What Is Really Wrong With America?

Jump to Last Post 51-94 of 94 discussions (390 posts)
  1. cindyvine profile image70
    cindyvineposted 14 years ago

    Hollywood gives us non-Americans a false reality

    1. rhamson profile image72
      rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I lived overseas for three years and many people I met there thought we all carry machine guns around.

      It is hard to imagine what another country is like but people are the same the world over.  Human nature being what it is cannot change.  We all have hopes, fears and dreams.  When push comes to shove we all work together.

  2. tobey100 profile image60
    tobey100posted 14 years ago

    How about let's point out what's right with America.  I get tired of the what's wrong stuff.  America's great.  Its really just every agenda driven group that sucks.  All of them from PETA to the Boy Scouts.  Matter of fact, I'm even sick of MADD ( Mothers against drunk drivers).  I'm forming DDAMM (Drunk drivers against mad mothers.)  Didn't someone famous say "Can't we all just get along?"

    1. Misha profile image63
      Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      You are not alone smile

  3. prettydarkhorse profile image55
    prettydarkhorseposted 14 years ago

    Oh I have been to different parts of the world from South Africa to Mediterranean, Asia, Australia and Europe and still, I believe that USA specially the citizens have everything to be proud of,

    the main problems are of course brought about by the economic mode of production: capitalism -- food to eat, what matters most -- new technology, easier life ---- which in turn affect lifestyle negatively -- but we can change this lifestyle

    1. tobey100 profile image60
      tobey100posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Capitalism's worked pretty well for the past 234 years I think.  Confusing wants with needs is our biggest problem.

      1. rhamson profile image72
        rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        The trouble is the needs have replaced a lot for some people.  Capitailism is a fatherless child when it comes to the needs of its' family.  No one to look up to and no one to answer too.

        1. tobey100 profile image60
          tobey100posted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Point taken.

  4. Ralph Deeds profile image66
    Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago

    Too many "family values" Republicans like North Carolina GOP Lt. Governor Andre Bauer in his campaign for governor:

    ``He'' is South Carolina Lt. Gov. André Bauer, running for governor on the GOP ticket. Speaking of those who receive public assistance, he recently told an audience, ``My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better.''

    You read that right. The would-be governor of one of the poorest states there is likens the poor to stray animals.

    And though it drew some newspaper notice, a riposte from The Daily Show and rebukes from Bauer's opponents, it never quite rose to the level of national controversy, as it would've had Bauer compared, say, women or Jews to the dogs one feeds at one's back door. The relative silence stands as eloquent testimony to the powerlessness and invisibility of the American poor.

    Here's a link to Leonard Pitts, Jr.'s column in the Miami Herald today--
    http://www.miamiherald.com/living/colum … 54250.html

    1. tobey100 profile image60
      tobey100posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Crude way of saying it but has the ring of truth.  Just look what our well-intended welfare system has done.  We've gone, over the years, from providing needed assistance to the helpless, to providing a generational way of life.  Sad.  Wish I had the answer.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
        Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        Many European countries have considerably more extensive welfare programs for the unemployed and for paid parental leaves to take care of babies and pre-school children. Perhaps one difference between the U.S. and some of those countries is that they don't have a history of slavery and discrimination in education and employment as we have had in the U.S. Moreover, opposition to taxation is much less prevalent than it is in the U.S. Nevertheless, their economies are quite productive and per capita incomes are equal to or even higher than the U.S.

        1. tony0724 profile image60
          tony0724posted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Ralph actually they have a worse history. Can you say Nazi Germany and Bosnia ? We have had discrimination at least we have never resorted to ethnic cleansing

          1. Misha profile image63
            Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I think Native Americans will object...

            1. tony0724 profile image60
              tony0724posted 14 years agoin reply to this

              Got me on that one. But Ralphs comments still don't hold water

              1. Misha profile image63
                Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                No question about that. All such questions were closed by Iceland bankruptcy. More to follow in the coming months I guess smile

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image66
            Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I obviously wasn't thinking of Nazi Germany or Bosnia but rather Sweden, Denmark, Norway, post-war Germany, The Netherlands, France and so forth.

    2. profile image58
      C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not so sure that those words, while insensitive are any different from "Planned Parenthood's" founders

  5. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago

    The destruction of the family.

  6. Ralph Deeds profile image66
    Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago

    Aside from the horrible Supreme Court decision on free speech, here's another type of "free speech" that concerns me.



    Here's another form of free speech that concerns me.

    Chief executives of big banks have been in Washington for meetings with White House and Treasury officials and lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, had lunch with Mr. Obama last Tuesday, and then met separately on Friday with the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, and the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner.

    And industry lobbyists and chief executives have been lining up outside the doors of senators.

    Sewell Chan and Dave Kilpatrick in today's NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/busin … f=business

    1. Sab Oh profile image57
      Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Does it concern you when unions lobby and pump money into campaigns?

    2. Harvey Stelman profile image60
      Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Ralph,

      Can this possibly be true? Fearless Leader doesn't want lobbyists around; are you saying, he lied.

  7. wsp2469 profile image61
    wsp2469posted 14 years ago

    What's wrong with this country is too many people talk sh*t about it in front of non-Americans.  W@hat's wrong is that some people live in America and have no f*cking clue that it's the greatest country in the world.
    (If it wasn't then they wouldn't live here anymore.)

  8. ledefensetech profile image68
    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    Nice, all fluff and no substance.  Is that the best you can do?  Quote other people?

  9. ledefensetech profile image68
    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    How is it sad?  Money has always equaled freedom.  Money gives you the ability to chart your own course and not be beholden to another.  What exactly is sad about that?  Unless you're one of those ignorants who confuse self-interest with selfishness.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image74
      Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      What about all the poor people that came here for free land? were they slaves or rich?

      Your confusing freedom with power over others, power over others is what money gets you today. That is not the same thing as freedom.

      You come across as a spoiled brat, one that has always had whatever he wanted provided. That kind of upbringing seems to be coloring your perspective.

      someone once said, "I have been rich, I have been poor... Rich is better" true but sad. Because what makes the United States a great and powerful nation, a successful nation, is the Huge, Vast, middle class... without which we are a feudal system...that's what makes it sad.

      1. ledefensetech profile image68
        ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        You're an ignoramus.  You might try learning more about someone before you start making statements like "you're a spoiled brat".  I could just as easily say "you're a sad pathetic loser who has never accomplished anything in life expect whine about how hard it is and blame your shortcomings on those more successful than you", but I haven't.

