jump to last post 1-21 of 21 discussions (56 posts)

1.5 trillion dollar deficit!

  1. profile image70
    logic,commonsenseposted 6 years ago

    Read an article on MSN that the projected deficit for this year is 1.5 trillion dollars.  Makes bush look like a piker with his measly 3-400 billion dollar deficits.
    Course there will be those that forget that bush is no longer prez and will find a way to blame him.
    Obama and the Dems own this!  They have been in power for over 2 years and the deficit has done nothing but grow.  AP blames part of it on the extension of the bush tax cuts.  The reality is the tax rates did not change, spending is the culprit!  Hopefully someday the politicians will have the backbone to face this fact and act to resolve the issue.

    1. Stump Parrish profile image62
      Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Does the fact that obama was handed a timebomb really mean he is responsible for the explosion? What caused the problems that led to the current finacial crisis in America? Was it the threat of a black man being president once the "my Pet Goat idiot ran out of corporate bought time in office? Did these problems magically appear simply because a black man and or a Democrat appeared in Office? No, Obama  inherited the current mess from Bush inc. Had not the repubs, who were pissed because they couldn't believe America saw thru their propoganda campaign, decided to stand in the way of every attempt at fixing the problems they caused, we might not be in the position that those with a tea bagger mentality, (ie terroristic) could easily get away with, ignoring the truth in favor of the latest Faux news hallucination that they present as instructions from god.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Sounds like an argument for fair taxes. The ultra rich don't work for a paycheck which can be taxed at up to 35% - they get capitol gains which is taxed at a max of 15%. Tax loopholes for corporations.. The deficit is not a problem because of spending - the problem is revenue.

      2. BillyDRitchie profile image61
        BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sorry, but when you drive up more debt than every president combined through Reagan, and all in the first two years of your administration, I think it is safe to say that it is effectively your baby.

        Although I think  the very first reply on this thread sets a new world land speed record for invoking the hallowed "blame Bush" mantra.  If Obama wins a second term, we'll no doubt still be hearing "he's paying for the mistakes of Bush" the day before he finally leaves office.

        Memo to the left: Obama is president now and is over halfway through his term.  It is time for him to pull up his man britches and start actually taking some responsibility for the state of the country he has worked so hard to "fundamentally transform".

      3. profile image70
        logic,commonsenseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The question is once he had a majority in both houses  of Congress, why hasn't he fixed things as he 'promised' in his campaign?  He had all the power that he requested, yet things got worse instead of better.
        Playing the race card is disingenuous.  It does not have anything to do with the issue of the outrageous deficit.
        True he did inherit some problems from the previous administration, but he had a majority of his own party, why aren't things better?
        The unemployment rate is affected by fiscal policy and the only fiscal policy this administration seems to have is to spend!
        Doug says we need more revenue, well he and all those that agree need to send more of their money to the Treasury.  I send a hell of a lot more than I should have to!  I am for a certain amount of taxation for necessary services, but the government bureaucracy is out of control.  Cut programs, cut agencies, cut spending! If I don't have the revenue, I don't spend! The government needs to understand and implement that policy!
        People who thing we are undertaxed need to take a look at all the taxes we pay at the federal, state, and local level.  Add those up and you will be astonished at just how much of your income goes to taxes.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Nobody is saying that the democrats won't fix the economy.  We keep reminding folks who broke the economy. Republicans. It will take time.

          History lesson. The policies of 12 years of GOP rule ending in the late 1930s brought about the Great Depression. Democrats had to clean up that mess and it took time.  This is what happens when low taxes for the rich are combined with deregulation. Wall Street parties the economy into a collapse.

          Mighty Mom posted an article (below) on the most recent economic news, which is good. But the recovery will take a while. If you put the GOP back in charge, you will NEVER see a recovery. That's the unfortunate choice - slow recovery or NO recovery. Take your pick and don't forget who busted the economy - again.

          1. lady_love158 profile image59
            lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            LOLOLOL

            "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

            And your post is a perfect example of that!

