Like what happens to insurance companies when their costs outweigh what they bring in via premiums. Do you understand what it means when you pay out too much in policies and don't take enough in in premiums? Do you know why the government is immune to such considerations? How many people will be hurt when said insurance company goes broke? What will happen to insurance premiums as more and more insurance companies go broke? Do you even know how the government plans to pay for all of this. I mean really? Not through fictitious "getting rid of fraud in Medicare", Medicare has always been riddled with fraud and always will be.
You also might want to check your figures for insurance company executive compensation. They ranged as high as 23 million and as low as 923,000. That averages out to a little over 10 million. Satisfied? http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/pa … dustry.cfm
As for people dying, yes you do need to blame the doctors. Or more specifically the AMA, which keeps the numbers or doctors down so that doctors can raise their salaries much more than would otherwise be the case. Also I'm not hiding behind my kids, I just want to leave something behind that's better for them not screw things up for them like our parents and grandparents did to us.
"panels designed to determine the type of treatment that severely ill people should be granted and what has been called end of life counseling."
Hey everybody this is an outright lie. The government Health Care Plan would Pay for end of life counseling to find out what type of treatment a severely ill person WANTS, NOT WHAT THEY WOULD BE GRANTED. That's a lie created by Repuplicans Politicians. They are just slick liars tryin scare Grandma and Stupid people.
Rep politicians lie, I'll give you that. Yet Dem politicians lie too. With the same frequency, give or take. It's a professional requirement, if you did not know.
Do you know why, economically speaking, end of life counseling is needed in a government monopoly of healthcare? Would you accept those panels if they were instituted by private insurance companies? Why or why not?
Not enough time has gone by to make any serious judegment calls yet. Things have to be worked on, passed through and tried....more time is necessary and then we will have a clear picture of what he did well and what he did wrong. Problem is too many people choming at the bit to jump all over his sh** and say "See see he's no good, he's a liar.." and whatever. Lets be patient and wait for some real tried and true facts. That would be new.
Moonchild, that is exactly what I mean. Many of the President's proposals have been tried at different times throughout history and they've always ended badly. Or would you rather wait until it's too late to change course before admitting there was probably a better way to do things.
To be fair, I think that McCain would have been worse for us because he'd have made the changes slower and not build up as much resentment as Obama has. So in a perverse way I'm grateful to him for moving so quickly because he's opened quite a few people's eyes to the dangers of his agenda.
Give the guy and his administration a break. Look what they inherited. Everybody knows you have to take care of old business before you can step into the new, unless you want to trash everything that came before you.
We Americans are very short on the idea of 5, 10, 20, and god forbid, 100 year plans. We want everything right now. But a president gets 4 years, at best 8 years, to implement a plan. This guy hasn't been in office for even a year.
Take a look at the little ones in your families. For the youngest of them, it will take a good two years for them to start pooping in the toilet instead of in their diapers.
Everybody, young or old, gets caught up in a learning curve, that is, if they want to go forward and not backward.
How long of a break Sally? Just give an exact number please. Preferably a bit shorter then a presidency term, or it does not make any sense, you know.
Sorry, Misha, no exact numbers. If I could do that, I'd have hit the Power Ball payout at least once.
Sally he inherited problems that have been compounding for a century. Instead of reversing direction, he's continued in the wrong direction. So no, he doesn't deserve any slack. We're, all of us, about to get a lesson in why the New Deal failed in the 30's. We've seen this all before, but most people haven't bothered to learn it. So yes, there is a learning curve, but it's one the entire country is on, not just the President.
That's an interesting point. And who let those problems compound? It wouldn't be the American people, would it? So why now is the responsibility of fixing things on "him"? To your point, the entire country is on a learning curve. So why don't we support the guy that got elected and do our duty to see that things go forward instead of backward?
Because he's doing all the things that got us into this mess in the first place. Can you as an individual, spend money and expect to build wealth without spending money on the right things? Why is the government so different?
It's our duty to make sure our government doesn't overstep its bounds. So yes, we do have a duty to support people who will return government to its roots. The current President, like all of the 20th century Presidents shows no signs of doing that.
Seems like the question's been asked and answered. We have a duty here, so let's step up to it. After all, we elected him. We'd be turncoats to walk away, unless, of course, he violated a law that would lead to impeachment. Did he?
You may have voted for him, I didn't. His stated policies when he was running and since he's been in office don't match mine, so why exactly should I not "walk away" from him? Just because a person has a particular office doesn't mean that you have to check your common sense at the door. What he's doing doesn't make sense. It seems more like he's rewarding political cronies at the expense of everyone else than trying to fix our problems.
