Quit picking on Obama……

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
ironsides, here are a couple of polls which show that Americans are in general unhappy with the US health care system (though they are happy with their own coverage, consistent with the Gallop poll you mentioned).



As Obama Pushes National Health Care, Most Americans Already Happy With Coverage - Political News - FOXNews.com

Health Policy (3)

I don't know why there is such a disconnect. But if Republicans can exploit this, if they can convince Americans that any health care reform will put their own insurance in jeopardy, they may well be able to scuttle Obama's plans for reform.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
I remember reading a couple of weeks ago that under the Obama plan everyone would be required to take it or pay a $1,000 fine. Somethiung is wrong when you are force to accept it.

Here is the article that has a lot of us against what he is trying to do. We do not like things rammed down our throats.
"Under Senate health care plan, either way you pay"

Print Story: Under Senate health care plan, either way you pay - Yahoo! News



Who are these most Americans Obamas people keep talking about, certainly not anyone out here outside the White House gang. They are pushing an agenda that we do not want. Father Obama knows best, not in his lifetime.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Now you know, all is not well between the Obama administration and the people as they would want the world to believe.

What exactly does that mean, ironsides? There have always been people who disproved of Obama, millions of people did vote for McCain. So it is not exactly news that some people disapprove of Obama.

And it is usual for the president’s popularity to drop six months into his term. I remember reading that his popularity at this point in his term is comparable with that of Clinton and Bush. So even that is nothing unusual. It all depends upon what happens from here on.
 
Last edited:

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
What exactly does that mean, ironsides? There have always been people who disproved of Obama, millions of people did vote for McCain. So it is not exactly news that some people disapprove of Obama.

And it is usual for the president’s popularity to drop six months into his term. I remember reading that his popularity at this point in his term is comparable with that of Clinton and Bush. So even that is nothing unusual. It all depends upon what happens from here on.


You're talking two different things here S.J.- preelection popularity and post election population. With pre election popularity the yard stick is the other opponent, with post election popularity the yardstick is conditions of life.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
What exactly does that mean, ironsides? There have always been people who disproved of Obama, millions of people did vote for McCain. So it is not exactly news that some people disapprove of Obama.

And it is usual for the president’s popularity to drop six months into his term. I remember reading that his popularity at this point in his term is comparable with that of Clinton and Bush. So even that is nothing unusual. It all depends upon what happens from here on.


Another idea being tried out by Obama and party.
South Florida drivers to take part in mileage-tax test

In the not-too-distant future, the government may be riding along with you, keeping tabs on when, where and how far you drive.

South Florida drivers to take part in mileage-tax test - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com


Does anybody really think that all these tax's that our elected Democrats are proposing will be popular with anyone but themselves and their ego's. Will the Democrats be willing to give up their current health and pension plans in order to join the public in what they are proposing.


Look what we did over a dumb "Tea Tax". :lol:
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Does anybody really think that all these tax's that our elected Democrats are proposing will be popular with anyone but themselves and their ego's. Will the Democrats be willing to give up their current health and pension plans in order to join the public in what they are proposing.


Look what we did over a dumb "Tea Tax"


Ironsides, if people don’t like what the Democrats are doing, they will throw them out and put Republicans back in. So where is the problem?

But as I said, I do hope Democrats implement their agenda. It is much better to be driven out of office because you have accomplished something, rather than being thrown out of office because you have accomplished nothing.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Does anybody really think that all these tax's that our elected Democrats are proposing will be popular with anyone but themselves and their ego's. Will the Democrats be willing to give up their current health and pension plans in order to join the public in what they are proposing.


Look what we did over a dumb "Tea Tax"

Ironsides, if people don’t like what the Democrats are doing, they will throw them out and put Republicans back in. So where is the problem?

It will be to late then.

But as I said, I do hope Democrats implement their agenda. It is much better to be driven out of office because you have accomplished something, rather than being thrown out of office because you have accomplished nothing.