        There are real problems we're facing and using the same old "money is evil" mantra is not going to fix things.  Perhaps money is the wrong word.  Wealth is what makes people free.  That could be land, money, or some other asset.  In that respect, everyone had the chance to be free especially once the Homestead Act was passed.  What is important is that we're given the ability to create wealth, which is what made this country in the first place.

        1. barranca profile image76
          barrancaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          If wealth is what makes people free, not many of us are and Jesus was wrong.    I've always liked Twain's response to "money is the root of evil" ....he says,  "Money is not the root of evil, but the lack of it."   Someday maybe we will all be wealthy.....when the robots make everything.

          1. Harvey Stelman profile image60
            Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Barranca,

            An old joke is; Jesus saves, Moses earns. I'm not sure how that applies, but it was a good bumper sticker.

  10. ledefensetech profile image68
    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    Where exactly did Jesus say being poor made us free?  Twain was an interesting guy, you might find the following article interesting:

    http://mises.org/daily/4060

    That certainly gives some insight to his comment, does it not?

    1. barranca profile image76
      barrancaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for that link.....it is interesting.  Twain definitely was one of the great American thinkers and perhaps the best cultural critic we have ever seen.

    2. barranca profile image76
      barrancaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      "It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle."  Think about how monks and nuns universally take a vow of poverty.  Wealth is the tail that often wags the dog.

  11. mega1 profile image79
    mega1posted 14 years ago

    Harvey - we are all wrong - that is the problem - the problem, that is, is we think there is a PROBLEM!  leave us alone!  we'll come home, wagging out tails behind us!

    1. Harvey Stelman profile image60
      Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      mega,

      Woof-Woof; did that help?

  12. ledefensetech profile image68
    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    Yet look at what the Church wound up doing during the Renaissance. It's a historical irony that an institution devoted to the betterment of mankind engaged in the practice of selling indulgences in order to build the great cathedrals we see today.  Monks and Nuns don't really take a vow of poverty, they're subsidized by the Church which is fueled by alms given by parishioners.   Like it or not, wealth is power.  Now how one utilizes that power is a very germane but different question.  Look at how much wealth US citizens are giving Haitians.  Would that be possible if we all took a vow of poverty?

    1. barranca profile image76
      barrancaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I certainly wouldn't deny that wealth can be put to good use.  Rockefeller gave the Teton mountains to the Am. people.  The list of philanthropists doing real good is very long.  Carnegie libraries.  etc.  I guess it is not wealth but the obsessive attachment to it that is destructive.   I sometimes think I am lucky that I don't have it.....the lack of it has forced me to work and I like to work.  Now, looking at retirement and realizing I won't be financially able to, just means I will have to work longer....but I really wonder if that is just a blessing in disguise.

  13. Tom Cornett profile image81
    Tom Cornettposted 14 years ago

    About two feet of snow is being dumped on our main problem right now.  smile

    1. ledefensetech profile image68
      ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Hopefully it'll freeze solid for a few months.  That should give us enough time to get started on the recovery.

  14. Hokey profile image61
    Hokeyposted 14 years ago

    What Is Really Wrong With America?


    It is run by corporations.

  15. earnestshub profile image79
    earnestshubposted 14 years ago

    and intellectually stunted politically by the influence of religious dogma.

  16. Hokey profile image61
    Hokeyposted 14 years ago

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A tragic fire on Monday destroyed the personal library of President Barak Obama. Both of his books have been lost.

    Presidential spokesman said the president was devastated, as he had not finished coloring the second one.

    1. earnestshub profile image79
      earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Well unlike Bush he probably held it the right way up! smile

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image66
      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Come on! That's a re-cycled George Bush joke. Only with Bush it may well have been true.

  17. Hokey profile image61
    Hokeyposted 14 years ago

    A man walked into a cowboy bar and ordered a beer just as President Bush appeared on the television. After a few sips, he looked up at the television and mumbled, "Now, there's the biggest horse's ass I've ever seen." A customer at the end of the bar quickly stood up, walked over to him, and decked him. A few minutes later, as the man was finishing his beer, Mrs. Bush appeared on the television. "She's a horse's ass too," the man. This time, a customer at the other end of the bar quickly stood up, walked over to him, and knocked him off his stool. "Damn it!" the man said, climbing back up to the bar. "This must be Bush country!" "Nope," the bartender replied. "Horse country!"

    1. earnestshub profile image79
      earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      lol lol lol

  18. ledefensetech profile image68
    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    In many ways retirement is a modern phenomenon.  I also think it has the effect of killing you off at a younger age.  I mean, what's the point of living if there isn't good work to be done.

    1. barranca profile image76
      barrancaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      amen to that.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image66
      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you 100 percent on that one. My maternal grandfather was a rancher and never retired completely until he died at age 89. He was doing a full day's physical work at 75. On the other hand, my father died at 74 after an early retirement at age 55 which turned out to be a big mistake, physically and psychologically.

  19. Rod Marsden profile image67
    Rod Marsdenposted 14 years ago

    Actually the USA has a lot going for it. I have visited a number of your cities including New York and San Francisco. When it comes to levels of waste and pollution that were killing your great lakes and river systems in the '70s you have made surprisingly good strides in combating this menace. Your national parks are a wonder to behold. You make great movies and television shows. (Mind you I HATE reality television) I have been a Star Trek fan all my life and that I hope says something. No nation or human being, however, is perfect.   


    In recent times this idea of preemptive strikes against hostile nations took hold. Bush pushed the idea. I thought that considering the power of the USA it was an extremely dangerous thing to even think about implementing. The idea still scares the hell out of me.

    Bush's idea about an Axis of Evil might have been laughable if it wasn't taken serious.

    If there had been more intelligence on the ground and the various intelligence agencies of the USA had been better coordinated at the time there might never have been an Iraq and an Afghanistan war. Different ways of dealing with hot spots and potential hot spots might have arisen. War should be the last resort and not the first.

    If there had been better coordinated intelligence there would not have been a successful attack by hostile forces upon the Twin Towers.

    Obama looked at the intelligence agencies when he took up the presidency and told them they had better get their acts together.

    Too much easy credit lead to the recent financial bust. I believe that all the facts are not in yet but it seems clear that too many people were being encouraged to live beyond their means. In Australia the same story. I have a debit card and not a credit card. I still don't trust myself or the average person with a credit card. home loans I believe are still a dodgy business both in the USA and in other countries. I am not certain the banks have learned anything or that there is enough legalities now in place to stop a future bust from happening.   

