Obama

[IndyHubby]

Wrong villans

Not just here, but everywhere I look, people blame the outgoing administration for the economic problems we are having. I believe that's because we listen to the press misrepresent the events as the make Bush the fallguy for everything negative.

The problems we are experiencing are the result of legislation that funds programs designed to consolidate power and buy votes. The house and Senate are the cause. It wasn't Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter etc. The blame rests directly on those legislators from both parties.

 

[mecca410]

How right you are!

Mid terms, Nancy Pelosi said she was going to bring change????? The only thing she changed, that I have seen, is when she first got the speaker’s seat she bitched about her plane not being big enough. She needed a 747 like Air Force 1. But she only got a wide body, when asked, she said she was too busy to have to stop mid flight and refuel????? Not much change or savings there?

It is all bought and paid for and nothing is going to change, and your right, even if Obama wanted to change it, he does not have the power too. It is the legislative branch that changes the laws.

About the right to bare arms, when it is proven to me that every criminal has had their guns taken away I will have mine. And I would not hesitate to go “living room hunting” in a minute if I found someone there after breaking in during the night!!!!! Don’t come into my house uninvited in the middle of the night and we will be cool!

 

[pmandt]

"show me one, just one accomplishment that he has to his credit."

It appears he just kicked some serious Republican ass.

 

[IndyHubby]

Actually the mainstream media

"show me one, just one accomplishment that he has to his credit."

It appears he just kicked some serious Republican ass.

Obama is in office because the media wanted him there. They promoted his positives and obscured his negatives.

Also, although there was a large disparity on the electoral college, the popular vote margins were not outside of historical norms. I am not minimizing the win. It was a solid win but not by a margin that could be accurately described as an ass kicking.

 

[Bore-Dom]

why not socialised medicine?if you are spiritual,you should care about others,less fortunate.

Socialized medicine will not help the less fortunate. In Canada, due to socialized medicine, it can weeks to get an MRI because you have to get referred to a specialist to get approved for it. With a lot of illnesses, having to wait 3 days is too long.

The reason why socialized medicine seems a good idea is because of the outrageous cost of health care. And do you know where that all stimmed from? GREED.

Doctor feels he should have 2 houses, 4 cars, and an awesome life because he spent so much time in medical school. So he sets a pretty high rate for his services. $70 to walk in and get your blood pressure, weight, and tempature taken is pure stupidity.

So, people have to have health insurance... which is expensive. Eventually, a doctor screws up. Here comes the malpractive lawsuit. Because the patients have been paying through the nose for even basic medical care, they really put the screws to the doctor will million dollar lawsuits.

To offset their losses, the malpractice insurance companies raise their premiums. To offset the loss of profit, the doctor raises his rates. To offset their loss of profits, the health insurance companies raise their rates.

Another doctor screws up, the patients feel even more screwed by the insanely high cost in medicine and a huge malpractice lawsuit hits... AGAIN. The cycle of greed continues. Greed of doctors, greed of insurance companies, and anger of patients. And notice who is double dripping: insurance companies.

Best way to fix America's health care problems is not giant bureaucracy controlling it. We have that in the welfare system, where for every $1 we put into it, 25 cents makes it to the recipients, including the ones cheating the system. In my opinion, it would be better to use laws and regulations to control the expense of medical care and leave the management of how people pay to them and the free market. Less government means more efficient use of the money AND people can get the health care they need quickly... and unlike in some countries with socialized medicine, die while waiting for a diagnosis as they go through the bureaucracy.

The right to bear arms is frightening,you live in one of the most violent countries in the world,where any nutter can get a gun.
The right to defend yourself? totally abused which leads to more violence.

Yes, so let's make firearms illegal and make it so the only people with firearms are the criminals. That's BRILLIANT. I currently don't own a firearm, but I'm glad I have the right to. If I actually lived in a more dangerous part of the United States, I would own one. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... and that includes the right to defend myself from criminals. And without the right to bear arms, I couldn't do that. They could walk into my home, point a gun at me, and how am I supposed to stop them from doing whatever they want?

Correct,the trickle down never works,you don't think the wealthy are gonna give up their wealth easily?

Doubtful. Because they still don't understand that more money isn't going to make them happier. Happiness comes from within and until they understand that more money isn't going to make them happy, they will continue pushing down the people.

You seem confused about where you stand,on the one hand you don't want socialised medicine,and you want to carry arms,very right wing,then you say that capitalism don't work and Sarah Palin has abused her power,very left wing?

And I didn't say capitalism didn't work: I said trickle down economics doesn't work. Big difference.

