Barack Who?

[Locke4God]

I'm ever more curious about the continued polarization of the country. It seems more and more people either love or hate our elected leaders with fewer and fewer people in the middle. I think it's good to be informed, and whereas a lot of people see those in the middle as being understanding of both sides, and open minded, those of us who have taken a stand see a significant number of those in the middle as being apathetic.

I tend to be conservative, but I really honestly think I give everybody their due. I was impressed with Obama, as clearly many were, from the onset, but as I do with any candidate, I really looked into him and considered his pluses and minuses as he began to run for higher office, and increasingly I couldn't shake the notion that few of his plans added up to successful outcomes. He seemed to be in the end, elected in a popularity contest, and I'm quite sure now that multiple polls on his individual policies and overall popularity, bare that out.

For some reason, those who like Obama, seem to think everybody likes him, when in fact much more than not, dissagree with him on his policies, not his character.

Please refer to the following links to see for yourself. I want to be informative, not predjudiced.

Right Direction or Wrong Track - Rasmussen Reports
Health Care Reform - Rasmussen Reports
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports
Obama Approval Index History - Rasmussen Reports
31% Agree With Decision To Halt Anti-Missile Shield, 38% Disagree - Rasmussen Reports
Opposition to Health Care Plan Hits New High of 56% - Rasmussen Reports
With Obama, Too Much Nuance, Not Enough Power - Rasmussen Reports


As you can see, there's a lot of hesitation about what's going on with this administration, and I have to say, it just feels odd.

Most Americans hold former President Reagan in extremely high regard, even amongst the very best American leaders we've ever had. He led a terrific resurgance in the economy by cutting both corporate and individual taxes across the board. He understood that American business needs to thrive in order for the economy to grow, and knew that fleecing corporations would not lead to growth. He nearly single handedly ended the cold war by taking a strong stance against Russia and Germany. He believed in taking tough stands because in the end dictators can not be reasoned with. In short we saw terrific domestic and worldwide expansion of freedom and economic prosperity, and in large part due to a commitment to decreasing the size of the federal government.

You would have to ask yourself HOW it would be then, that Obama could be successful doing exactly the opposite. It's a fact that Obama is raising and will continue to raise taxes on a number of levels, he is massively increasing spending, and he's taking a very passifist approach to our foreign policy. He continually speaks of our industries as cheating consumers, whereas I believe they are the lifeblood and backbone of the nation. And again his approach is very much the opposite of what Reagan did. I'm not argueing whether it's correct or not, I'm simply wondering how it would make since to do the opposite of what we know to have worked in the past. Can you name anything you are successful at where you would be just as successful doing it the opposite way? I'm struggling with that.

So far we see by poll numbers that people do not favor Obama's increased spending, they do not favor his healthcare plan, they do not favor full troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, they do not favor his limitation of the missile defense system that he had previously promised to continue in Eastern Europe.

One might also wonder that since it is clear that he knew about the second nuclear facility in Iran, why it is only now that he's proposing sanctions against them, when previously he wanted open and unconditional talks. One might question how it makes sense that he says on one hand that no illegal immigrants will be covered under his health plan, while following that statement up by saying that he'll grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants, thereby qualifying them to get said healthcare. One might wonder why he continues to push healthcare when not only does a clear majority (a majority larger than the one that elected him) dissfavors it, but also ranks his massively increasing debt as a much higher priority.

I'm particularly curious why he promoted the stimulus package as being such a necessity if 8 months later he's only spent 6% of it. Does he not strike you as a liar for telling you that we absolutely had to pass 787 Billion dollars worth of new spending or face economic ruin, and even now over 700 Billion of that has not been spent? What was so immediately necessary? Why didn't we pass a $100 Billion package and vote later on the additional $700 Billion? Would that not be more sensible? But we didn't, and the only conclusion you can draw is that his interest was increasing spending, and not simply financial rescue.

It just makes me wonder as a person who studied what his policies would bring about, why it is that a man whose policies the majority of the country dissagrees with, was ever elected in the first place, as it was pretty clear all of this would be coming

If as a citizenry, we had considered his policies in advance, as is our charge, it's becoming increasingly clear that the man would have stood no chance of winning, and I'm a bit dissapointed that we would go through the process of electing a man that it seemed clear to myself was going to fall into disfavor within his first year.