    Americans in general should be encouraged to travel more. I have been to the USA and would love to go back but for a longer visit. There is a lot to be discovered about the USA that isn't covered in books or web sites or film. On the other hand I believe that it is true that a traveling American will make discoveries about the world unique to his or her own perspective and may take take with them a better understanding of other nations and other cultures.

    American democracy and law have taken a hit in recent years but Obama has taken steps to improve matters. How successful Obama can be is a question I cannot at present answer.

  20. ledefensetech profile image68
    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    How many attacks have we had that almost succeeded in the year Obama has been in office?  Sorry, but while I disagree with how our government handled the War on Terror, I do not disagree with the idea that American's have the right to defend themselves or avenge their countrymen in case of attack.  You and yours wouldn't stand for it either.

    Obama is a rank amateur who has replaced vigilance with political ideology.  For that alone, I think, he will be vilified by history.  Given the way NK and Iran are disseminating nuclear data and capability around the world, I'd say there might be something more to the "Axis of Evil" than you believe. 

    I hate reality TV too, but I find that I'm hooked on Ice Road Truckers.  Those guys are nuts.

    1. Rod Marsden profile image67
      Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that Americans should defend themselves against attack. The question is how best to go about doing it. Vigilance has always been and remains the best way of going forward. Vigilance means having the right people in the right places to infiltrate a potential enemy. Vigilance means intelligence that can be used to take down an aggressor before they have a chance to get their act together. I am not here suggesting preemptive strike at least in terms of declaring war.  The thing is that war is a blunt instrument and what is often called for today is something with more surgical precision. Get the bad guys but try not to get too many innocent people while you are at it.

      No. the Axis of Evil was a label that inflamed an already bad situation. The countries named were not good countries. North Korea, for example, has a rotten government. In face North Korea does pose a nuclear threat to the south pacific region of the world in particular. Pointing the finger at them and saying they are evil doesn't help much. Japan's notion before the Axis of Evil business was to bump up trade in order to lessen the threat of hostile action. I have a few bones to pick with Japan when it comes to whaling but I think diplomacy has got to be tried and, again,  I say we need people doing intelligence work at these hot spots to let us know way in advance of hostile moves that the hostile moves are coming.

      The best possible defense the USA  and other countries associated with the USA can have in these times is the very best intelligence. Faulty intelligence can be blamed for 9/11 and two really bad wars so far. And the intelligence on the ground when it comes to the early months of the Iraq war was not the best. Not knowing enough so you can't make good plans can cost lives.

  21. ledefensetech profile image68
    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    I agree with you Rod and we would do that, in the absence of politics.  It was politics and the need to justify military spending that caused us to act the way we did in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It would have been much less destructive and costly to send SF into Afghanistan, gather intel on bin Laden and execute a snatch and grab once we found him. 

    But acting like that wouldn't justify all the money we spend on the military each year and wouldn't allow our politicians time to act like the reincarnation of Caesar for domestic consumption.  You might be surprised that I am a huge advocate for shutting down all of our bases around the world and bringing our boys and girls home.  That would be a great first step in protecting America.  After all, people resent meddlers and our government meddles around the world in our name.  It's time to put a stop to that.

    1. Rod Marsden profile image67
      Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I am glad you agree with me. I am not against the USA going to war if that is the only solution. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler so foolishly declared war of the USA there was no choice in the matter.

      Even so, many of the more successful battles in both the South-East Asian region and in Europe were well planned. Overlord is a good example. There was good intel and even a way of tricking the enemy so they thought the landings would take place further up north. The German tanks that could have been at Normandy were elsewhere waiting for a landing that wouldn't happen. The French underground helped which meant there were people in hostile territory feeding good information to the allies. Sure, Overlord wasn't perfect as operations go but it was well coordinated and it was successful.

      A snatch and grab on bin laden before the heavy fighting began would have been ideal.  It would have saved lives.

  22. ledefensetech profile image68
    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    Actually Harvey, I think what I term the "silent majority" spoke up for the first time in over a century.

  23. qwark profile image60
    qwarkposted 14 years ago

    I was born and raised American! I love the USA!
    Pls tell me what nation ever existed that has accomplished what we have in a little over 200 yrs. NONE!
    Nations have existed for many millenia. Not one of them has achieved, in those thousands of years, what we have!
    They've had the same opportunities but they didn't have the "will" or the "smarts" to pull themselves out of conditions of deprivation, poverty and abuse by their governing bodies and the church!
    We are an "infant" nation making mistakes but enjoying the kind of freedom never experienced before by any nation in the history of "modern man."
    We may fail. If we do, I can say that I once lived as a free man in the most wonderful nation ever conceived by man!
    Until that time, I am a proud American who feels he is blessed to have been born in the United States of America!
    Long may "SHE" live!

    1. profile image61
      logic,commonsenseposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Amen!

      1. qwark profile image60
        qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        Logic:
        TY!!!

  24. Ralph Deeds profile image66
    Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/1942506_f520.jpg

  25. wsp2469 profile image61
    wsp2469posted 14 years ago

    By the way, those who don't LIVE in America should be disqualified as their opinions are all based on (AT BEST) second-hand information.
    Face it, the only reason these non-residents can talk sh*t about AMERICA is because in AMERICA we allow it.

    1. Rod Marsden profile image67
      Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      American policy and therefore America affects the rest of the world.  this is a fact. Therefore a lot of countries have a stake in America's future. Isolationism has been tried at least twice in the 20th Century. Americans could have another shot at isolationism here in the 21st Century but I don't think it would work.

      The freedom of speech bit is good. The USA should remain a democracy. I think the USA would and does work better that way.

      Second hand information? Not really. Australians read American newspapers and magazines. We watch American news programs on television as well as news from Britain, France and Germany.  We correspond with Americans and some of us have even visited the USA. Maybe we come at the problems and the good things about the USA at a different angle from people born and bred in the USA but I don't believe that thisa makes our views and opinions any less valid.

      Australian soldiers bled with you Americans during WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, and currently in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that should count for something. When you go to war we tend to go with you.
      We will continue to fight along side you but we will also raise questions about Iraq and Afghanistan as you yourselves should. We want your men and our men to win in a fight. We also want things well thought out before the fight even begins. If this doesn't make sense to you it does to me and to a lot of people. We are your allies and we will stand tall with you but we do have our own collective voice to share with you.

