Worst Moment of Obama's Presidency Thus Far

[Mike from Jersey]

This is not an Obama-bashing thread, I was just thinking about this subject, and wanted to know what you all thought. I know that he's only been in office for 8 months, but I was just considering it. What has been the lowest or worst moment of Obama's young presidency thus far?

[RatedDAL]

I voted for the health care as did anyone really think the stimulus package was gonna turn everything around by this point? It's either HC or the situation in afghanistan

[Irishsara]

Hiring then firing self-proclaimed communist and anarchist Van Jones as Green Jobs Czar.

[T.O.]

Not turning America into a socialist state.

[Killswitch]

I said the situation in Afghanistan, and universal health care would save lives. When a person can't get a life saving operation because insurance agents deem it experimental, there is a problem. If I had to go to America for even one day, I would buy insurance here to avoid the circus that is the American health system. Paying for all that is stupid.

Watch the Michael Moore documentary SiCKO to get an idea of what I think.

[Rogue]

lol. I question anyone's intelligence if they derive their viewpoints solely from a guy like Michael Moore and his "documentaries."

Do some research Switch, and you'll see that Moore's about as skewed as one can possibly imagine.

[Killswitch]

When someone is forced to choose between having either the tip of their middle finger re-attached for $60,000 or the tip of their ring finger attached for $12,000, there is a massive issue.

Every analyst in the country is skewed and has their own opinion, Moore is entitled to his.

I'll take Canada, where if I have an accident where I lose the tips of two fingers, I can get them both re-attached and not have to worry about my financial future.

[Scott Uberman]

Stop talking.

Using Michael Moore as your previous answer makes your opinion inherently not matter.

[FutureDonkey]

Originally Posted by Killswitch

When someone is forced to choose between having either the tip of their middle finger re-attached for $60,000 or the tip of their ring finger attached for $12,000, there is a massive issue.

Every analyst in the country is skewed and has their own opinion, Moore is entitled to his.

I'll take Canada, where if I have an accident where I lose the tips of two fingers, I can get them both re-attached and not have to worry about my financial future.

Oh thats really wonderful and all as long as you don't mind waiting a year or two. Besides the retarded wait lists, breast cancer survival rates (as just one example among many) are considerably lower in Britain and Canada than in the US.

At the end of the day though, dude, the debate over HC is really just common sense. Think about it. If the government gets involved and provides a "free" option to compete with other insurance companies, all that will happen is people will go to the government rather than pay money for costly insurrance, thus driving the companies out of business and creating a vacuum for government to fill up entirely. Once this happens then everyone with HC will have to deal with VA style inefficiency (which I know quite a lot about since my dad has numerous health problems he never seems to be able to make headway on because the VA is so incredibly slow) and English style waitlists, waitlists that are often based upon one's value to society.

Also, if you don't believe that "free" government HC won't drive insurrance companies out of business, allow me to entertain you with an example. Lets say you have four gas stations in very close proximity to each other and are in direct competition. Now, if each station has roughly the same price, they'll all get roughly the same amount of business. But what if one station decides to give away free gas? I mean, really, if you had to choose between free (or nearly free) gas and gas at $4 a gallon, what would you do? Soon enough, the free station would have all the competion and other businesses would go out of business. It's not survival of the fittest by a long shot, its survival of the cheapest. The government can afford to give away free healthcare at tax payer's expense; the competition cannot.

[Killswitch]

Originally Posted by Scott Uberman

Stop talking.

Using Michael Moore as your previous answer makes your opinion inherently not matter.

So, because I agree with a guy who exposed your health care system for the pile of shit it is, my opinion doesn't matter?

Bullshit. You just dislike him because he decided something actually needed to be said, and you've been brainwashed to disagree with it.

As for wait times, they are overblown. Wait time is based on need and severity, not social status. I've never waited more then half an hour to 45 minutes to see a doctor.

[Scott Uberman]

Originally Posted by Killswitch

So, because I agree with a guy who exposed your health care system for the pile of shit it is.

That's why millions flock to the US for healthcare right?

Originally Posted by Killswitch

Bullshit. You just dislike him because he decided something actually needed to be said,

I hate him because he averages 50 major factual innaccuracies per movie and passes them off as "documentaries."