Bottom line, what if Obama's figures about the economy, healthcare etc. are all wrong. The U.S. will be bankrupt and it will be to late to recover. At that point, who cares who wins in 2012. If Obama is right we will still be bankrupt, but have a chance for recovery. Better to wait and make sure before any more mistakes are made. What is the rush to get everything accomplished this year with a bunch of amateurs at the helm. Give business and the banks time to recover by themselves, some who did not take stimulus packages are starting to come back.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
[/color]

Bottom line, what if Obama's figures about the economy, healthcare etc. are all wrong. The U.S. will be bankrupt and it will be to late to recover. At that point, who cares who wins in 2012. If Obama is right we will still be bankrupt, but have a chance for recovery. Better to wait and make sure before any more mistakes are made. What is the rush to get everything accomplished this year with a bunch of amateurs at the helm. Give business and the banks time to recover by themselves, some who did not take stimulus packages are starting to come back.

Ironsides, you may think Obama is on the wrong path, but people did elect him in 2008. Also people gave Democrats huge majorities. If you think Obama is so wrong, the time to argue about it was last year, when Republicans did not do an effective job in putting forth their case.

Now Republicans will of course oppose Democratic agenda, that is their job. But if Democrats are smart, they will get a whole bunch of things passed before next election. As I said before, it is much better to lose an election because you achieved something and people didn’t like it, than lose one because you did absolutely noting (as was the case with Republicans).
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
If you think Obama is so wrong, the time to argue about it was last year, when Republicans did not do an effective job in putting forth their case.

What utter rubbish. Why are you on a web forum arguing US politics if you think the only time to argue US politics is during a US election? Buh-bye....see you in three years.

Is it any wonder why JLM's and Vanisle's cred went down the toilet when they defended you.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Ironsides, you may think Obama is on the wrong path, but people did elect him in 2008. Also people gave Democrats huge majorities. If you think Obama is so wrong, the time to argue about it was last year, when Republicans did not do an effective job in putting forth their case.

Now Republicans will of course oppose Democratic agenda, that is their job. But if Democrats are smart, they will get a whole bunch of things passed before next election. As I said before, it is much better to lose an election because you achieved something and people didn’t like it, than lose one because you did absolutely noting (as was the case with Republicans).


I feel that since Obama won the election, the only way his policies can be contested is to take them on one by one. The healthplan will happen, just how much is it going to cost us. I do not believe that the middle class will not have to pay anymore than they are paying now.

To quote: Charles Krauthammer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

"Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!"
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
I feel that since Obama won the election, the only way his policies can be contested is to take them on one by one. The health plan will happen, just how much is it going to cost us. I do not believe that the middle class will not have to pay anymore than they are paying now.

Absolutely, ironsides, that is why I said, it is the job of the Republicans to oppose Obama, to oppose the legislation proposed by him.

However, my advice was to the Democrats. They have the presidency, the House, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate; they better get a bunch of legislation passed. Then if people don’t like the legislation, they can always boot the Democrats out.

And I agree with Krauthammer, Obama has skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. Republicans are desperately looking for another Reagan, their problem is that Democrats have already found a Reagan, in the form of Obama.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,871
116
63
The-all-about-me President just couln't contain himself
On Cambridge-Race Case, Obama Spoke Stupidly

By Bob Parks Thursday, July 23, 2009
This is not another “just words” moment.
During a primetime press conference on the whole black-Harvard-scholar-being-racially-profiled-and-arrested-in-his-Cambridge-Massachusetts-home thing, President Obama said,
“Well, I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don’t know all the facts.”

This is where the president should have stopped and minded his own business, but the all-about-me man just couldn’t contain himself…
Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.