            1. Doug Hughes profile image60
              Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Your buddy Ronnie Ray-gun ran up the national debt by a whopping 66% in the first term and followed it with 104% on the second term. The 'Reagan Recovery' was totally financed by the policies the GOP now claims to hate.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d … tial_terms

              1. lady_love158 profile image59
                lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Haha... not that the DEMOCRATIC congress had anything to do with that!

                1. profile image0
                  Texasbetaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  She never accepts any responsibility for anything....facts need not apply.

              2. profile image70
                logic,commonsenseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Constitutional lesson.  President proposes budget, Congress approves appropriation of funds.

                1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                  Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  So you are saying Obama is not at fault for the deficit....

            2. Flightkeeper profile image79
              Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Great quote from Reagan.  He captured the liberal essence in a very succinct way.  Thanks ladylove.

              1. Mighty Mom profile image89
                Mighty Momposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Nope. I'm not a male.
                But I do come from a family of Democrat hellraisers.
                And follow with the philosophy "Non Ministrari sed Ministrare"
                which BTW is absolutely sympatico with true Democrat values (although righties will no doubt twist to mean smaller government ... that's NOT what it means!)

            3. Stump Parrish profile image62
              Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Great quote from Reagan huh?

              Here's the original quote by 19th century  humorist Artemus Ward.

              "It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us into trouble. It's the things we do know that just ain't so." 

              How is  Reagan actually connected to this quote, you might ask.

              You remember Artemus, he was on the Wild Wild West television series and Reagan actually was alive during the early days of the Wild, Wild, West.

    2. oceansnsunsets profile image89
      oceansnsunsetsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Its really scary to me, how the American People voted for this, then watched it happen.  Those that said this might happen were categorized as crazy and racist, etc. What is disheartening is that those that were wrong then, still go after those that were right back then, and don't even give them a chance.  Its just a big battle, without people really caring about the future, consequences and our kids and grandkids. sad 

      All while the rest of the world looks on... It makes America look really bad, and like a country full of suckers that will fall for anything, even to their own demise perhaps.  I don't get it...  I don't get a lot of what I see.

  2. SimeyC profile image89
    SimeyCposted 6 years ago

    As an Englishman living in America, who cannot vote and therefore has no affiliations, the blame has to go to the last 40 years worth of government.

    Although the deficits are large, did you realize that only 4 out of the last 40 years were surplus years? (and 12 out of the last 70 years!!).

    As a percentage of GDP the deficit is larger over the last few years than any time since the 40s - the Obama era is about twice the % of the Bush era.

    It's easy to blame Obama, or go back and blame Bush for leaving a mess - but the fact is that the US has always been a country in deficit and until both parties start working to solve this problem, nothing will change.

    Sure Obama spent a lot of money - but when he tried to stop the tax 'break' for the Rich recently he was not only shot down by the Republicans but they also reduced the SS tax to 4.2% - so who is to blame?

    The sooner both sides start solving the problems TOGETHER the better - the days of partisan politics need to go - that's what is causing the problem - not Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan etc!

    Sources:
    http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-de … states.php

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/dow … &show=

  3. profile image62
    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

    The problem is not simply spending. There is truly wastefull spending, it needs to stop. As Doug said the "ultra" rich don't actually have an "income" they make money of their money. Therefore they pay a lower tax. No problem there. The problem is with the corporations. They have been moving their companies overseas. They are hiding billions. Why? Because our Federal Government has create an atmosphere that makes moving away more profitable. That has to change.

    Three problems:

    Trade deficits
    Missing revenues
    Wastefull Spending

  4. profile image0
    jerrylposted 6 years ago

    When are people going to remember that under our current monetary system, (IF THERE IS NO DEBT, THERE CAN BE NO DOLLARS)!!!

    We cannot solve the debt problems of any administration unless we change from a monetary system that only allows money to be created through loans and other debt instruments, to a system where people's productivity is rewarded, and we earn first then spend into circulation! 

    We cannot pay down debt with more borrowing, but that's the only mechanism in the current system, that allows for the creation of money.  Remember, no money is created to pay the interest on these loans and debt instruments, so we are always creating a debt greater than the debt money supply created!