Originally Posted by Killswitch

and you've been brainwashed to disagree with it.

Says the guy who's using the most clearily slanted person on earth's views as facts.

[Man from Nowhere]

I went with his economic failures as the health care debate hasn't ended quite yet. I suppose that could get worse but hard to tell yet, it all depends if it passes or not.

The Czars should have been on the list too as Jones was the tip of the iceberg there. Things are about to heat up with Cass Sunstein, John Holdren and Mark Lloyd so expect to see more carnage in the Obama admin in regards to the Czars.

[Tito]

No question, the Stimulus... Obama pressed urgency of passage, yet the majority of the $787 billion will be spent in 2010... an election year.

[FearlessVampireKiller]

Upholding extraordinary rendition.

[Scott Uberman]

The deteriorating situation in Afghanistan can't be blamed on Obama, the Bush administration failed to handle it properly from the get go in 2001, and as time dragged on began to completely ignore it.

[Irishsara]

Originally Posted by Killswitch

So, because I agree with a guy who exposed your health care system for the pile of shit it is, my opinion doesn't matter?

Bullshit. You just dislike him because he decided something actually needed to be said, and you've been brainwashed to disagree with it.

As for wait times, they are overblown. Wait time is based on need and severity, not social status. I've never waited more then half an hour to 45 minutes to see a doctor.

Watch Bowling for Columbine, and other Moore documentaries and you realise that they arent like REAL documentaries because there is NO attempt at objectivity so you make the information say what you want it to say.

I agree with some of what Moore belives but even I dont take what he says seriously. Its a guy who made real movies, like Canadian Bacon, and makes his "Documentaries:" like that.

[Villiano 187]

I voted other.

I believe the day he was inaugurated was the worst day, with every other day after that being worse.

[FutureDonkey]

Originally Posted by Villiano 187

I voted other.

I believe the day he was inaugurated was the worst day, with every other day after that being worse.

^This.


Switch--as far as wait times being overblown, once again, the VA is highly similar to the system Obama would like to put in place, and the wait times for nearly anything, as long as it isn't urgent care, is absolutely hurrendous. Another thing to remember is that wait times are shorter for the younger who have much more to contribute to society over the course of their remaining lifetime, whereas older people or those like my father who are disabled, provide little to no benefit to society and therefore wait times are longer.

[TheAman]

Originally Posted by Irishsara

Watch Bowling for Columbine, and other Moore documentaries and you realise that they arent like REAL documentaries because there is NO attempt at objectivity so you make the information say what you want it to say.

I agree with some of what Moore belives but even I dont take what he says seriously. Its a guy who made real movies, like Canadian Bacon, and makes his "Documentaries:" like that.

Bowling for Columbine is closer to a Mockumentary than a Documentary. It's not even that it's biased, it flat out distorts reality.

[Phantom Lord]

Health care is what I voted for (though Afghanistan is a close second). Health Care is not a dire issue to the point where people are dying on the streets because they can't get into hospitals or see Doctors.

I think if we reformed malpractice so people couldn't sue for billions for little things and allowed people to buy Insurance across state lines it would be a step in the right direction.

Afghanistan is a close second along with the war on terror cause it's clear Obama doesn't want to win. He just wants to be nice and reward the far left wacko's who are supporting him to the bitter end.

[Irishsara]

Originally Posted by Phantom Lord

Health care is what I voted for (though Afghanistan is a close second). Health Care is not a dire issue to the point where people are dying on the streets because they can't get into hospitals or see Doctors.

I think if we reformed malpractice so people couldn't sue for billions for little things and allowed people to buy Insurance across state lines it would be a step in the right direction.

Medical malpractice, the amount of claims went down and the insurance went up in the last five years. The amount of payout went down and the price for insurence went up.

So we should take the decision of how much people are due their lost wages, medical bills and pain and suffering to make it so doctors and insurance companies make more money?

They instituted tort reform in Florida and the medical malpractice insurance cost did not go down, but they amount of cases fell 10%.

the majority of medical malpractice cases are settled out of court for significantly less then they might be able to win in court. caps would just lower even more the majority of payoffs.