President Obama admits he didn’t know much about the case, and yet slams a police department on national television. Is this stupid or what?
When hearing about the arrest of professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard, something just didn’t smell right.
The way the story’s been reported, Police arrived at Professor Gates’s home near Harvard Square to question him as he had trouble unlocking his door after it became jammed.
According to the police report, Professor Gates accused the investigating officer of being a racist and told him he had “no idea who he was messing with,” and that he was being targeted because “I’m a black man in America.”
The term “racial profiling” is negative code for police doing their job. If a disproportionate number of redheaded teens were seen as committing crime, it would be irresponsible of the cops to not keep an eye out for redheaded teens.
Cambridge, Massachusetts is 12% black. I haven’t been able to easily find the racial breakdown of crime there, and that may be due to the very liberal make-up of the city. But if blacks are committing more than 12% of the crime in the affluent area where the professoriate live, then the Cambridge police would be hassled for not following up on reports of suspicious behavior.
And if Professor Gates was this victim of police profiling and harassment, he sure didn’t act like the victim he portrays himself as.
Bill Carter, the man who snapped a photograph of Gates being led away in handcuffs, said police officers were calm and that Gates was “slightly out of control” and “agitated” when he was arrested.
“The officers around kind of calmed him down,” Carter said. “I heard him yelling — Mr. Gates yelling. I didn’t hear anything that he was saying so I couldn’t say that he was belligerent.”

Professor Gates is in the race business and displayed elitism when all he had to do is cooperate. Now, the problem is Gates has gotten a taste of the international limelight; a race peddler’s dream, and he’s going to milk it for all it’s worth.
“He should look into his heart and know that he is not telling the truth and he should beg my forgiveness.”

Mouthing off to cops gets congresspersons, multi-millionaire celebrities and athletes arrested, and the police know whom they’re messing with.
Should I side with Professor Gates just because he’s black? Many seem to believe I would and should. But if Gates fully cooperated with the police and was courteous, chances are this wouldn’t have escalated as it did.
The officer, Sgt. James Crowley, told CNN affiliate WCVB earlier Wednesday that he will not apologize.
“There are not many certainties in life, but it is for certain that Sgt. Crowley will not be apologizing,” he said.

Kudos to Sergeant Crowley for not apologizing and giving added juice to America’s latest race huckster, Professor Henry Louis Gates.
Gates said he’d be prepared to forgive the arresting officer “if he told the truth” about what the director of Harvard’s W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research said were “fabrications” in the police report. He said Wednesday that he and his lawyers were considering further actions, not excluding a lawsuit.
Gates said that although the ordeal had upset him, “I would do the same thing exactly again.”

The same President of the United States who constantly reminds us of that status yet claims it’s not all about him, has carelessly interjected himself with yet another reckless statement.
Unlike Professor Gates, I don’t make my money looking for racism, so I don’t see it when it’s not there. Unlike President Obama, my words don’t resonate nationally to the point where they can influence policy… yet. His words can cause unrest if not spoken wisely.
Barack Obama’s election was supposedly a sign of the end of racism in America, however his actions (including the dismissal of charges against election day intimidating Black Panthers) are now showing he thinks with the race head first, and that is very dangerous, especially when his mouth is equally unrestrained.

