Reylan Talonspyre wrote:Nagash, I direct this all to you ...
The problem is that he is spending money we don't have. He is weakening nation defense. He is portraying weakness to terrorism by refusing to call them by their name. He continues to try and spend more money even though a majority of his voters don't think it is a good idea and that we are on the wrong path.
Hope. Change. Unity.
He has personally explained we have to sacrifice to get us out of this while other members of the Democratic Party continue to use taxpayer dollars to fly their children around in military jets. He tells us it is only going to get worse after telling us it was getting better and an end is in sight. Which is it? Hope? None.
He is no more transparent than the his predecessor or any other President before them. In fact, he and his Party (since he considered the head of said entity) is even more clandestine about health care than the GOP was about the Patriot Act. He states what he believes is in the bill when it was never in the bill. Change? Not really, just more of the same, but this time he can just blame it on Bush. Change? I think not.
More so than any past President, he has taken aim at his opposition from the get go. From his own White House staff claiming that FoxNews was the enemy, to the attack on anyone who owns a gun and lives in the South as an "extremist" because they don't agree with our President, or how about how anyone who thinks we shouldn't be taxed as much are not just ignored by his cohorts (and they are) in the media but also lambasted by him directly or his pals. How about a probe into the Climate Gate? How come we should just laugh it off and spend us into oblivion or cripple the American economy and there, vica-vie (sp), the world economy? Unity? I am definite you are jesting.
Naggie, get it through your head man, we dislike the guy because he is a joke, a liar, and we have actual policy disagreements. I don't want his dead or hanged, I just want his joke ass out of office.
I am a Republican, but you give me a fiscally conservative Democrat that can show me how they will make all these programs work within a budget, how I won't have to pay for my neighbor's mortgage because it is the "right thing" to do, or show me real incentives for entrepreneurship besides more taxes and more government intervention, you may get my vote.
But you so easily dismiss any sort of disagreement with him based solely on the source of the discussion and posit no valid argument in defense. That is lame and you know it.
Not at all, Rey. I just easily dismiss the comments on the level which FOX News shows so often. Like the complete crap which Atla posted. That is not worth arguing about in depth, because all one will get in return is a comment which might as well have come from a failed stand up comedian. I do not easily dismiss any sort of disagreement with Obama (in fact, I far from support many of his policies), but I do dismiss those which are not supported by logic and reason. Such comments, such “news” is a joke, and I can very well see why the White House has proclaimed FOX the enemy. They are popular, work against the current president and inspire nihilism and an unthinking majority.
You, however, do make your points and arguments clear. That’s something one can respond to.
You are quite right that Obama wants to spend WAY too much. For all theories by Keynes and his, the problem to a lack of money, jobs, and economic stability can never be found in creating more debt for oneself.
Why does Obama disappoint so many people? Because of his “Hope. Change. Unity. YES WE CAN” speeches and the way they were picked up. He sounded exactly like what you needed and if he were true to his words, he would be little short of a messiah. Of course, he isn’t. He can’t miraculously solve all the problems which have grown over the decades. He can’t do everything right. But he did, sort of, suggest that he would.
However, many things really need to change in America, he had that right. That is why I am ready to defend his healthcare plans. It’s far from perfect, but it’s a good start and has the right intentions: to ensure that everyone is insured and no one will face bankruptcy because of medical bills anymore. Give it a few more presidents and I am sure your system will be tweaked into something to at least approach the rather splendid (because tested by time and experience) European systems. But let’s not open that discussion again.
The way I see his spending plans, I think he is only exacerbating the problems at hand and effectively digging his own grave. He will – on paper – see improvements: the economy will grow and there will be more jobs. Unfortunately there will also be a lot more debt and interest pressing on the USA’s shoulders. The country would be better off on the long term by letting the crisis be a crisis for now. Let the banks topple, start cutting costs and paying off the debts. Create a clean slate over a term of some 50 years. Historically, wars broke out when nations were facing big debts. So if by “change and unity” Obama meant that the time of peace was over and the USA would unite against the ones they are going to wage war against, then I do understand him. Debt does not bring hope. Nor unity, but it does bring change of sorts, even if it’s not for the better.
So what to do with America eh? From the get go, I was convinced that Obama would prove to be more of a talker than one who goes on and solve the problems. I did want to give the guy a chance though (still do, let him have his four years). Let him make it happen. I am afraid though that in the mediacracy which the USA has become, you will be stuck with this kind of presidents for a long time. Reagan is a good example. Complete git, but good talker/actor. If Obama does not keep his promises, as it looks that he will, the rest of the world will see him as “Reagan II”. I never understood why you guys are/were so fond of that one. The ‘winner takes all’ district system and the malevolent role of the media is proving to be quite damning. In my opinion there are three things which can make it happen.
1. A Margaret Thatcher kind of president. Someone powerful who isn’t afraid to change things for the better, even if it are not ‘popular’ changes and measures.
2. A rewritten constitution and electoral system. Something which will actually allow more parties, more flavours, and preferably coalition forming. Make them cooperate for a change, rather than having two parties taking turns at the government.
3. A change in the media. The media needs to be more responsible, less partisan and focusing on facts rather than favouritism and hypes.
Last, but not least, a large government is not necessarily bad. In bad times, a bigger government is required. But I think the goal of the government should be to make itself unnecessary. So when things are working properly, it should downsize and become more monitorial of nature. For that to be possible, a change in the mind of the people will need to happen though. Most people will cheat the government or his neighbor whenever it benefits him (and given the chance obviously). Without morals and ethics guiding everyone's actions, the government will not be able to downsize and because they too lack the morals and ethics, the administrators will increase the size of the government because it benefits them. Like so many things in politics (e.g. the curreny American political system), it is a downward spiral.