[Tito]

Originally Posted by Irishsara

Medical malpractice, the amount of claims went down and the insurance went up in the last five years. The amount of payout went down and the price for insurence went up.

So we should take the decision of how much people are due their lost wages, medical bills and pain and suffering to make it so doctors and insurance companies make more money?

They instituted tort reform in Florida and the medical malpractice insurance cost did not go down, but they amount of cases fell 10%.

the majority of medical malpractice cases are settled out of court for significantly less then they might be able to win in court. caps would just lower even more the majority of payoffs.

Because something else is causing healthcare costs to skyrocket... Could it be more and more people are on the government's tab for payments towards the healthcare industry since 1965?

...

[FearlessVampireKiller]

Originally Posted by Scott Uberman

The deteriorating situation in Afghanistan can't be blamed on Obama, the Bush administration failed to handle it properly from the get go in 2001, and as time dragged on began to completely ignore it.

Yeah, I notice the "liberal" media is eager to pin the Afghanistan situation on Obama despite having roundly ignored the country's deteriorating state for the past seven years. Although to be fair, that's because they were distracted with how bad things in Iraq were, but still, I find it rather suspicious how hard the "liberals" in the news industry are working to make this Obama's war.

[Uncle Joe]

[Tito]

Originally Posted by FearlessVampireKiller

Yeah, I notice the "liberal" media is eager to pin the Afghanistan situation on Obama despite having roundly ignored the country's deteriorating state for the past seven years. Although to be fair, that's because they were distracted with how bad things in Iraq were, but still, I find it rather suspicious how hard the "liberals" in the news industry are working to make this Obama's war.

I don't think anybody's making it out to be Obama's war and I certainly don't. Heck, he wasn't even in the Senate when the Afganistan stuff began.

I actually think it's quite ironic that Afganistan started getting bad when Iraq began to improve... A quick surge is potentially needed in Afganistan, but then again, I believe that the true corruption is in Pakistan... I think that's where Bin Laden is, the assassination 2 years ago is a real sign of trouble over there, and the Taliban is getting closer and closer towards potentially getting to Pakistan's Nukes.

And we can't quite march troops into Pakistan, as Barack once suggested we should during a debate last year (LOL @ his ignorance then), but he's right in some aspects because I don't think diplomacy will ever work there. Islam, when terribly misinterpreted, will never create rationality among its believers... Seriously, blow yourself up and get to heavy to have 80 some virgins or whatever it is?

I also think that we should crackdown on Saudi Arabia one of these days. I know that's one of oil imports, but they did produce 15 out of the 19 terrorists who caused 9/11. They deserve some culpability for that... even 8 years later.

[Electrifying Uno]

I find it disgusting Pakistan says they will work with us, yet they and our troops dont march on those tribes in between Pakistan and Afghanistan and clean them out.

Originally Posted by Killswitch

As for wait times, they are overblown. Wait time is based on need and severity, not social status. I've never waited more then half an hour to 45 minutes to see a doctor.

Its not doctors visit they wait for, its surgeries and such. An argument can be said for both sides.
After seeing Lou Dobbs 20 part specials on health care in other countries, I found it alarming that other nations had longer life expectancies, did it for half the cost of GDP than the USA, and half the cost per person.
Their downfalls came with massive debt it puts on the government and if their isnt enough doctors per patient you will wait for surgeries.

[Wevv Mang]

Out of all the choices listed, I chose other.

The economy has stabilized. It still has a way to go to recover fully, but the Dow has stopped dropping, and the financial system is getting back on track.

The Health Care debate is just that. A serious discussion on health care. OK, maybe not that serious, but it's being talked about, and points are being raised, and discussed. It's got more of a chance now than it had in the past.

Afghanistan - Well, if it's been smooth sailing and peachy keen until just recently, then I say there's nothing to worry about this time as well.

The cop thing, come on. It was a media event, period. The Right Wing Media was going to go against Obama no matter what side he took. And the opinion voiced by Obama was echoed rather loudly, until more information was provided.

But to answer the question, the worst moment of Obama's Presidency is that he's trying to do too much, too soon.

Man needs to just chill the heck out and focus on one thing at a time and stop trying to rush everything. He's got three more years.