The "we" I speak of is the majority who voted him in (and let's not pick nits about electoral and popular votes). Maybe I agree with him, maybe I don't; maybe I voted for him, maybe I didn't. But he's what I've got to work with. I can bemoan the fact that he was elected, or rejoice in it. Doesn't matter. He's the President, my fellow citizens voted him in. So these are the shoes I get to wear and I can throw them in the trash if I don't like them, and go barefoot, or make them work.
Good that we live in a place where we have choices we can make and voices we can exercise.
Oh yeah, because there was so much to choose from in the last election. I'm glad you feel so great about being free to exercise your vote, but a choice between two equally bad outcomes is not a choice at all. Which is why so much of the "majority" that voted him in is turning against his policies. It is interesting to note how much of the other 50% are now getting involved in politics, many for the first time, and they're not interested in what the "majority" of 2008 had to say.
What would it take -- which initiative, domestic or abroad -- to convince anyone that he's doing something "right"? I'm just curious.
For christmas, I'm sending the Whitehouse a copy of Economics 101.
Economics in One Lesson by Harry Hazlitt: http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/Economics_ … lesson.pdf
What You Should Know About Inflation: http://mises.org/books/inflation.pdf
Will Dollars Save the World: http://mises.org/books/dollarssave.pdf
All of those resources are free, so they don't even have to spend taxpayer money to educate themselves.
lol, I always love to read your comments jiberish. They always give me a laugh
Well, this was fun, ledefensetech. But, yawn, time to go to bed. Wonder where pageantgirl went off to. Didn't she start all this?
Can't come up with any refutations, so you leave the field. Typical. If you can't defend your position, you shouldn't try to tell people what they should do.
Sorry, made some dinner for my husband for when he gets home from work and got the babies to sleep.
I didn't mean to start a debate but I should of known it would. I am just so tired of people calling me a republican or racist because I don't believe in his politics nor do I think he's doing a good job. I think it's great that we have a black president but I don't think that's a reason for us to like him. I pay attention to his choices and I don't like them. Such as the bail out of companies that really needed to crash in order to learn from it. Rather, they just took the money and gave bonuses or vacations to their workers. Nor do I agree with him sending more troops to Afghanistan. That is more personal to me since I come from a military family and I have both my husband and brother being deployed over there next year.
I'm conflicted about the Afghan thing too, but we need to decide what we're going to do. Hell I didn't agree with it when they sent my dad to Somalia, but he signed up so he went. In Afghanistan we need to fight to win or we need to leave. Simple binary solution set. Doing things half-@$$ will only turn Afghanistan into another Vietnam.
Its interesting that people who have actually fought or are close to someone who has fought seem to understand that Wars cannot be won by halfassed measures!
I've talked to a lot of Vietnam vets. Plus wars are by their very nature destructive. We have a moral duty to make any wars we fight of as limited a duration as possible to limit the damage we do. Otherwise we rightfully incur the wrath of those whose lives we destroy. It's just not as easy as saying "War is bad". I wish more Progressives understood that.
You can't win a guerrilla war. Well, you can strictly speaking, by eradicating ALL opponents including children, women, and elders - but it is not something your own population will tolerate. So the solution set is not even binary...
Like I've said many times before. We need to get away from republicans AND democrats. They are all money hungry, greedy politicians. Our choices for presidential candidates has been horrible. I wish they would bring in someone good for once.
by Drive-by Quipper4 years ago
This is why Romney lost. He displayed poor cognitive reasoning. He actually said that the widely known fact that smaller classroom size in schools is advantageous to students was misinformation perpetuated by teacher's...
by taylord085 years ago
I follow the news and they are estimating that President Obama will win the 2012 election. Do you agree? I voted for Obama, but now I don’t know if I would again. I don’t blame him for where our economy is but do...
by TMMason5 years ago
Yes, the "Summer Of Recovery", what a joke.Two years after the official start of the recovery, the American people remain pessimistic about their current economic circumstances and longer-term prospects. Fewer...
by Prakash Ranjan Paul4 months ago
I think it's high time someone brought home to Mr President the brute and naked truth, as I view it, namely the fact that his silly policies that fail to win the seal of approval of the international community including...
by Yes Dear6 years ago
Todd Akin,Rep Dipstick:"This thing is really two visions of what America should be. Do we really want to become a sniveling entitlement state, or do we want freedom?" Of course, since freedom in this case just...
by Ralph Deeds8 years ago
Paul Krugman's column in the NYTimes today 1-5-08 is entitled "Fighting Off Depression." In it he called the recent economic numbers "terrifying," not just in the U.S. but around the world....
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.