I'm not coming from a biased standpoint when I say this, but the man's policies simply never added up. You can't borrow your way out of debt, or spend your way out of recession. You can't play patty cakes with murderous dictators. And any economy is based on the strength of it's business. It makes little since that your businesses would grow, hire, or pay more, if you're continually increasing taxes and increasing their overhead costs by raising minimum wage in the middle of a recession.

The car industry for instance after the so-called greatness that was the cash for clunkers program is now projected to have record low sales from now to the end of the year. So you might ask yourself as a tax payer what good it did to spend 300 Billion dollars on the program. You might also ask yourself how much sense it made when you consider that economists project a high amount of repossession from people who couldn't afford the cars in the first place.

In fact that outcome is strikingly familiar. It was afterall the housing market which collapsed because our government forced banks to loan to people who couldn't afford homes via the Community Reinvestmenet Act, and yet here was Obama promoting the same policy now for the Auto Industry. That policy is make sure people can buy cars regardless of their ability to pay. And then they cover it up by blaming the bank executives for enforcing the very policy passed by congress. The real question is why did anybody support a policy that was a carbon copy of one we knew to be a dissaterous failure from just the previous year?

And lastly I had a comment on his equal pay act for women. You know, I am 100% for the equal pay of women, but lets think about this law. It states that a woman has an indefinate period of time (meaning she can sue 40 years from now) to sue her former employer if she proves she was paid less for doing the same job as a man working at the same time. But do people not make different salaries for a variety of reasons? How can we know she was equally skilled, or hired under similar economic conditions? How do we value her ability to negotiate salary, which is a factor in how much you make? How can we estimate a company's budet for a salaried employee from one year to the next, or her level of productivity? My point is that, while it is a great idea to try and encourage the concept of equal pay, there are dozens of reasons why any one person at a job might make more or less than another person. Do women make less on average? Yes they do, but on a case by case basis, there is almost no way to determine whether it was done out of some sort of predjudice, or by one or more of the reasons listed above. All this law will accomplish is increasing lawsuites and the financial burden on companies, which we desperately want to grow, not burden.

It's just simply my opinion that this President is so caught up in doing what is polically correct, what seems to be fair, or what seems to be popular, that he's outright neglecting to do what's right. And that's all I need him to do. Protect us from enemies, limit the Federal Government, decrease taxes to promote growth, and stop trying to be Mr. Fix it. We'll fix ourselves. Please just stop trying.

[Alpha]

I'm not argueing whether it's correct or not

You failed there on so many levels.

I don't have the time now to make a significant post, but I'll be back, so I apologise for this short post in the time being.

I'd like to say that Reagan was probably the worst president your country has ever had. Possibly worse than Bush Jr., though Reagan was more intelligent, which isn't actually saying much.

Reagan did not "almost win the Cold War". No one defeated the USSR except itself. Communism is state capitalism; it's doomed to failure. I'm a leftist and I agree with that.

Besides, the size of Government spending actually grew immensely during Reagan's years in office. Sure, he cut regulation big time, but that is a shit way to operate, in most of the world's opinion.

As for Obama, I agree with this:

It's just simply my opinion that this President is [...] doing what is polically correct, what seems to be fair, or what seems to be popular, that he's outright [doing] what's right. And that's all I need him to do. [Change our enemies into friends, increase] the Federal Government, decrease taxes [on the poor, while increasing them on the rich] to promote growth, and [keep succeeding as] Mr. Fix it. We'll fix ourselves [, with Obama's help]. Please [, keep progressing].

[Joe]

It amuses me that all of your links are from the same source. That, in my opinion, does NOT give you credibility. That certainly wouldn't have earned you any credibility in any class, so it won't earn you any credibility here. Alright, now to discuss various points that stuck out to me, since it's late, I'm bored, and feel like some rousing discussion.