    2. hot dorkage profile image76
      hot dorkageposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Baloney.  The population who live here probably know less about what's going on around them than well-informed folks in other countries, and also have more biased view, thanks to news disservices such as Fox "news"

      1. wsp2469 profile image61
        wsp2469posted 14 years agoin reply to this

        Well, when a survey is done to show that we know less from first-hand experience than anyone who has at best second-hand information and experiences let me know.
        Other countries have uninformed and biased people, too.  Fox is not the only source of news in America.  We have more sources than A LOT of countries. Hp is based in America and we allow even non-residents to talk sh*t about our country even though they certainly could not do it to the same extent in their own countries.

        1. rhamson profile image72
          rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          The funny thing about the Fox phenomena is that it feeds into fear and anger.  Two of the most passionate emotions of the human psyche.  The problem lies with the solutions that Fox offers in its' analysis showing if not outright support of the rebublican party no answer but critisism.

          They only serve to stir up the pot and little else.  Just spend an hour with the clowns on Fox and Friends to see.

          http://videos.mediaite.com/video/Jon-St … r-Fox-Frie

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
            Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XbGePdZTL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

            http://lastpostofsanity.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/sean_hannity_fox_news_pancakes.jpg

            http://static.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2009/08/glenn-beck_13d99.jpg

            http://crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2009/08/BeckCrying_1f6ab.jpg

  26. Ralph Deeds profile image66
    Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago

    Paul Krugman explains it pretty well here--We have the "Polish disease."



    A brief history lesson: In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Polish legislature, the Sejm, operated on the unanimity principle: any member could nullify legislation by shouting “I do not allow!” This made the nation largely ungovernable, and neighboring regimes began hacking off pieces of its territory. By 1795 Poland had disappeared, not to re-emerge for more than a century.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/opini … ef=opinion

    1. Rod Marsden profile image67
      Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      On the other hand the expression going off half cocked is American and then there is look before you leap which has European origins.

      Okay a decision to go to war is made. Fine. What intel is it based on and have we got good intel coming in? The idea is to wrap up a war ASAP and not have prolonged hostilities that are in no one's best interests except maybe the enemy.

  27. cluense profile image73
    cluenseposted 14 years ago

    Taking too much for granted, too much government, and not enough Americans involved in the process of Democracy! That is just for starters! smile

  28. hot dorkage profile image76
    hot dorkageposted 14 years ago

    Idiocracy.  It's happening now.  The premise of that movie was good but as the average IQ of the citizenry went down the tube so did the movie.  Average Joes were good enough for elected office in this country when the average citizen understood what was happening around him.  Now that the average is so low we need someone above average.  Oh wait, no, anyone above average is an inaccessible aloof intellectual snob.

  29. wsp2469 profile image61
    wsp2469posted 14 years ago

    I have heard this for years but I won't accept that everyone in America turns to Fox for their news.  Additionally, having worked as a journalist I know for a fact there are some stories that you really can't twist and turn all that much anyway.  People who don't like one news program can turn to another one in America anyway.  There are SOME countries that don't have all the choices we have.

  30. pct52 profile image60
    pct52posted 14 years ago

    The blog follow may shed some light as to what may have went wrong:

    http://imagine-return-pre-revolutionary … gspot.com/


    And this one offers clue as to how to survive it:

    http://safe-bridge-over-trouble-waters.blogspot.com/

    Enjoy!

  31. wsp2469 profile image61
    wsp2469posted 14 years ago

    Again, there is nothing like first-hand experience which you can only get by LIVING here . . . whether it be as a long-term legal resident or as a citizen.  It's just like a job.  The guy with the most experience is considered above the rest.  That's all I have to say about that.

  32. pct52 profile image60
    pct52posted 14 years ago

    Not true that the one with most experience is safest anymore. There is a belief in corporations that these experienced staffs are targets for elimination, so that favored ones, politically, socially can be promoted. After all the experienced ones are the most dangerous in challenging the authorities, like the intellectuals.

    They prefer new comers that have no memories of the place, thus less problems, and they are easier to control. With the cheap labor philosphy, it is even more pronounced. New comers are single, less paid, without family, less in health care benefits too!

    1. wsp2469 profile image61
      wsp2469posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry.
      I just KNEW someone was going to take my generalized comparative example and go off on a tangent.  Allow me to get us back on track.
      All I am saying is that at one point in time, in a world that was fair, the person with the most experience would be given the most consideration for a job.
      JUST AS AMERICANS or LEGAL RESIDENTS of America should be given the most consideration when it comes to discussing America.  OTHERS need not apply--if you get my point.

      1. Sab Oh profile image57
        Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        The world was never fair, and it never will be.

        1. wsp2469 profile image61
          wsp2469posted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Ok but my original point was missed because someone commented on my example . . . just as you now commented on something other than my point.
          lol

      2. profile image0
        china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        This is one thing wrong with America - you don't like people offering any outside point of view - this leads to cultural paranoia on the one hand and makes Americans disliked outside America. A visiting American Professor here was shocked to find how almost every other nationality that he met while on his travels were clearly anti-American to some greater or lesser extent and he was already planning a series of talks about it when he got back.

        But as you so clearly ask - I am not American so I will otherwise keep out of this thread.

        1. wsp2469 profile image61
          wsp2469posted 14 years agoin reply to this

          I have traveled to other countries.  I didn't go looking for trouble and did not receive a negative reception.  Maybe it's perceptions that are the true cause of the results in your example OR maybe people in other countries have more recently taken negative attitudes OR maybe he just ran into bad examples of people from other countries.
          I used the English language in my first post.  I stand by what I said.  I did NOT ask anyone to analyze it or misinterpret it.  It's a simple concept:  people who LIVE in a country have more experience when it comes to what goes on in that country.  Please do not put words in my mouth.
          I hate when forums drag on and on so I always try to cut out the crap.  Saying that people who know little or less about America let alone its problems is simply my way of cutting through the crap.  I've never been to China, for example, so I would certainly limit my opinion to what little I know about it at present.  In fact, I probably would not say anything at all.

          1. profile image0
            china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I don't think I did that, I think I commented on the consequences of what you say.

            And you are obviously right - you will know more about what is happening in your own country - but as America is so actively pursuing its interests 'out here' the contributors to this thread may like to be aware of the response that it gets 'out here'.