And Honestly, I don't think the rest of the government is going to swing back to Red in any large movement, anytime soon. The scare tactics have pretty much lost their punch, and the over-reaction is not helping their case.

Glen Beck may get viewers, but he's become a freak show, not a voice of rationality. Same with Limbaugh. They're not doing the Republican party any favors.

[YouMakeMeLeery]

Because something else is causing healthcare costs to skyrocket... Could it be more and more people are on the government's tab for payments towards the healthcare industry since 1965?

...

I'm almost sure it has nothing to do with the profit motive that healthcare and health insurance operate under. I'm sure their skyrocketing profits weren't at all attached to skyrocketing prices.

I'm almost sure that health insurance and healthcare companies didn't realize they were dealing with a product that has very steep demand curve, to the point where people will pay almost anything, because if they don't, then they may DIE.

It's not like knowing you work in an industry with an almost perfectly inelastic demand curve would give you an idea that you may be able to raise prices and garner more profit for your shareholders (which is the sole purpose of any private entity) and also give you the realization that in a free-market healthcare system there is zero incentive not to do just that.

There is nothing wrong with private industry, unless you are dealing with demand curves that are so inelastic that it is easy to take advantage of people. Surprisingly, people are willing to pay anything to stay alive. It turns out the commodity people value most is their ability to live.

Oh thats really wonderful and all as long as you don't mind waiting a year or two. Besides the retarded wait lists, breast cancer survival rates (as just one example among many) are considerably lower in Britain and Canada than in the US.

At the end of the day though, dude, the debate over HC is really just common sense. Think about it. If the government gets involved and provides a "free" option to compete with other insurance companies, all that will happen is people will go to the government rather than pay money for costly insurrance, thus driving the companies out of business and creating a vacuum for government to fill up entirely. Once this happens then everyone with HC will have to deal with VA style inefficiency (which I know quite a lot about since my dad has numerous health problems he never seems to be able to make headway on because the VA is so incredibly slow) and English style waitlists, waitlists that are often based upon one's value to society.

Also, if you don't believe that "free" government HC won't drive insurrance companies out of business, allow me to entertain you with an example. Lets say you have four gas stations in very close proximity to each other and are in direct competition. Now, if each station has roughly the same price, they'll all get roughly the same amount of business. But what if one station decides to give away free gas? I mean, really, if you had to choose between free (or nearly free) gas and gas at $4 a gallon, what would you do? Soon enough, the free station would have all the competion and other businesses would go out of business. It's not survival of the fittest by a long shot, its survival of the cheapest. The government can afford to give away free healthcare at tax payer's expense; the competition cannot.

All of what you said is completely ridiculous when put face to face with the fact that for all the money we spend, more than any country on the face of the earth per capita, that we get screwed.

Let's look at cold-hard facts, which anyone who opposes a French, or British system of healthcare doesn't like to look at.

Health Expectancy: US. #24, Japan #1, France, #3, Canada #13, UK #14.

Health Expenditures as % of GDP: US #2, Canada #18, France #10

Canada, UK, France, and even Cuba have a lower infant mortality rate.

France, Sweden, UK, and Canada also do better at stopping preventable deaths than America.

Canada actually saved money after switching to a single-payer system and for those who aren't completely blind to reality, it is easy to see why.

Basically, having one entity, especially one without a profit motive, administering the health insurance for an entire nation cuts down on a huge amount of wasted administrative costs and CEO salaries.

Having one entity negotiating with hospitals, doctors and pharmaceutical companies allows lower prices to be negotiated, because there is only one purchaser of health care in the country, the government.

In fact, there is a clear reason why the healthcare industry so vehemtly opposes a public option. They know it will work and work better!! It will crush them, because it will be cheaper, more efficient, and offer better coverage.

Of course, then the government, that giant beauracracy, may stand in the way of you and your doctor. Of course, for some reason those who deny facts like to pretend that Blue Cross Blue Shield is not a beauracracy and never gets in between a patient and doctor, which is blatantly false.

Ugh, I hate debating healthcare, because every person around the world knows that single-payer makes the most sense, and only here in America are there a few people with low IQ's who fight for the rights of insurance company executives who don't care about them and they also listen to Senators and Congressmen, who make up lies designed to help out those who donate the most to their campaigns.