You would have to ask yourself HOW it would be then, that Obama could be successful doing exactly the opposite. It's a fact that Obama is raising and will continue to raise taxes on a number of levels, he is massively increasing spending, and he's taking a very passifist approach to our foreign policy. He continually speaks of our industries as cheating consumers, whereas I believe they are the lifeblood and backbone of the nation. And again his approach is very much the opposite of what Reagan did. I'm not argueing whether it's correct or not, I'm simply wondering how it would make since to do the opposite of what we know to have worked in the past. Can you name anything you are successful at where you would be just as successful doing it the opposite way? I'm struggling with that

The economy, like government, seems to call for cycles of regulation and deregulation. Taxes need to be raised to generate revenue to pay for these programs, such as healthcare, road projects, public works, and other things. Road improvements, and public works construction have been creating jobs in the process, and improving our infrastructure drastically.

As far as foreign policy is concerned, are you proposing that we continue the failed Bush Doctrine of invading countries that we just don't like? Or are you referring to reinstating propaganda and building the shadow of fear and hatred of another culture? Is it really so bad to let others be? Just because Our way works for us does NOT mean that it works for everyone. When are we going to invade Saudi Arabia then, since after all, they don't truly have a democracy. Or does this policy only apply for Monarchies and Dictatorships that we decide we don't like, or want a stake in?

Currently, I am of the opinion that we are not in a truly capitalist economy as you would have us believe, not because of any government regulation, but because with such an uneven distribution of wealth among such a small number of people, there's no fair playing ground. The Government HAS to be involved to some extent to keep the large companies from having a monopoly on things. For instance, Microsoft recently lost a suit in the EU because it shipped all copies of it's operating system with it's web browser. This creates a massive amount of market share, and most consumers aren't aware of any other options. Because the average computer user simply doesn't know. Now that Microsoft isn't allowed to ship it's proprietary web browser with it's systems, it opens up the European Web Browser market to other companies.

I'll add more and clean up this section later, I think I've spent too long on it as it is.

If as a citizenry, we had considered his policies in advance, as is our charge, it's becoming increasingly clear that the man would have stood no chance of winning, and I'm a bit dissapointed that we would go through the process of electing a man that it seemed clear to myself was going to fall into disfavor within his first year.

I'm not coming from a biased standpoint when I say this, but the man's policies simply never added up. You can't borrow your way out of debt, or spend your way out of recession. You can't play patty cakes with murderous dictators. And any economy is based on the strength of it's business. It makes little since that your businesses would grow, hire, or pay more, if you're continually increasing taxes and increasing their overhead costs by raising minimum wage in the middle of a recessio

On the contrary. When I compared the policies of our current president, with those of Senator McCain, there was no choice there. The man got elected because we want something different. 8 years of record debt, failed wars, and a crashed economy do not make a good case for McCain. Add to that that his choice for Vice President is more than a few fries short of a happy meal (for crying out loud the woman QUIT during her term as Governor), and you really have a ticket of suck.

I'm of the opinion that the main reason Obama is held with disfavor is because of fearmongering among the opposition. Not to mention the constant politicizing of every, single, action. This makes it Very difficult to get things done. Economies take time and effort to recover, it doesn't happen over night. Heck, it took several years to spiral to the level it did, and that was under Former President Bush's jurisdiction. I really don't see how you can blame Obama for not having everything fixed overnight, nor do I understand laying the blame for our situation almost entirely on him.

Next, tell me exactly where we are borrowing our way out of debt. I'm not positive I follow. However you HAVE to spend your way out of a recession. Are you aware of what got us Out of the Great Depression? Part of it was FDR's New Deal, and part of it was World War 2, which demanded massive spending to fund, and gave money to a lot of people, which they were able to spend. The more you spend, the more money people have, and the more money they have to spend themselves.

Your comment about playing Pattycake with Murderous Dictators, are you referring to Iran? If so, surely you understand that a people can never truly value freedom until they've fought for it and won it themselves. After all, that's what Our revolution was for, freedom from Tyranny. Do you think you'd value your rights and freedoms if you didn't have to fight for them? Not to mention that any interference by us over there on behalf of the protestors (yes, they ARE still protesting for their rights) would make it that much harder, since it would appear that they were American backed. That situation is an internal matter within their nation and we half no right to interfere, plain and simple.

The minimum wage has needed raising for a long time. 7.25 an hour is the wage currently, in my state. People can't afford to hire others because people aren't buying their products. Businesses collect money from their patrons, and that money is then redistributed amongst staff and materials. When money doesn't flow in, money doesn't flow out. Not because of taxes, but because people are poor, and paying people a wage that even still, is barely survivable, isn't to blame either.