            1. wsp2469 profile image61
              wsp2469posted 14 years agoin reply to this

              okay, perhaps you didn't.  On the other hand, I can't be held responsible for people reading too much into my simple statement either.
              I walk around different places in this country and I look at places of worship and I look at the people and I look at advertising and I look at businesses and I look at where products are made every day.  It looks to me that there isn't one country out there NOT actively pursuing their own interests . . . right HERE in MY country.
              I'm not sure there are any countries anymore that are political/cultural/financial islands any more. 
              Nevertheless, thank you for clarifying.

  33. Ralph Deeds profile image66
    Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago

    Here's one thing that's wrong with America--

    How Wall Street Protects Wall Street

       
    Published: February 12, 2010

    To the Editor:
    Skip to next paragraph
    Enlarge This Image
    Harry Campbell

    “Irked, Wall St. Hedges Its Bet on Democrats” (front page, Feb. 8) amazed me as much as anything I’ve read in years.

    Three times over the last two decades, American bankers have messed up, requiring government (read taxpayer) bailouts. After the most recent bailout, they take the money, give themselves bonuses and speculate some more. They give very little money to promote jobs or stimulate the economy.

    Yet now the bankers are unhappy because the president is looking to institute safeguards in banking that would protect the American economy.

    The bankers now threaten not to give donations to Democratic candidates to show their displeasure. Instead, they will give more to Republican candidates.

    Let’s see now. Warren Buffett compared derivatives to weapons of mass destruction; Jeffrey R. Immelt says his generation of business leaders is mean and greedy; Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, says the ATM machine is the most productive innovation the financial community has come up with in the last 20 years.

    Fred Rotondaro
    Washington, Feb. 8, 2010

    The writer is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.



    To the Editor:

    You quote a top official at a Wall Street firm, who chooses to remain anonymous out of fear of alienating the White House, as saying, “The expectation in Washington is that ‘We can kick you around, and you are still going to give us money.’ ” Then the official adds, “We are not going to play that game anymore.”

    Have I missed something? I thought it was the other way around, that Wall Street, aided by the big banks, had kicked the taxpayers around and then expected to be bailed out, and was.

    Without the slightest shame, these perpetrators now cast themselves as victims of those taxpayers. They threaten to cease supporting those who would dare to reinstate some of the regulations that were in place in an earlier, more stable time.

    What is the message that Wall Street and the banks are sending to the country? This takes their actions to a new level and should be a call to action for those of us who might still have some faith in our government’s ability to heed the voices of the people.

    Lelde B. Gilman
    Portland, Ore., Feb. 8, 2010



    To the Editor:

    Your article about Wall Street’s donations succinctly describes what a travesty our so-called democracy has become, how utterly corrupt and undemocratic it is.

    When politicians depend on nothing but money, the people do not matter at all. And that is where we are at as a nation as we begin 2010.

    Carl Landa
    Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
    Feb. 11, 2010

    To the Editor:

    It really is sad to see how hard it is for some people to maintain their political values when their six-or-seven-figure bonuses on top of their six-or-seven-figure salaries are threatened.

    We always hear how Wall Street drives our economy and how important it is for all of us. Well, maybe so, but perhaps things could be better for everyone if people (especially our young) saw the financial world more as a means to an end and less as an end itself.

    Robert Tota
    Fairfield, Conn., Feb. 8, 2010

    THE LETTER BELOW BY ROSS LEVINE NAILS THE GOLDMAN-AIG ISSUE, IN MY OPINION--GOLDMAN FAILED TO ASSESS THE RISK OF AIG'S INABILITY TO MAKE GOOD ON ITS INSURANCE CONTRACTS AND SHOULD HAVE HAD TO EAT THE LOSS RATHER THAN USING ITS INFLUENCE WITH THE BUSH SECRETARY OF TREASURY TO TAP AMERICAN TAXPAYERS.

    To the Editor:

    Re “Testy Conflict With Goldman Helped Push A.I.G. to Precipice” (front page, Feb. 7):

    Goldman Sachs argues that it did nothing wrong in betting that the mortgage market would crash by purchasing insurance against losses on collateralized debt obligations (holdings backed by mortgages) from A.I.G. while simultaneously packaging and selling mortgage-related securities to other financial institutions. Goldman says that the sophisticated money managers that run these other institutions have the capabilities to conduct their own due assessment of mortgage-related securities: they messed up, not Goldman.

    Yet, Goldman argues that it has a right to receive payouts from A.I.G. even though A.I.G. failed. The implication is that Goldman did not have the capabilities to assess the viability of A.I.G. and now deserves to be paid by A.I.G.’s new owners, the taxpayers: taxpayers messed up, not Goldman.

    While Goldman Sachs can ask the government for this money, the real issue is, Why is the government giving it to Goldman?

    Ross Levine
    Providence, R.I., Feb. 7, 2010



    To the Editor:

    “Goldman Chief’s $9 Million Bonus Seen by Some as Show of Restraint” (Business Day, Feb. 6).

    How marvelous Wall Street is when a bonus that exceeds what many Americans will make in their entire life is considered “restraint.”

    Jeff Sovern
    Jamaica, Queens, Feb. 11, 2010

    The writer is a professor at St. John’s University School of Law.

  34. IntimatEvolution profile image68
    IntimatEvolutionposted 14 years ago

    Our congress is so corrupt, and our Supreme Court is a joke.  Especially the Supreme court, they are all about their political parties now, instead of being for the Constitution and for the people.  Sad really.

    1. Sab Oh profile image57
      Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The Supreme Court is NOW a joke because of a recent decision you don't like?

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image68
        IntimatEvolutionposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        Um......,  not a recent discussion.  Rather, a very well studious, gathered opinion.  Spreading across many decades.  Good enough?

        1. Sab Oh profile image57
          Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Great, what 10 decisions led you to this extreme view of our highest court and what is your reasoning for each one that is contrary to the expert legal opinion of the majority in each case? It would also help if you could somehow prove that these decisions were based on party politics and not the considered legal opinions of the justices. Then, if there aren't during that same time frame a number of cases that suggest the contrary I will consider your comments more than just ill-considered partisan frustration.

  35. Ralph Deeds profile image66
    Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago

    The Supreme Court may or may not be a joke, but there is a growing consensus that its recent decsion opening the floodgate for political spending by corporations and unions is likely to have very bad consequences as well as having reversed a number of solid precedents.

    1. IntimatEvolution profile image68
      IntimatEvolutionposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Ralph, I do whole heartily agree.