Back to the original question. The biggest failure of Obama is that he is not nearly as transformative as he led many to believe. He is another weak-kneed liberal afraid to truly test out progressive ideas for fear he may not get elected. The Republicans should all cheer Obama, because if a REAL progressive with REAL backbone got elected, then they may actually see some REAL change. Obama bends over backwards for Republicans, like firing Van Jones because Glen Beck can cry on cue, every chance he gets. The truth is Republicans should thank their lucky stars that Obama is the Centrist he is. Right now, they are like boy who cried wolf. Obama is not radical or leftist or marxist in the least. He already jettisoned the public option and never even tried for single-payer!

[FearlessVampireKiller]

Well ya know, they do have a vested interest in making the center look like the radical fringe. Sadly, Obama is one of the most liberal Democrats we've ever seen on the national stage, and even he barely counts...

[Man from Nowhere]

Originally Posted by YouMakeMeLeery

I'm almost sure it has nothing to do with the profit motive that healthcare and health insurance operate under. I'm sure their skyrocketing profits weren't at all attached to skyrocketing prices.

I'm almost sure that health insurance and healthcare companies didn't realize they were dealing with a product that has very steep demand curve, to the point where people will pay almost anything, because if they don't, then they may DIE.

It's not like knowing you work in an industry with an almost perfectly inelastic demand curve would give you an idea that you may be able to raise prices and garner more profit for your shareholders (which is the sole purpose of any private entity) and also give you the realization that in a free-market healthcare system there is zero incentive not to do just that.

There is nothing wrong with private industry, unless you are dealing with demand curves that are so inelastic that it is easy to take advantage of people. Surprisingly, people are willing to pay anything to stay alive. It turns out the commodity people value most is their ability to live.



All of what you said is completely ridiculous when put face to face with the fact that for all the money we spend, more than any country on the face of the earth per capita, that we get screwed.

Let's look at cold-hard facts, which anyone who opposes a French, or British system of healthcare doesn't like to look at.

Health Expectancy: US. #24, Japan #1, France, #3, Canada #13, UK #14.

Health Expenditures as % of GDP: US #2, Canada #18, France #10

Canada, UK, France, and even Cuba have a lower infant mortality rate.

France, Sweden, UK, and Canada also do better at stopping preventable deaths than America.

Canada actually saved money after switching to a single-payer system and for those who aren't completely blind to reality, it is easy to see why.

Basically, having one entity, especially one without a profit motive, administering the health insurance for an entire nation cuts down on a huge amount of wasted administrative costs and CEO salaries.

Having one entity negotiating with hospitals, doctors and pharmaceutical companies allows lower prices to be negotiated, because there is only one purchaser of health care in the country, the government.

In fact, there is a clear reason why the healthcare industry so vehemtly opposes a public option. They know it will work and work better!! It will crush them, because it will be cheaper, more efficient, and offer better coverage.

Of course, then the government, that giant beauracracy, may stand in the way of you and your doctor. Of course, for some reason those who deny facts like to pretend that Blue Cross Blue Shield is not a beauracracy and never gets in between a patient and doctor, which is blatantly false.

Ugh, I hate debating healthcare, because every person around the world knows that single-payer makes the most sense, and only here in America are there a few people with low IQ's who fight for the rights of insurance company executives who don't care about them and they also listen to Senators and Congressmen, who make up lies designed to help out those who donate the most to their campaigns.

I'd bother debating this but a) most of your facts are either out of context or completely wrong and none of them are sourced and b) you're so far to the left that no good would come of it

Originally Posted by YouMakeMeLeery

Back to the original question. The biggest failure of Obama is that he is not nearly as transformative as he led many to believe. He is another weak-kneed liberal afraid to truly test out progressive ideas for fear he may not get elected. The Republicans should all cheer Obama, because if a REAL progressive with REAL backbone got elected, then they may actually see some REAL change. Obama bends over backwards for Republicans, like firing Van Jones because Glen Beck can cry on cue, every chance he gets. The truth is Republicans should thank their lucky stars that Obama is the Centrist he is. Right now, they are like boy who cried wolf. Obama is not radical or leftist or marxist in the least. He already jettisoned the public option and never even tried for single-payer!