The car industry for instance after the so-called greatness that was the cash for clunkers program is now projected to have record low sales from now to the end of the year. So you might ask yourself as a tax payer what good it did to spend 300 Billion dollars on the program. You might also ask yourself how much sense it made when you consider that economists project a high amount of repossession from people who couldn't afford the cars in the first place.

The Cash for Clunkers program, if I remember correctly was to make it easier for people to trade in old, inefficient cars for newer, cleaner, more efficient models. I'm not going to disagree with you that people shouldn't buy things they can't afford, but you also have to remember that not everything can be planned for. It's natural for economists are projecting high rates of reposession, that's what happens when people Lose Their Jobs. When people get laid off, people can't pay bills, plain and simple.

It's just simply my opinion that this President is so caught up in doing what is polically correct, what seems to be fair, or what seems to be popular, that he's outright neglecting to do what's right. And that's all I need him to do. Protect us from enemies, limit the Federal Government, decrease taxes to promote growth, and stop trying to be Mr. Fix it. We'll fix ourselves. Please just stop trying.

Wait, you mean you are all for inequality in our nation? What happened to "all men are created equal"? I don't see how he's neglecting to do what's right, he's doing the best that can be done given the current circumstances, and increasing polarization of the populace. Not to mention that it can't be easy to do your job when you still have rather large groups of people screaming about his illegitamacy as President. We need Federal regulation to even the playing field so others can get in the game, we need to increase taxes to fund projects that are creating jobs, and we Need someone to try and do Something to dig us out of the craphole our last president played a rather large part in digging.

Again, I'll clean this up, and clarify things later, but it's getting late.

[Locke4God]

Rasmussen isn't a single source. Many others contribute to the results, and regardless it's a very reliable source, and unbiased.

The theory that taxing the rich more and the poor less will somehow lead to economic growth is false. When the rich get taxed higher that means businesses stop hiring and investments dip, which in turn means that the poor suffer greater losses than the $200 they saved in tax cuts.

The theory relies on the teeter-totter effect where the rich go down and the poor go up, but in reality everybody simply goes down.

And I'm frankly not interested in your views if you don't live in this country. I don't really care if the rest of the world thinks our system is good or not. You can keep your system the way it is, and I'm sure it works great for you, but here in America we do things the way we've always done, and we are without a doubt the greatest industrialized nation the world has ever seen.

In fact the whole reason every European nation is secure is because of the strength of our military. The whole reason you have electricity, airplanes, and 3/4 of your medical technology is due to American ingenuity. America has flat out made the world better, so I'm not really terribly interested in how Ishmail from Istanbul would do things differently.

As it relates to Obama. Hey, you can deny it all you want, but 56% of the country does not want his health plan, and that's 4% more than the number who even voted for him in the first place. Nearly 70% think he's more politically motivated than the previous adminstration, which is esspecially curious since he ran as the person who would bring us all together. 44% really don't want his health plan, which is more than the 41% who would vote for it at all. Just 22% really like it.

Listen the point is, that while he was elected legitimately, none of his policies have a favorable public opinion. Have you even thought about that. Perhaps you're in the minority and like him, which is great, but the country is supposed to be run by the people, and the people are telling him to stop doing what he's doing.

Cap & Trade is not favored. The Public Option was voted down in the Senate twice yesterday. Most people think the Stimulus was ineffective, that Cash for Clunkers was a waste of money, which by the way the automakers are back to record low sales, so a lot of good that 300 Billion did.

He's just wrong. He's flat out wrong. He was elected in a popularity contest, and it's almost laughable how bad he's actually doing.

Just look at Iran now. Mr. Passifist played patty cakes with them, they reveal a second nuclear site, and now he's stuck in the position of letting them gets nukes, or admiting that the Bush policies were correct by pre-emtively attacking them. Either way he has to admit he was wrong.

[Joe]

The reason that taxing the rich can lead to job cuts is because greedy corporate snobs fire off the extra people in order for their paychecks to remain fat and happy. That's the only decent reason for believing that taxing the rich is a terrible thing.