Bob Parks Most recent columns
Bob Parks is a is a member/writer of the National Advisory Council of Project 21, Senior Writer for the New Media Journal, VP of Marketing and Media Relations for the New Media Alliance. Bob’s websites are Black & Right and youtube.com/BlackAndRight
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,871
116
63
FACT CHECK: Obama's health care claims adrift?
By CALVIN WOODWARD and JIM KUHNHENN (AP) – 7 hours ago
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's assertion Wednesday that government will stay out of health care decisions in an overhauled system is hard to square with the proposals coming out of Congress and with his own rhetoric.
Even now, nearly half the costs of health care in the U.S. are paid for by government at all levels. Federal authority would only grow under any proposal in play.
A look at some of Obama's claims in his prime-time news conference:
___
OBAMA: "We already have rough agreement" on some aspects of what a health care overhaul should involve, and one is: "It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it."
THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool.
Indeed, Obama went on to lay out other principles of reform that plainly show the government making key decisions in health care. He said insurance companies would be barred from dropping coverage when someone gets too sick, limits would be set on out-of-pocket expenses, and preventive care such as checkups and mammograms would be covered.
It's true that people would not be forced to give up a private plan and go with a public one. The question is whether all of those private plans would still be in place if the government entered the marketplace in a bigger way.
He addressed some of the nuances under questioning. "Can I guarantee that there are going to be no changes in the health care delivery system?" he said. "No. The whole point of this is to try to encourage changes that work for the American people and make them healthier."
He acknowledged then that the "government already is making some of these decisions."
___
OBAMA: "I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it."
THE FACTS: The president has said repeatedly that he wants "deficit-neutral" health care legislation, meaning that every dollar increase in cost is met with a dollar of new revenue or a dollar of savings. But some things are more neutral than others. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag told reporters this week that the promise does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase fees for doctors serving Medicare patients. Democrats and the Obama administration argue that the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration's policy, with or without a health care overhaul.
Beyond that, budget experts have warned about various accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget lists a variety of them, including back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.
___
OBAMA: "You haven't seen me out there blaming the Republicans."
THE FACTS: Obama did so in his opening statement, saying, "I've heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it's better politics to 'go for the kill.' Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about 'breaking' me."
___
OBAMA: "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."
THE FACTS: The facts are in dispute between black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the white police sergeant who arrested him at his Cambridge, Mass., home when officers went there to investigate a reported break-in. But this much is clear: Gates wasn't arrested for being in his own home, as Obama implies, but for allegedly being belligerent when the sergeant demanded his identification. The president did mention that the professor was charged with disorderly conduct. Charges were dropped.
___
OBAMA: "If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you'd have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we've made, it's going to be $7.1 trillion."
THE FACTS: Obama's numbers are based on figures compiled by his own budget office. But they rely on assumptions about economic growth that some economists find too optimistic. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in its own analysis of the president's budget numbers, concluded that the cumulative deficit over the next decade would be $9.1 trillion.
Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
"However, my advice was to the Democrats. They have the presidency, the House, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate; they better get a bunch of legislation passed. Then if people don’t like the legislation, they can always boot the Democrats out."

Not so fast, SirJosephPorter.

There are many decent bluedog Democrats in the House who refuse to worship the false God, Obama. Just as there were decent and honest Deimocrats in 1994, when they helped to defeat the bureaucratic nightmare of "Hillarycare".

I think it is deja vu all over again.

Also don't forget the Senate. Arlen Specter is about as reliable to the Democrats as he was for the Republicans. Evan Bayh of Indiana could come to his senses and realize that the Emperor has no clothes. Same with Ben Nelson of Nebraska. And Heaven knows, maybe the so-called Independent - who was sucking up to John McCain till the last minute - Joe Liebermann may have an attack of conscience.

It is nice to see that by implication you are finally admitting that Reagan was a great President:

"And I agree with Krauthammer, Obama has skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. Republicans are desperately looking for another Reagan, their problem is that Democrats have already found a Reagan, in the form of Obama."

However, comparing Obama to Reagan is akin to comparing Snoop Dog to Luciano Pavarotti.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
It is nice to see that by implication you are finally admitting that Reagan was a great President:

I did not say that Reagan was a great President YJ, I said that he had communication skills, he could connect with people. That makes him a ‘great communicator’, it does not make him a great president.

As to whether Democrats accomplish anything, that is up to them. But I do know that if they accomplish nothing (like the Republicans) people will throw them out and put Republicans back in. In my opinion, they will be much better off passing a bunch of legislation and then let people rule on their performance at next election.

If they are not going to do anything but sit on their hands for the next two years, what was the point behind winning power? Obama is doing the right thing, he is using his political capital.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
"Obama is doing the right thing, he is using his political capital."

Sometimes - or in politics, actually more often than not - capital and IOU's are paid back in counterfit, if paid back at all.

Witness how the "Lion of the Senate", Ted Kennedy stabbed Bush in the back, time after time, in spite of Bush's best efforts.
Witness how Liebermnann is paying back Republicans after sucking up and hoping for a juicy post in a potential McCain Presidency.
Witness the modern day Benedict Arnold, "Arnold" Specter. Gratefully, he is getting his just desserts by Democrats not supporting his Senatorial bid.

Obama's political capital will be in the form of loose "CHANGE", like figurative pennies, nickels and dimes.

He deserves nothing more, nothing less.