      My faith in the Supreme court started to wane, about 20 years ago.  However that grew increasingly with the Patriot Act 2001, and the Faith based initiatives of 2007.  The Supreme court failed follow the doctrine of the US constitution to its very core.

      How they can justify letting congress take our very basic right of freedom, in the name of "fear" is a very serious ordeal. 

      Sab Oh, I have nothing to prove to you.  Nor, will I justify your lack of common curiosity, to get in my way of posting in these forums.  I could careless whether you think I'm a dip-shit or not.  I've proven myself on these forums, long before you ever graced us with your presence.  lol

      1. Sab Oh profile image57
        Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        Just as I expected

        1. IntimatEvolution profile image68
          IntimatEvolutionposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          TKS, oh boy?  Oh God, not you again.  Here we go.....

          Sparky's back.

          1. Sab Oh profile image57
            Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Ok, whatever that is supposed to mean

          2. Sufidreamer profile image78
            Sufidreamerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Hi, IE - how is life treating you?

            Yup, the very same.

            I just continue to ignore it, like a lingering fart that won't go away smile

            1. IntimatEvolution profile image68
              IntimatEvolutionposted 14 years agoin reply to this

              Isn't funny how that works?  Hi big guy!!!  Tell me of Greece.

              1. Sufidreamer profile image78
                Sufidreamerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Just fine, thanks - the weather is still cold and wet, but the spring will soon be here. That is my favourite time of year smile

    2. Sab Oh profile image57
      Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      "there is a growing consensus"


      A consensus growing among whom?

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
        Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        Among Democrats, Republicans, newspaper editors and political commentators and others who care about the responsiveness of our political system to the needs of American citizens. I would be surprised if there is not bi-partisan support for legislation designed to limit or roll back the undermining effect of the decision on the public's confidence in the electoral process and in our government.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/po … cotus.html

        The Court’s Blow to Democracy

           Published: January 21, 2010

        With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.
           
        Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.

        As a result of Thursday’s ruling, corporations have been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We’ll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.

        The ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission radically reverses well-established law and erodes a wall that has stood for a century between corporations and electoral politics. (The ruling also frees up labor unions to spend, though they have far less money at their disposal.)

        The founders of this nation warned about the dangers of corporate influence. The Constitution they wrote mentions many things and assigns them rights and protections — the people, militias, the press, religions. But it does not mention corporations.

        In 1907, as corporations reached new heights of wealth and power, Congress made its views of the relationship between corporations and campaigning clear: It banned them from contributing to candidates. At midcentury, it enacted the broader ban on spending that was repeatedly reaffirmed over the decades until it was struck down on Thursday.

        This issue should never have been before the court. The justices overreached and seized on a case involving a narrower, technical question involving the broadcast of a movie that attacked Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 campaign. The court elevated that case to a forum for striking down the entire ban on corporate spending and then rushed the process of hearing the case at breakneck speed. It gave lawyers a month to prepare briefs on an issue of enormous complexity, and it scheduled arguments during its vacation.

        Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., no doubt aware of how sharply these actions clash with his confirmation-time vow to be judicially modest and simply “call balls and strikes,” wrote a separate opinion trying to excuse the shameless judicial overreaching.

        The majority is deeply wrong on the law. Most wrongheaded of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights. It is an odd claim since companies are creations of the state that exist to make money. They are given special privileges, including different tax rates, to do just that. It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate.

        The majority also makes the nonsensical claim that, unlike campaign contributions, which are still prohibited, independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” If Wall Street bankers told members of Congress that they would spend millions of dollars to defeat anyone who opposed their bailout, and then did so, it would certainly look corrupt.

        After the court heard the case, Senator John McCain told reporters that he was troubled by the “extreme naïveté” some of the justices showed about the role of special-interest money in Congressional lawmaking.

        In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens warned that the ruling not only threatens democracy but “will, I fear, do damage to this institution.” History is, indeed, likely to look harshly not only on the decision but the court that delivered it. The Citizens United ruling is likely to be viewed as a shameful bookend to Bush v. Gore. With one 5-to-4 decision, the court’s conservative majority stopped valid votes from being counted to ensure the election of a conservative president. Now a similar conservative majority has distorted the political system to ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous advantage in future elections.

        Congress and members of the public who care about fair elections and clean government need to mobilize right away, a cause President Obama has said he would join. Congress should repair the presidential public finance system and create another one for Congressional elections to help ordinary Americans contribute to campaigns. It should also enact a law requiring publicly traded corporations to get the approval of their shareholders before spending on political campaigns.

        These would be important steps, but they would not be enough. The real solution lies in getting the court’s ruling overturned. The four dissenters made an eloquent case for why the decision was wrong on the law and dangerous. With one more vote, they could rescue democracy.

        1. Sab Oh profile image57
          Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Seems to me the 'consensus' exists largely toward one particular end of the political spectrum.


          I kind of like free speech

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
            Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            "I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions." Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

            "This decision allows Wall Street to tap its vast corporate profits to drown out the voice of the public in our democracy." - Bob Edgar, president of government watchdog group Common Cause

            "The decision will unleash unprecedented amounts of corporate "influence-seeking" money on our elections and create unprecedented opportunities for corporate `influence-buying' corruption." - Fred Wertheimer, president of watchdog group Democracy 21.

            "Today's decision so imperils our democratic well-being, and so severely distorts the rightful purpose of the First Amendment, that a constitutional corrective is demanded." - Robert Weissman, president of consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.

            ---

            "It is clear that the Court's opinion will allow a tidal wave of money to potentially cripple an already swamped and warped political system." - Ellen Miller, executive director and co-founder of the open-government group the Sunlight Foundation.

            Reckless Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance: Special interests win, we lose
            By Star-Ledger Editorial Board/The Star-Led...
            January 22, 2010, 5:45AM
            95697244CS007_SUPREME_COURT.JPGChip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesTourists prepare to enter the U.S. Supreme Court building Jan. 21, 2010. In a landmark 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations, labor unions and other organizations in candidate elections.

            The conservative majority of the Supreme Court just made a mockery of its claim to judicial restraint, overturning decades of law and legal precedent with a decision that will inevitably corrupt our democracy.

            More than a century ago, President Teddy Roosevelt saw what today’s court is blind to — that unleashing corporations to drench our political campaigns in special interest money will drown out the voice of regular citizens.

            Roosevelt banned corporate political spending by signing the Tillman Act in 1907. Four decades later, Congress extended the same ban to unions. Supreme courts have affirmed these limits as legitimate several times since.