    Didn't GWB wage his wars on borrowed money?  How is that any different than Obama borrowing to bail out the bankers?

    1.5 trillion?  Which administrations did the majority of the other 12 trillion in debt come from?

    Wise up people, it's the federal reserve fractional banking debt monetary system that is at fault, along with the bought and paid for politicians that go along with this financial ponzi scheme!  This partisan bickering is the proof that the PTB have succeeded with their misdirection crap that's put out by the media.  The sheeple have fallen for it hook line and sinker!

    1. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "1.5 trillion?  Which administrations did the majority of the other 12 trillion in debt come from?"

      Same old argument.

      Its always somebody else who is to blame.

      Pay attention.

      Obama is responsible for 1.5 Trillion, whatever happened before him is not his fault and in no way contributed to his mismanagement.

      Barrack Hussein Obama is the worst President ever.

      Jimmy Carter looks good compared to this glittering jewel of  incompetence.

      1. profile image0
        jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Jim,  Get that plumber of yours again!!!!  Your BS partisan bickering is just too much to flush. 

        If you didn't notice or comprehend what I wrote, let me set you straight.

        Our national indebtedness has increased when either  political party was in office.

        Yes it is someone else to blame.

        If you go back and read (SLOWLY), you will see that I said the federal reserve fractional banking debt monetary system  was at fault!

        Nowhere in my post did I mention either party when asking about under whose administrations the other 12 trillion in debt came from!

        With all of your BS, I am beginning to believe that you may be a shill for the banking system!

        This however does not exonerate our elected officials.  They are influenced by the bankers lobby to no end!

        I would also like to know why it is that you feel that you must include Obama's middle name when speaking negatively of him, which is most of the time!

        1. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "I would also like to know why it is that you feel that you must include Obama's middle name when speaking negatively of him, which is most of the time!"

          Why do you want it excluded?

          Hussein Hussein Hussein Hussein Hussein

          Barrack HUSSEIN Obama.

          1. Stump Parrish profile image62
            Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Jesus Hussein Christ, give it a break, lmao.

  5. GmaGoldie profile image85
    GmaGoldieposted 6 years ago

    The cost to each American - including my grandchildren right now is estimated to be $247,000.  This comes from a finance person named Sheila Weingart of Truth in Accounting.

    Imagine!

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This is totally ridiculous. The actual number is around $47,000 which is too damn high but nowhere NEAR this fantasy number.

      1. S Leretseh profile image59
        S Leretsehposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Goldie actually is pretty darn close with that fig.  If you include only the adults, take out the unemployed and college students and the illegal immigrants, and acknowledge that gov't  (federal, state local) will have to cut a million taxpayers from their cushy jobs over the next couple of years, what you're left with is the REAL contributors to the American tax base. Those that are left working then are the only ones capable of contributing to the national DEBT. Their share would be around 250k. In the next 10 years it will double - UNSUSTAINABLE.

        The end of america is in sight.  I can sense it.  I think people should stock up on essentials.  Laws or political rhetoric are not going to cure what ails  America. 
        People, the OLD fellas just want this unworkable system to survive them. America's elderly (60+) are the greediest , most self-centered and selfish people on the planet.  They deserve what's coming.  They robbed the youth...and continue to do it!

  6. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    We interrupt this gloom-and-doom with some positive economic news from today's Washington Post:
    [Excerpts. Link at bottom]
    Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, rose at a 3.2 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter, the Commerce Department said Friday. below analysts' expectations but up from 2.6 percent in the third quarter.

    Final demand, which excludes that inventory swing and is a good indicator of the underlying pace of growth, rose at a whopping 7.1 percent, the strongest since 1984.

    Fourth-quarter growth appeared to be more sustainable, led by steady improvement across most major drivers of economic activity - although that alone won't guarantee continued solid growth in 2011.

    "This morning's report illustrates the transition from a recovery dependent on transitory support from government and inventory investment to a sustainable expansion driven by private demand," said Alan Levenson, chief economist at T. Rowe Price.