I actually am a proud citizen of the US, and live in the crap chute that is North Carolina. I do have a fair number of close friends who live in Europe, and I like to stay informed on international affairs, aside from how the US is involved in them.

I'm still of the opinion that people are so far against every policy that could possibly benefit them because of "conservative" propaganda being shoved down their throats. People on Fox News and the like deal in hatred and aggression, and encourage the distrust of anything that isn't precisely matched to their beliefs (corporate greed, inequality, etc, etc). This is because the vast majority of people refuse to research things on their own, and rely on the MSM to tell them what to think.

I'm personally not a fan of Obama, in fact, I didn't vote for him, nor did I vote for McCain. However, I feel slightly more comfortable with Obama in office, than I do with his wingnut opposition.

Also, who are we to decide who should have nukes? You can play this whole "America ish numbah one in teh world becuz we haz the best military" thing all you want, but every country has the right to defend themselves. And if they use their weapons against a civilian population, or in an act of aggression, then they will naturally suffer the wrath of the world. They know it would be suicide to launch, and We know it would be suicide for them to launch. America was never intended to be the worlds police officer.

[Unknown Entity]

And I'm frankly not interested in your views if you don't live in this country.

This line stuck out at me. Why make a thread if you're only interested in your countrymen's opinion? It's intellectual discussion, and everyone has a right to their own opinion regardless of where they live. It's not as if my opinion all the way over here in merry old England will make a difference to your government anyway.

In fact the whole reason every European nation is secure is because of the strength of our military. The whole reason you have electricity, airplanes, and 3/4 of your medical technology is due to American ingenuity. America has flat out made the world better, so I'm not really terribly interested in how Ishmail from Istanbul would do things differently.

Yes, I think we gathered America has a strong military. I'll kiss your ass for that later. I agree that America has helped the world out a lot, but that's not to say it's caused problems too. You're forgetting that America isn't the only place where things are invented or stocked. Some inventions made in America or by an American might not have been possible without help from information/technology from the rest of the world.

Stop being such a patriot, and listen to other people's view points.

As it relates to Obama. Hey, you can deny it all you want, but 56% of the country does not want his health plan, and that's 4% more than the number who even voted for him in the first place. Nearly 70% think he's more politically motivated than the previous adminstration, which is esspecially curious since he ran as the person who would bring us all together. 44% really don't want his health plan, which is more than the 41% who would vote for it at all. Just 22% really like it.

Where are these statistics from?

He's just wrong. He's flat out wrong. He was elected in a popularity contest, and it's almost laughable how bad he's actually doing.

You'd rather have another have another Bush than a man that wanted a difference? I don't think many people have given the guy a chance, or not wanting to take a chance with change, probably because of the current economic climate. No one wants to be screwed over, so they're not willing to take any chances.


Just because other people have a different opinion on the matter, it doesn't mean anyone is against you. If we don't live in America, everyone has a right to their own opinion - especially on a public forum.

[Locke4God]

Well if you have issues with "greedy" corporations in this country, the answer can't be to have "power hungry" politicians step in to solve it. It's not as though the government guys are somehow more trustworthy than the CEO's.

I heard Barney Frank the other day say that if they didn't pass healthcare that Insurance companies would continue to make profits. Good God Barney, THEY'RE A BUSINESS!! The whole point of being in any business is to make profits. Profits aren't evil. Everybody can't make the same amount. Obviously a CEO is going to make more than the guy who mops the floors of his office at night. Good lord, what is the deal with this attack on business.

Of course if you tax business and the wealthy they're going to stop hiring. What do you expect? That's why you cut taxes!! If you think for some reason that wealthier citizens are supposed to accept personal losses out of the goodness of their heart, then you're nuts. It doesn't work that way, and it's not governments job to try and force it to work that way.

The only way to restore an economy is to cut taxes on everyone so that businesses hire, the wealthy invest, and by doing that money circulates down through the economic ladder. That's undeniably how the country has always grown. Nobody has ever gotten a job from a poor person. You get jobs from wealthy people who have money to spend. You CAN NOT improve an economy by squeezing the only part of it that is productive. It's outright insane to do that. We've seen that fail over and over.

Government is what you should be worried about taking too much power. So far none of this spending has paid off worth a nickle. Just wait until inflation kicks in and the money you do have is worth nothing. These policies are completely irresponsible.