            But Thursday, in a 5-4 decision, this supposedly conservative court swept all that away. So now, instead of soliciting their employees or members for voluntary donations to political action committees, unions and corporations can tap their general funds for political causes, allowing them to spend much more.

            In a day when special interests already hold our democracy by the throat, the court has helped them tighten their grip.

            And it could get worse. Sen. Bill Baroni, a Republican attorney and the state Legislature’s leading expert on campaign finance, warns that this decision opens the door to challenges against New Jersey’s pay-to-play laws, and its ban on political spending by casinos, banks, insurers, and utilities.

            Baroni called for a bipartisan commission to strengthen our laws in light of yesterday’s “profoundly destabilizing” decision. That should be done without delay.

            On the national level, Thursday’s decision put a final spike through the heart of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Aside from opening the floodgates to this special interest money, it struck down provisions that limited spending during the final days of a campaign.

            The majority based its decision on an extreme notion of free speech rights. And that makes you wonder what’s next.

            Are limits on direct donations to candidates an infringement on free speech as well? Should corporate and union bosses be permitted to deliver suitcases full of cash to their favorite politicians? Is that free speech, too?

            Previous courts ruled that limits are justified to protect the public against corruption, or the appearance of corruption. But this court seems oblivious to that threat.

            In this decision, the court equated corporations and unions with individuals. But are they really the same? What if members of a union, or shareholders of a company, disagree with the political cause that’s being pushed? Political action committees use only voluntary donations, as do private advocacy groups on the right and the left. Those groups only amplify the voice of individuals by binding them together.

            This case began with a question regarding financing for an independently financed movie attacking Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign. The majority’s decision to pivot from that narrow issue to a broad assault on campaign finance laws was a stretch that demolishes their claim to judicial restraint.

            As Justice John Paul Stevens put it in his dissent: “Five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.”

            The hypocrisy here is striking. And the impact of this ruling is frightening.

            1. Sab Oh profile image57
              Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

              Of course McCain is gonna be against it - he hardly represents a consensus of Republicans.


              Regarding corporations similarly to individuals is nothing new, and I don't find support of free speech to be 'radical'

              And let us not forget that Congress' hands are not tied in drafting legislation to mitigate any particularly negative consequences that may be of concern

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
                Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                I didn't say that there was a consensus in the GOP, which is the minority party. However, McCain isn't the only Republican who has reservations about the decision. As I said, there is a broad consensus that the Supreme Court's decision was a serious mistake. I have to leave now, but I'll be back.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image66
            Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            What does that mean? Everybody likes free speech. But that doesn't include "Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater." Free campaign "speech" [i.e., money] for corporations heretofore has been limited by law and court precedent in the interest of fair elections.

            1. Sab Oh profile image57
              Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

              I don't consider that equivalent to yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater, and that may just have to be where we disagree

              1. Obscurely Diverse profile image59
                Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Hey there, Sab!  Just wondering, since I've notice you have a fetish for debates on other hubs that I haven't took part in:  You're just here for the forums and discussions, right?  Even if this is the case, some of us still look forward to you creating your own 'hubs with words' so that maybe we can comment upon your works, perhaps...

                @Ralph - Hey, I've actually been agreeing with you of late.  What's up with that?  Ha-ha!  Just teasing...

  36. Will Apse profile image88
    Will Apseposted 14 years ago

    Government is so weak in the US (it was designed to be that way from the beginning) that democratic voices will always be secondary to commercial interests. And, of course. the established commercial players will always have the opertunity to stifle commercial rivals (e.g. don't expect any sustainable energy giants soon).

    Why anyone votes in the US at all is a mystery. Presidents are unable to deliver on election promises if any major interest groups object. The whole business of government is a negotiation of economic interests.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      You have a point, but I don't think it's quite as bad as you say.

  37. earnestshub profile image79
    earnestshubposted 14 years ago

    I will read back to see how long this thread has been civil with a pretty even handed effort to produce a useful discussion.

    It is too rare in threads on political issues.

    1. famous plumber profile image61
      famous plumberposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Earnest,

      Why do you assume this is a political thread. I look at it as cultural.

      Thanks for being involved.

      Famous Plumber

      1. Obscurely Diverse profile image59
        Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        You made a good point, famous plumber (such a filthy occupation, by the way - ha-ha!), as this is definitely a cultural debate.  I hate politics for mulitple reasons, as it is more or less a cesspool of misaligned power.

      2. earnestshub profile image79
        earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        Yep I did not read enough sub directories, smile Does the question apply anyway? lol

        1. Obscurely Diverse profile image59
          Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Not only is it still an applicable query, I think it is a free-4-all for aimless directions of commentary.  Dive on in...

  38. mr. daydream profile image60
    mr. daydreamposted 14 years ago

    Haters been breathing too many artificial perservatives in the air. And the Asian Carp have infected the Great Lakes and are driving the entire mid-west mad! (LOL)


      DAYDREAM, BABY!

  39. profile image61
    logic,commonsenseposted 14 years ago

    There's  not enough server space on the Internet to explain how badly the idiots in Washington have screwed up this country.

  40. profile image0
    Denno66posted 14 years ago

    The natives of Turtle Island handled this piece of soil well enough. Perhaps, it's time to consult them seriously this time? Just a thought.

  41. Ralph Deeds profile image66
    Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago

    What's wrong and what can be done by Lawrence Lessig:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8WwpC5E … r_embedded

  42. ledefensetech profile image68
    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    Totally progressive, but he is right about one thing.  The Obama Presidency has not been as advertised.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Here are a few of Obama's accomplishments to date. There would have been more but for the "Party of NO."