    Americans' economic output has now returned to its pre-recession level: GDP was at a $13.38 trillion annual rate in the fourth quarter, surpassing the $13.36 trillion level at the end of 2007, when the recession began. (Both figures are in 2005 dollars).


    "The U.S. economy is finally, after three years, producing as much as it did before the Great Recession hit," said Josh Bivens, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. "But this is by no means 'mission accomplished' - the 3.2 percent growth registered in the last quarter of 2010 would, if sustained over the next year, provide almost no downward push to the unemployment rate."

    Trade made its biggest contribution to growth since 1980. Exports rose at an 8.5 percent annual rate, while imports, which subtract from growth, fell at a 13.6 percent rate. Trade had subtracted from growth for the first three quarters of 2010, but then reversed and added a heartening 3.4 percent in the fourth quarter.

    Housing, which has experienced wild swings in recent quarters, was a modest contributor to the economy. Residential investment rose at a 3.4 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter.

    Government spending was down - a mild negative - as the impact of federal stimulus dollars faded and state and local governments pared their budgets. Federal government expenditures were down 0.2 percent, and state and local governments cut 0.9 percent.

    GDP data aims to capture the value of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders, and as such is a broad measure of the overall strength of the economy. The October-through-December period was the sixth straight quarter of growth, yet unemployment remains near record highs.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … _natlalert

  7. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    I admit I am no economist.
    But what I read in this report is that Obama and the government have done their job in getting our economy back on track.
    Now it's in the hands of the private sector.
    Either they will put Americans back to work -- which is clearly their responsibility, not the government's, right?
    Or else they won't.
    But the unemployment rate, like the deficit, are all Obama's fault.

    1. canadawest99 profile image60
      canadawest99posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      How can anyone tackle the debt when they won't even admit the real number.   

      "311,927,341 Americans, 138,588,037 working and 64,703,760 retired or disabled, face $14 Trillion in official U.S. debt, $55.6 Trillion in total debt, $112 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, $576 Trillion in unsecured currency and debt derivatives held by a few banks, and a $638 Billion trade deficit....."

      http://www.rickackerman.com/2011/01/eco … ate-clean/

    2. S Leretseh profile image59
      S Leretsehposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      MightyMom:"But what I read in this report is that Obama and the government have done their job in getting our economy back on track."

      That belongs in Jay leno's monologue. Hilarious

      Are u a male? just askin. If not, I've never seen a gal sooo politically hellbent

      1. junko profile image79
        junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It cost 1.5 trillion to stand up the economy after the GOP knock it down. It would cost less without tax cuts for the rich. Is it about the deficit or the president?

  8. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    And everyone completely dismisses the ineffectiveness of government, since it's inception. The Economy has never been approached properly since it was started.

    All politicians are great for is pointing blame, usurping of power and greedy agendas.

    Yet, everyone wants to do nothing but bicker about which side did what, and no one wants to address the underlying problem.

    Very nicely done. hmm

  9. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Oh yes, Ronnie Reagan was quite the wit. At least, Bonzo thought so lol

    Seriously, given the choice between an actor and an activist for POTUS, I'll take the activist, thank you.

    http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/red/blue_pics/2010/11/16/bedtimeforbonzo_460x276.jpg

    1. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Activist? How about RADICAL socialist? That's a better description of what we put in the WH.

  10. Stump Parrish profile image62
    Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago

    Part of the problem is, wasteful spending and the majority of it is supported somewhere in this country.

    How many people complaining about the size of government protested the closing of local military bases that were no longer needed? People yell for the downsizing of the government and then proceed to fight for their favorite bloated department, government installation, or job.  Are you willing to close any and all uneeded bases and or government installations in your states or home towns to save the government money and shrink it's size? I figure that most of this claimed desire to down size the government will take a back seat to protecting the jobs these wasteful bases and installations provide your friends and family. That is the American way...Let someone else do it and retain the ability to say...I wasn't my fault.

  11. uncorrectedvision profile image60
    uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago

    I sent away for my Rosetta Stone CDs so I can learn Greek.  We are running head long into a fiscal disaster.  Every one can say what they want.  The numbers do not lie.  In two years the Democrat Congress with Shining Handsome Obama's help have piled up more than twice debt than GWB did in the four years the Republicans controlled Congress.  Write the history as you wish and continue to delude yourself.  I am learning Greek - the language of the insolvent welfare state.