Hell it all started with the crash of the housing market, and guess why that happened. Because we thought people should be able to buy houses whether they could afford them or not. By doing that we increased foreclosures by just 3% and it brought down the whole market, and then the entire economy. Guess who voted for that bright idea. Obama. It wasn't banks who did this. Check out the community reinsvestment act. It forced banks to lend to these people who couldn't afford loans because people like Obama think it's unfair for people not to be able to buy a house. So I guess when I'm 18 and haven't worked a day in my life that I should just be able to buy one? And who pays for this? Who pays for Healthcare? Who pays for his cap and trade bill? Who pays for the bailouts? Who pays for the Stimulus? He's going to wreck it all in a vein attempt to save a few. It's mindnumbingly shallow to think this will work.

[Sean]

I don't have the patience to sit back and quote cut everything and reply to it individually like everyone else in this forum always seems to do in every thread.

On people disagreeing with specific policies Obama and the Dems are trying to put through:

I blame the media and people's ridiculous devotion to said media. The media misinforms and spins stories to make you share their specific view point. This is no different than what Michal Moore does w/ his shitty films. Americans, as a whole, are misinformed about the specifics of policies, especially the Government Health Care Bill. Fox News never specifies what the Public Option actually means, they just continuously call it "Government Run Health Care" and liken it to the health care systems in other developed nations.

They fail to tell you it's nothing more than a public option for government-funded health care, in which you pay the government just like you pay any other health care provider. It's not forced on you, hence why it's called an option. Instead they lead you to believe it will destroy the current (broken and greed-based) health care industry and take over health care it's entirety. Which is false.


On people not wanting a withdrawl of troops:
The Republican party has spent the past 8 years building it's "trust" by the people on baseless fear mongering. The entire reason we went to the middle east was because they pressed us repeatedly, telling us weapons of mass destruction were present and they could destroy us at a moment's notice if we didn't. Even out of office, people like Carl Rove and **** Cheney continue this trend of baseless fear mongering to scare the US people into backing their political agenda.


@"He's just wrong. He's flat out wrong. He was elected in a popularity contest, and it's almost laughable how bad he's actually doing."

At least he won the popularity contest, unlike our previous President of two terms.

Stating that European Nations owe their security to the US is a load of bull. The US hasn't helped secure European nations, either with money or with military power, since the Cold War.

Also, all Regan did was say "Cold War's over!" He didn't actually do anything to stop it. The USSR imploded on it's self.

Reganomics failed. Trickle-down does not work. The rich just get richer off of it, and the poor barely see pennies on the dollar of what the rich are making.


The deal with the attack on business is that CEOs are making multi-millions a year off of the dollars of consumers that are getting inferior product or service. Health care should NOT be a business. People should NOT be making millions of dollars a year to tell someone that they aren't covered for a life-saving procedure. Keeping people healthy should be a right as given to you by your government, not something you spend a large amount of your earnings on so that a CEO can fly one city over on his private jet and eat dinner in the air on his fine china and golden tableware.


And you can try and act as patriotic as you want, but don't for a second think that Europeans and people from other countries have not succeeded in their scientific endeavors. I fail to see how Europe would be without any of the current modern amenities without America. I'm sure someone else would've invented the light bulb, etc.

And let's not be so naive as to believe America would be the country it is without outside help. I'm sure we use many European and Asian ideas and inventions in our every day lives.


Also: Why would you be against minimum wage going up? Federally required min. wage is 7.25/hr currently.

I'd like to meet the person who can live comfortably on 7.25/hr. That's ~ 15K/year if you work full time. Do the math. If you can somehow live on just $1256.67/mo when you have to worry about gas, clothes, food, rent, utilities, car insurance and health insurance (assuming you have either or both.) Then think about how much throwing in a car payment, phone, cell phone, internet, cable/sat TV is on top of that. Before the last list, you still wouldn't be living comfortably off min. wage for just the actual necessities.

[Locke4God]

@ Sean - I appreciate your comments. I did want to comment on your idea of "public option" vs "government run". It's my belief that the Dems are actually fooling by using the term "Option". It's not going to be an option for a couple of reason. First, they'll force costs down so low that employers would be foolish not to use it, and they can do that because the government doesn't have to show a profit. They can loose money on their plan and therby control large chucks of the health market.