And Palin did abuse her authority. Her first act as mayor was to go to the library and give the librarian a list of books she wanted removed because Palin thought they were 'offensive'. The librarian said no and Palin attempted to have her fired. As governor, she made 34 DOCUMENTED phone calls trying to get her former brother-in-law fired from the Alaskan State Patrol. While she claims she was against 'The Bridge to Nowhere', she still took the money and hasn't returned it to the federal government. Instead, its sitting in a bank waiting to be used by the Alaskan state government. And I'm sure NO ONE is touching that money... right. Do some research and you'll find more on, Miss Palin. I'll agree she's smoking hot, but she's still a wannabe dictator.

I'm not confused. I just understand that I don't have to be either a Democrat or a Republican. I don't believe in party lines. I believe in forming my own opinion and working from there. I believe that while I'm very liberal in terms of economic theories and social justice, I'm conservative on other things. Its called freethinking and it more American's did it, we wouldn't have this shitty two party system we have now.

 

[Custer Laststand]

The points made in a concise way by Indy Hubby (above) have been elaborated at greater length by others. They seem worth addressing.

Not just here, but everywhere I look, people blame the outgoing administration for the economic problems we are having.

It's criticism well-earned and well-deserved. As head of the executive branch of the U.S. government, the president has almost unimaginable power. All federal employees who work for the federal agencies work, ultimately, for the president. In addition, he has the power of direct enforcement. The attorney general, who heads the federal dept. of justice, works for the president. The U.S. attorneys, who have immense power to indict people, bring them to trial, convict and imprison them — thus ruining them financially and in every other way — work for the attorney general, hence for the president. The head of the FBI, our federal police force, works for the attorney general, hence for the president. In addition, the president is commander-in-chief of *all* the armed services. Most Americans don't fully appreciate what that means, because we are protected from arbitrary abuse of presidential power by our constitution — or perhaps I should say, we used to be protected. The citizens of other countries have no such protection. Ask anyone from a country whose leader has been assassinated (usually indirectly) by the CIA, or whose civilian relatives have been killed or maimed by, for instance, a U.S. smart bomb or cruise missile (inadvertently and regrettably, we're told) in a war started at the discretion of our president. Our constitution gives congress, not the president, the power to declare war — but how long has it been since a president actually respected that constitutional requirement before initiating a war?

If the president doesn't like a law passed by our representatives in congress, he has the power to ignore it via the (basically unconstitutional, hence illegal) mechanism of the "signing statement." This is where, instead of signing a congressional action and implementing or enforcing it as required by our constitution, the president writes a statement saying he isn't going to enforce it because he doesn't like it for some reason or other. Then, he signs it and ignores it. W. Bush did this hundreds of times; other presidents used signing statements almost entirely for their intended purposes. (The intended purpose is to instruct the relevant federal agency re. how to implement or enforce a new law.) W. misused them in order to avoid and bypass the need for presidential vetoes, which can be politically awkward and, potentially, overridden by congress.

The house and Senate are the cause. It wasn't Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter etc. The blame rests directly on those legislators from both parties.

The president's power to appoint the people who head the federal regulatory agencies is highly relevant to our present financial and economic meltdown. W. Bush appointed political hacks who, in a number of key cases, were not only incompetent for those positions but were actually lobbyists for the industries they were supposed to be regulating on our behalf. The failure of the W. administration to actually enforce the laws intended to regulate the financial industry is directly related to the present disaster. It must also be noted that previously, when congress passed a law — as a result of endless heavy pressure and campaign contributions from the armies of lobbyists working for the financial corporations — rescinding the walls separating banks from investment corporations, Bill Clinton signed it. That was a first-rate opportunity for him to exercise his veto power, but he didn't do it.

I believe that's because we listen to the press misrepresenting events and making Bush the fall guy for everything negative.

Some finger pointing at "the media" is justified. Consider Al Gore being endlessly ridiculed for claiming he invented the Internet, which is something he never claimed. (He played a role in initiating DARPA funding of the research that led to development of the Internet.) Most fingerpointing at the press, though, is nothing more than propaganda from the flaks of whichever political party senses or knows it is losing during the leadup to, or aftermath of, a major election. Reporters, who burn shoe leather, talk to people and know what's going on at street level, tend to be relatively liberal. Their editors tend to be more conservative. The media owners, broadcasters and publishers tend to be very conservative — and they are the ones who determine what is broadcast or published as "news." The media owners are, in fact, full members of what John Perkins appropriately called (in his book, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man") "the corporatocracy."

Journalists and news anchors who pursue stories "the powers that be" don't want to see out in the open are usually fired and blacklisted; their careers are ruined. Dan Rather, formerly of CBS News, is probably the best-known recent example of this. See:

Borjesson, Kristina. 2002. Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists ****** the Myth of a Free Press. (Prometheus Books, 392 pp.)

—Custer

 

[mincercuck]

Socialized medicine will not help the less fortunate. In Canada, due to socialized medicine, it can weeks to get an MRI because you have to get referred to a specialist to get approved for it. With a lot of illnesses, having to wait 3 days is too long.

The reason why socialized medicine seems a good idea is because of the outrageous cost of health care. And do you know where that all stimmed from? GREED.