  12. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    UCV -- If you want to be that much of a nihilist, perhaps you should return the Greek lessons and get Chinese instead (?)

  13. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    That's interesting, LaLo, as the current criticism of Obama (from his own party) is he has gone too centrist.
    Just goes to show you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can never, ever please a tea bagger lol

    Yes, Obama was a community activist before becoming POTUS.
    And Reagan, darling of the right, was an actor with Alzheimers.
    Perhaps in future our POTUS should have to pass an annual mental competence test -- sort of like they make you pass a driving test to keep your drivers license. lol!!!

    1. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "That's interesting, LaLo, as the current criticism of Obama (from his own party) is he has gone too centrist."

      Anything to the right of complete socialism is a centrist idea to his supporters.

      You being among them.

    2. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Give one single example of an action by Obama that shows a move toward the middle. Speeches aren't action.
      I don't think you need a degree to lead but i'd settle for proof you aren't a radical socialist.

  14. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Jim,
    What, specifically, are you saying?
    I am an Obama supporter?
    Yes, I am.
    That I am an Obama supporter who believes anything right of complete socialism is a centrist idea?
    No. That is not correct.
    Here on the forums I no doubt come across as farther left than I am.
    LaLo. How would you suggest proving one is not a "radical socialist?"

    1. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "LaLo. How would you suggest proving one is not a "radical socialist?""

      By not acting like one would be a good start.

  15. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    One example of Obama moving toward the middle:
    Uh, how about the BIG ONE?
    Extending the Bush tax cuts.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol

      He is only trying to extend his political life.

      Wont work.

    2. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That tax cut extension came with 300 billion of stimulus and social spending made with borrowed money. I'd say that's more an illustration of the republicans moving to the left! What else ya got?

  16. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    And how to radical socialists act, Jim? Enlighten us.
    Do you know many?

    1. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      They force legislation onto a nation that doesn't want it.

  17. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Oh, you mean like The Patriot Act?
    I see.

    1. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah just like the Patriot Act!

  18. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Ok. So if our example of a radical socialist is enacting legislation we don't want and our example of said legislation is The Patriot Act,then Bush/Cheney are radical socialists.
    Hmmmm.

    1. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Who said nobody wanted the Patriot Act? I didn't and maybe you didn't but it had bipartisan support in congress including Obama! I think we were referring to the health care bill which the majority of the country opposed and which did not have bipartisan support.

  19. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Glad to hear you say that, LaLo.
    It does represent the Republicans actually negotiating something rather than sitting back and saying, "No, No, No, No, No!" like the last 2 years.
    In order to get ANYTHING done in Congress, both sides must come in from their extreme sides and be willing to work together.

    1. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sometimes saying no is getting something done! Why do you leftist think expanding government and writing new laws signifies accomplishment and progress? Most of the time it's the exact opposite!

  20. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    CBS.com is the source but for some reason I can't make the link come up on here. Anyway, opposition to the healthcare bill seems tobewaning.

    ...an Associated Press-GfK poll finds raw feelings over President Barack Obama's overhaul have subsided.

    Ahead of a vote on repeal in the GOP-led House this week, strong opposition to the law stands at 30 percent, close to the lowest level registered in AP-GfK surveys dating to September 2009.

    The nation is divided over the law, but the strength and intensity of the opposition appear diminished. The law expands coverage to more than 30 million uninsured, and would require, for the first time, that most people in the United States carry health insurance.

    The poll finds that 40 percent of those surveyed said they support the law, while 41 percent oppose it. Just after the November congressional elections, opposition stood at 47 percent and support was 38 percent.

    As for repeal, only about one in four say they want to do away with the law completely. Among Republicans support for repeal has dropped sharply, from 61 percent after the elections to 49 percent now.

    House to Consider Health Care Repeal Next Week

    Also, 43 percent say they want the law changed so it does more to re-engineer the health care system. Fewer than one in five say it should be left as it is.