But most importantly, you may want to look at what Obama himself has said. He has clearly stated that he prefers a single payer government run system and that a public option is merely a first step in that process. He said he forsaw 10-15 years out that they could make the full conversion. So there's no pretending that it's just an innosent "public option" It's quite clearly a bold move torwards controlling the 1/6th of the US economy that Health Care makes up.

[Sean]

But most importantly, you may want to look at what Obama himself has said. He has clearly stated that he prefers a single payer government run system and that a public option is merely a first step in that process. He said he forsaw 10-15 years out that they could make the full conversion. So there's no pretending that it's just an innosent "public option" It's quite clearly a bold move torwards controlling the 1/6th of the US economy that Health Care makes up.

So have a large amount of other democrats and independents alike. One Independent senator in his blog stated that he prefers a single-payer system, but for now the public option is the best they'll be able to squeeze out.

Which they apparantly can't get out of the senate finance committee. They did, however, approve $50 mil a year for abstinence-only education, which has been proven to not work over and over again. Hurrah.

Again, I'll reiterate this for the umpteenth time. Health care prices NEED to fall. They are outrageously expensive and the companies are raking in way too much money. They are constantly denying people coverage all the time in order to make their profits larger, which in turn makes their investors happy, which in turn makes their CEO and other executives millions a year, all while people with perfectly preventable diseases die because it wasn't detected early enough because they were denied coverage or lied to.

[Sasquatch]

I'm not going to reply to the entire thread, just point out the falsities (intentional or not) in the previous post.

On people disagreeing with specific policies Obama and the Dems are trying to put through:

I blame the media and people's ridiculous devotion to said media.

How can you blame a system that is biased in favor of the Democratic Party for turning people against the Democratic Party?

They fail to tell you it's nothing more than a public option for government-funded health care, in which you pay the government just like you pay any other health care provider. It's not forced on you, hence why it's called an option.

False. Whether you use it or not, you would be forced to pay for it. (Being forced to pay for something means it's not optional. It would only be an OPTION to those who fit specific qualifications -- i.e. those who make the least money. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you don't make money, you won't be contributing, only draining from other taxpayers.)

Instead they lead you to believe it will destroy the current (broken and greed-based) health care industry and take over health care it's entirety. Which is false.

False. Not only are many in Obama's administration, and many of his policies, socialist and anti-capitalist in nature, his history is anti-capitalist. Looking on his record, he's done everything he's had the power to do to expand the financial power of the government and limit the financial power of private business. It's no surprise that his health care bill will do the same thing. But of course, it won't be immediate, so we will have liberals claiming that it's not going to happen until it actually does happen, then claim that it's for the better anyway.

The Republican party has spent the past 8 years building it's "trust" by the people on baseless fear mongering. The entire reason we went to the middle east was because they pressed us repeatedly, telling us weapons of mass destruction were present and they could destroy us at a moment's notice if we didn't.

False. No Republican administration, at any point during the last eight years, claimed that Saddam had the capacity to strike the American mainland. While WMDs were one of the reasons we liberated Iraq, there were myriad others -- all discussed in detail. While some liberals apparently heard absolutely nothing unless it involved WMDs, moderates and conservatives paid attention to the many, many reasons for going into Afghanistan, and later Iraq.

And the Democratic Party was right on board with the discussions of Saddam having WMDs, so don't try to say that Republicans are somehow "bad" because they did it while not mentioning the fact that Democrats did the same thing.

Even out of office, people like Carl Rove and **** Cheney continue this trend of baseless fear mongering to scare the US people into backing their political agenda.

It's a political tactic. Cheney says we need to do what he supports because if we don't, Americans could be in danger. Obama says we need to do what he supports because if we don't, Americans could be in danger. Where's your bitching at the other side of the aisle?

At least he won the popularity contest, unlike our previous President of two terms.

I know you're not foolish enough to believe that Bush wasn't elected fairly, and there's no way you could be ignorant of that fact. Either way, your statement is false: Bush won the majority of the electoral vote in both elections, and in 2004, won the majority of the popular vote, something not even Bill Clinton had done.