Doctor feels he should have 2 houses, 4 cars, and an awesome life because he spent so much time in medical school. So he sets a pretty high rate for his services. $70 to walk in and get your blood pressure, weight, and tempature taken is pure stupidity.

So, people have to have health insurance... which is expensive. Eventually, a doctor screws up. Here comes the malpractive lawsuit. Because the patients have been paying through the nose for even basic medical care, they really put the screws to the doctor will million dollar lawsuits.

To offset their losses, the malpractice insurance companies raise their premiums. To offset the loss of profit, the doctor raises his rates. To offset their loss of profits, the health insurance companies raise their rates.

Another doctor screws up, the patients feel even more screwed by the insanely high cost in medicine and a huge malpractice lawsuit hits... AGAIN. The cycle of greed continues. Greed of doctors, greed of insurance companies, and anger of patients. And notice who is double dripping: insurance companies.

Best way to fix America's health care problems is not giant bureaucracy controlling it. We have that in the welfare system, where for every $1 we put into it, 25 cents makes it to the recipients, including the ones cheating the system. In my opinion, it would be better to use laws and regulations to control the expense of medical care and leave the management of how people pay to them and the free market. Less government means more efficient use of the money AND people can get the health care they need quickly... and unlike in some countries with socialized medicine, die while waiting for a diagnosis as they go through the bureaucracy.


Yes, so let's make firearms illegal and make it so the only people with firearms are the criminals. That's BRILLIANT. I currently don't own a firearm, but I'm glad I have the right to. If I actually lived in a more dangerous part of the United States, I would own one. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... and that includes the right to defend myself from criminals. And without the right to bear arms, I couldn't do that. They could walk into my home, point a gun at me, and how am I supposed to stop them from doing whatever they want?


Doubtful. Because they still don't understand that more money isn't going to make them happier. Happiness comes from within and until they understand that more money isn't going to make them happy, they will continue pushing down the people.



And I didn't say capitalism didn't work: I said trickle down economics doesn't work. Big difference.

And Palin did abuse her authority. Her first act as mayor was to go to the library and give the librarian a list of books she wanted removed because Palin thought they were 'offensive'. The librarian said no and Palin attempted to have her fired. As governor, she made 34 DOCUMENTED phone calls trying to get her former brother-in-law fired from the Alaskan State Patrol. While she claims she was against 'The Bridge to Nowhere', she still took the money and hasn't returned it to the federal government. Instead, its sitting in a bank waiting to be used by the Alaskan state government. And I'm sure NO ONE is touching that money... right. Do some research and you'll find more on, Miss Palin. I'll agree she's smoking hot, but she's still a wannabe dictator.

I'm not confused. I just understand that I don't have to be either a Democrat or a Republican. I don't believe in party lines. I believe in forming my own opinion and working from there. I believe that while I'm very liberal in terms of economic theories and social justice, I'm conservative on other things. Its called freethinking and it more American's did it, we wouldn't have this shitty two party system we have now.

Here in the UK we set up the National health service after the war,because the people had NO money to pay for healthcare,the principle being that healthcare is not a priviledge ,but a right,and a healthy nation costs LESS actualy.
Yes the system is not perfect,especialy after the conservatives mess with it,but i would rather have 1 dime reach the poorest,than no dimes.
The free market as we have seen in recent times is unable to regulate itself and also unable to stop exploiting the very people they say they are helping.

THe more dangerous parts of the states are dangerous BECAUSE people have the right to carry arms,in a civilised society the law takes care of criminals,and criminals are jailed just for having a gun.
You say that the criminals are the only ones to have guns,what are the police there for?
Anyway you can kill a man with a lump of wood,and this is just the politics of fear.
You think that capitalism works? have you not been keeping up with the news,capitalism has all but colapsed!!
I'm not backing Palin at all,this is a woman that thinks Africa is a country,not a continent,she knows nothing outside of Alaska.
Does money make you happy? IN the words of Michael Cain "i've been poor,i've been rich and believe me rich is better.
Money probably doesn't make you happy,unless you are an African who doesn't have clean drinking water.
Anyone can be president,yes provided you have a zillion dollars,here in the UK ANYONE can be Prime Minister.
The greatest ever politician in the UK,Nye Bevin,was from a Welsh mining community,and he founded the welfare state
If you don't believe in party lines what do you believe in? party lines is all you have to keep a sort of democracy alive.
I find that America is afraid of anything other than the two party system,witness the way Mcain tried to imply that Obama was roughly to the far left of Trotsky,they realy need to get over their paranoia over socialism.
Here in the UK Obama would be considerd,RIGHT of centre
We laughed when we heard one of your multi millionare family members state that they didn't like Obama,because he might be redistributing the wealth by raising taxes for the rich.
I was sat in a room full of people who all shouted at the screen in unison "AND YOUR POINT BEING..............?" the point being,just how many millions does one person need?