    "Overall, it didn't go as far as I would have liked," said Joshua Smith, 46, a sales consultant to manufacturers who lives in Herndon, Va. "In a perfect world, I'd like to see them change it to make it more encompassing, but judging by how hard it was to get it passed, they had to take whatever they could get."

    His extended family has benefited from the law. A sister-in-law in her early 20s, previously uninsured, was able to get on her father's policy. "She's starting out as a real estate agent, and there's no health care for that," said Smith. The law allows young adults to stay on a parent's plan until they turn 26.

    Congress stepped back last week to honor victims of the rampage in Tucson, Ariz., that left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., facing a long and uncertain recovery from a bullet through her brain.

    There's no evidence the gunman who targeted Giffords was motivated by politics, but the aftermath left many people concerned about the venom in public life. A conservative Democrat, Giffords had been harshly criticized for voting in favor of the health overhaul, and won re-election by a narrow margin.

    House Republican leaders say they're working to keep this week's debate - and expected vote Wednesday - from degenerating into a shouting match, but it depends on the Democrats, too. Republicans want a thoughtful discussion about substantive policy differences, said Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 GOP leader. The AP-GfK poll was under way when the attack in Tucson took place Jan. 8.

    GOP Doesn't Account for Health Care Repeal Cost

    Opposition to the law remains strongest among Republicans. Seventy-one percent of them say they're against it, as compared with 35 percent of independents and 19 percent of Democrats. Republicans won back control of the House partly on a promise to repeal what they dismissively term as "Obamacare."

    "I just think that the liberal left is more going for socialized medicine, and I don't think that works well," said Earl Ray Fye, 66, a farmer from Pennsylvania Furnace, Pa., and a conservative Republican. "It just costs too much. This country better get concerned about getting more conservative."

    One of the major Republican criticisms of the law found wide acceptance in the poll, suggesting a vulnerability that GOP politicians can continue to press.

    Nearly six in 10 oppose the law's requirement that people carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Starting in 2014, people will have to show that they're covered either through an employer, a government program, or under their own plan.

    Rich Johnson, 34, an unemployed laborer from Caledonia, Wis., said he thinks the heart of the law is good. "The problem I have with it is mandating insurance so that you have to have it or you'll get fines," said Johnson, an independent. "I just don't think people should be forced to have it. The rest of it, I have no problem with."

    The individual mandate started out as a Republican idea during an earlier health care debate in the 1990s. More recently, Massachusetts enacted such a requirement under GOP Gov. Mitt Romney and the Democratic Legislature. Nowadays, most conservatives are against it, and GOP state attorneys general are suing to have the mandate overturned as unconstitutional.

    Other major provisions of the law, including a requirement that insurers accept people with pre-existing medical conditions, got support from half or more of the public in the poll.

    Loralyn Conover, 42 a former music teacher with multiple sclerosis, says she hopes repeal goes nowhere. Senate Democrats say they'll block it.

    The new law "opens the door for people like me to have some kind of pay-as-you-go health insurance," said Conover, of Albuquerque, N.M. "It's nice to be able to have something . and not be dropped in the cracks of society." She couldn't get health insurance when she was first diagnosed, but is now covered by Medicare.

    The AP-GfK Poll was conducted Jan. 5-10 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications. It involved landline and cell phone interviews with 1,001 adults nationwide, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.2 percentage

  21. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Sometimes saying "no" is getting something done?
    It may be taking a stand, but you can't get something done -- moving forward with makingn something happen -- by saying "no."
    "No" is the antithesis of action.

    1. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      LOL! "Moving forward" implies direction towards a destination. I wonder, what is Obama's destination? Who is to say implenting new legislation is moving forward? Maybe he's got the country in reverse? Again, you seem to think passing new laws is getting something done... passing a law to give everyone a free house would also be getting something done but would that be moving forward or backward or would saying no be moving forward?
      The left likes to use abstract terms that have no meaning in the context of what they want to accomplish... ie the eventual enslavement if the American people under a socialist republic ruled by leftist elites.

 
working