Stating that European Nations owe their security to the US is a load of bull. The US hasn't helped secure European nations, either with money or with military power, since the Cold War.

False. Strategic missile defense systems, technology sharing, conflicts Yugoslavia, funding and training, liberation of Kuwait, etc. etc. ... The United States has done quite a bit to defend Europe, whether it be their lives, liberty, or finances. Europe doesn't owe their security to the United States, no, not since WWII.

Also, all Regan did was say "Cold War's over!" He didn't actually do anything to stop it. The USSR imploded on it's self.

Extremely false. Reagan (not "Regan") helped liberate multiple communist nations and put political and financial pressure on the U.S.S.R.

Reganomics failed. Trickle-down does not work. The rich just get richer off of it, and the poor barely see pennies on the dollar of what the rich are making.

False. The "rich" provide the vast majority of the jobs in America. Let them keep more of their own money, and they'll employ more people. It's very simple.

The deal with the attack on business is that CEOs are making multi-millions a year off of the dollars of consumers that are getting inferior product or service.

Yet consumers still choose to pay for those products or services, so as long as those products and services are not harmful, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Health care should NOT be a business.

False. If it's worth doing, somebody will figure out a way to get paid for doing it. If it's not worth doing, it won't be done.

Keeping people healthy should be a right as given to you by your government ...

False. The United States government is under absolutely no obligation to provide health insurance to the populace -- on the contrary, the Constitution goes against the idea of that amount of government control or interference.

... not something you spend a large amount of your earnings on so that a CEO can fly one city over on his private jet and eat dinner in the air on his fine china and golden tableware.

Ah, the ignorance. Those evil rich people -- when they're not crapping in solid-gold toilets and flushing with Perrier, while eating fillet mignon with diamond-encrusted platinum silverware, they spend all of their time bathing with their money or counting it, dollar by dollar.

And you can try and act as patriotic as you want, but don't for a second think that Europeans and people from other countries have not succeeded in their scientific endeavors.

Nobody said that no country but America has been technologically successful, did they? No.

I fail to see how Europe would be without any of the current modern amenities without America. I'm sure someone else would've invented the light bulb, etc.

Probably. Everything else that has been invented by Americans (driven by profit) would probably be invented elsewhere. Eventually.

And let's not be so naive as to believe America would be the country it is without outside help.

Nobody said that either, did they?

Also: Why would you be against minimum wage going up? Federally required min. wage is 7.25/hr currently.

Why should the government tell employers how much their employees' work is worth? Minimum-wage jobs aren't for raising families, they're for people with no education and no skills -- like high schoolers.

I'd like to meet the person who can live comfortably on 7.25/hr. That's ~ 15K/year if you work full time. Do the math. If you can somehow live on just $1256.67/mo when you have to worry about gas, clothes, food, rent, utilities, car insurance and health insurance (assuming you have either or both.)

I could live off $15,000 a year. Wouldn't be difficult.

Then think about how much throwing in a car payment, phone, cell phone, internet, cable/sat TV is on top of that.

Or not think about it. The car payment is the only thing in this list that might be a necessity -- all the others should be non-priorities. If you can't put food on the table or pay your bills, you don't need to be worrying about cable television.

[Sean]

I'm only going to reply to your last part, Sasquatch, the rest we obviously differ largely in opinion on and debating it wouldn't be worthwhile.

Firstly, I in no way meant that Bush didn't win fairly, I don't want to debate Florida in 2000, just pointing out that Gore had the popular vote in 2000.

Also, from the way it sounded, Locke was trying to hold America in a higher light than other countries, that we are technologically advanced in one way or another. At least, that's the impression I got from his posts.

My comment on minimum wage stems from my own experiences. One state over in Illinois, which is 10 minutes from me, Min wage is higher than it is here in Missouri.

I'm a rather skilled and experienced kitchen professional with all the skills necessary to be a sous chef, just not the time due to school. My current industry's outlook is so bleak in this area that nearly minimum wage jobs are all that are available right now, and forget about me trying to get an IT internship that pays jack right now, they seem to be nonexistent.

You know what, on second thought, you're probably right. I don't like the idea of unskilled workers getting paid very much money, in all honesty. I'm just bitter since apparently I, as a skilled worker, am not worth shit due to the current state of the restaurant industry.