      1.. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending
      2. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices
      3. Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women
      4. Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq
      5. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB
      6. Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information
      7. Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier's family
      8. The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act
      9. Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible
      10. Limits on lobbyist's access to the White House
      11. Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration
      12. Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date
      13. Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren't even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan
      14. Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research
      15. Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research
      16. New federal funding for science and research labs
      17. States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards
      18. Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect
      19. Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools
      20. New funds for school construction
      21. The prison at Guantanamo Bay is being phased out
      22. US Auto industry rescue plan
      23. Housing rescue plan
      24. $789 billion economic stimulus plan
      25. The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying
      26. US financial and banking rescue plan
      27. The secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed
      28. Ended the previous policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with the Geneva Convention standards
      29. Better body armor is now being provided to our troops
      30. The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010
      31. Restarted the nuclear nonproliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols
      32. Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic
      33. Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions
      34. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office
      35. Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job
      36. US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast
      37. Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles
      38. Cash for clunkers program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulated auto sales
      39. Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government
      40. Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children
      41. Signed national service legislation; expanded national youth service program
      42. Instituted a new policy on Cuba, allowing Cuban families to return home to visit loved ones
      43. Ended the previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions
      44. Expanding vaccination programs
      45. Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters
      46. Closed offshore tax safe havens
      47. Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals
      48. Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back
      49.. Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry's predatory practices
      50. Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources
      51. Lower drug costs for seniors
      52. Ended the previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings
      53. Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel
      54. Improved housing for military personnel
      55. Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses
      56. Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals
      57. Increasing student loans
      58. Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program
      59. Sent envoys to Middle East and other parts of the world that had been neglected for years; reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy
      60. Established a new cyber security office
      61. Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force; this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.
      62. Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts
      63. Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness
      64. Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient
      65. Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced
      66. Improving benefits for veterans
      67. Many more press conferences and town halls and much more media access than previous administration
      68. Instituted a new focus on mortgage fraud
      69. The FDA is now regulating tobacco
      70. Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules
      71. Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports
      72. Authorized discussions with North Korea and private mission by Pres. Bill Clinton to secure the release of two Americans held in prisons
      73. Authorized discussions with Myanmar and mission by Sen. Jim Web to secure the release of an American held captive
      74. Making more loans available to small businesses
      75. Established independent commission to make recommendations on slowing the costs of Medicare
      76. Appointment of first Latina to the Supreme Court
      77. Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans
      78. Limited salaries of senior White House aides; cut to $100,000
      79. Renewed loan guarantees for Israel
      80. Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan
      81. Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan
      82. New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans
      83. Announced the long-term development of a national energy grid with renewable sources and cleaner, efficient energy production
      84. Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters
      85. Paid for redecoration of White House living quarters out of his own pocket
      86. Held first Seder in White House
      87. Attempting to reform the nation's healthcare system which is the most expensive in the world yet leaves almost 50 million without health insurance and millions more under insured
      88. Has put the ball in play for comprehensive immigration reform
      89. Has announced his intention to push for energy reform
      90. Has announced his intention to push for education reform

      Oh, and he built a swing set for the girls outside the Oval Office

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        I've listed Obama's accomplishments before, Ralph.  Good luck getting a response.  wink

      2. JON EWALL profile image61
        JON EWALLposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Ralph deeds reported a  list of 90 accomplishments by president Obama. The following response to Ralph and other  Hubbers  is:


        1... Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending

        Installed czars to check out agencies -  added to big government - formed a commission to bring down the deficit  when congress voted against forming another commission

        2. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices
        Leaving Washington  weekly campaigning for his agenda    cost to taxpayers  about $ 1 million per trip

        4. Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq
        What a joke   taking credit for previous administration

        7. Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB
        For Obama just another photo operation

        8. The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act
        Not according to some of the press and other taxpayer watch dogs

        9. Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible
        Another failed promise, -  c-span and behind closed door healthcare negotiations  transparency ?

        10. Limits on lobbyist's access to the White House
        He has 30 lobbyist in his administration including working directly with SEIU ( labor  unions)

        18. Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect

        Where are the jobs and ready to go projects ?  $ 787 billion stimulus now $ 826 billion,  only 33% spent, 9.7%unemployment up from 4.6% in bush years before  the dems took over congress in 2007.

        21. The prison at Guantanamo Bay is being phased out
        Really , another broken promise

        22. US Auto industry rescue plan
        Rescued union jobs and had government take over industry  at taxpayer expense $ billions

        38. Cash for clunkers program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulated auto sales
        Another fiasco  and taxpayer give away $ millions

        44. Expanding vaccination programs
        1.5 million doses of hini  not used costing $ millions to taxpayers

        57. Increasing student loans
        Just signed the student loan bill, now the government will run the industry. Loss of 33,000jobs in the banking sector.   The bill was stuffed in the healthcare bill with no review or debate as required for new legislation.

        62. Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts
        The press reported at least 2 no bid contracts by Obama supporters which were cancelled as soon as they were reported. Just recently Obama announced that there will be no no bid contracts. Really

        65. Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced
        If you are working for the government in Washington  Obama wants all those owing on loans , proposing that  the government  pay the loans off.

        81. Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan
        After thinking about his general’s request after 6 months, agreed to send 30,000 troops as of today he sent 10,000

        82. New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans
        Instructs our soldiers to read Miranda rights to detainees, if captured.

        87. Attempting to reform the nation's healthcare system which is the most expensive in the world yet leaves almost 50 million without health insurance
        He signed the bill on 3/23/10 after buying off many congressman for their votes. time will only tell if the legislation will be found unconstitutional.. Pay now and get services 4 years later, sounds like a PONZI scheme.

        88. Has put the ball in play for comprehensive immigration reform
        A few years ago the American people told congress that the borders must be secured before attempting any new legislation. The immigration  laws of 1986 need to be enforced first. The politicians always state ‘’ we are a nation of the rule of law ‘’ and now they want another law, what a joke.

        90. Has announced his intention to push for education reform
        Well he got his bill passed by the super majority democrat congress without review or a debate.

        90 accomplishments in15 months except for  the promises of fixing the economy, getting people back to work, reducing the deficit and ending the wars.

        Wake up America before it will be too late, congress approval rating is 12% and the presidents fell to 46%.
        Obama has done a great job of destroying the American way of life. The government controls 51% of the economy and many of his campaign promises have been broken or ignored.

        Change has come to Washington. and Washington corruption has been exposed to the American people. Obama tells the american people one thing and behind the scenes is doing something different, Smoke and mirrors, bait and switch, hocus pocus, getting his facts wrong and just one super salesman. Reminds me of a used car salesman. The truth will set you free if we ever get the truth..

        check it out  88PrettyPanther

  43. zzron profile image56
    zzronposted 13 years ago

    Common sense has gone out the window for most Americans. I dont make the news I just report it.

  44. jjmyles profile image64
    jjmylesposted 13 years ago

    People who are apathetic about their constitution are the real problem. They are willing to jump on any band wagon for any lying politicion that will tell them what they want to hear. How else could we have a president who has no qualifications for the job? His "handlers marketed an image that was what the people wanted. The voters ignored all the "red" flags and put him in office anyway. This was irresponsible on the part of those who did not do their homework to find out all they could about the candidates before voting.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)