Obama is a centrist? The man is the furthest left President in recent history. Clinton was a centrist, Obama is a liberal. The only people who think he is a centrist are the uber-left and the socialists.

[Irishsara]

I agree with Man from Nowhere ... Scary

Obama isnt a centrist, He is left, he is Bobby Kennedy left, which is far but not crazy fringe far, He has a willingness to comprimise to a point, but he is president and if he wasnt he couldnt do his job.

The reason Republicans think he is a socialist is because they see their views as center and not Right.

[Man from Nowhere]

Originally Posted by YouMakeMeLeery

Let's look at cold-hard facts, which anyone who opposes a French, or British system of healthcare doesn't like to look at.

Health Expectancy: US. #24, Japan #1, France, #3, Canada #13, UK #14.

Health Expenditures as % of GDP: US #2, Canada #18, France #10

I did a little research on those points I could source so I will go ahead and be nice and destroy, I mean address, these 2 points.

The life expectancy numbers you use include murders and car accidents, something that we tend to have more of in the US due to the fact we have more roads. When you remove those things that are completely irrelevant to health care guess where the US ranks? Number 1.

The health expenditure numbers are accurate, however the reason they are so high is because of government bureaucracy and the limiting of the free market that has already happened. Our health care system is already partially socialized and it has gotten worse in terms of cost to benefit ratio. If we further socialize it it will get worse. We need to introduce more free market economics and allow for more competition. That will drive down cost and improve coverage.

The fact of the matter is that government run health care doesn't work. In France and Canada private health insurers are now opening up shop to cover the overflow because the government run system can't handle the load. So now people in France have to pay for 2 health care systems instead of one, the government one and the one they are forced to use because of the ineptitude of the government system.

"Ah, but why is the US higher than France and Canada then?" You might ask.

Simple, because the US spends more money on researching new medicines and new life saving procedures. According to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, 75 percent of all new drugs approved worldwide from 2005 to 2007 were first introduced in the U.S.

Without an incentive, ie profit, there is no reason to innovate. The government won't do it out of the kindness of their heart. They will do the minimum necessary and nothing more.

Originally Posted by Irishsara

I agree with Man from Nowhere ... Scary

Obama isnt a centrist, He is left, he is Bobby Kennedy left, which is far but not crazy fringe far, He has a willingness to comprimise to a point, but he is president and if he wasnt he couldnt do his job.

The reason Republicans think he is a socialist is because they see their views as center and not Right.

Come to the dark side Sarah...

We have cookies...

[Irishsara]

Originally Posted by Man from Nowhere

I did a little research on those points I could source so I will go ahead and be nice and destroy, I mean address, these 2 points.

The life expectancy numbers you use include murders and car accidents, something that we tend to have more of in the US due to the fact we have more roads. When you remove those things that are completely irrelevant to health care guess where the US ranks? Number 1.

Simple, because the US spends more money on researching new medicines and new life saving procedures. According to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, 75 percent of all new drugs approved worldwide from 2005 to 2007 were first introduced in the U.S.

Without an incentive, ie profit, there is no reason to innovate. The government won't do it out of the kindness of their heart. They will do the minimum necessary and nothing more.

Lets just run through a few things. Firstly, New Drugs are made by pharmaceutical companies not Insurance companies so i doubt it would change the amount of research and new drugs because Government health-care would actually make more money for the Pharma companies because it would greatly increase the market for drugs.

Secondly where did you get your healthcare system raitings. When i looked (albeit not hard because i have a class in like 3 min ago.) I found the the last time the WHO did it almost 10 years ago the US was way down there (37th).
The U.S. does not have the best health care system in the world, it has the best emergency care system in the world according to my limited research.

[Man from Nowhere]

Originally Posted by Irishsara

Lets just run through a few things. Firstly, New Drugs are made by pharmaceutical companies not Insurance companies so i doubt it would change the amount of research and new drugs because Government health-care would actually make more money for the Pharma companies because it would greatly increase the market for drugs.

Why would it increase the market for drugs? I'm curious as to your reasoning.

Originally Posted by Irishsara

Secondly where did you get your healthcare system raitings. When i looked (albeit not hard because i have a class in like 3 min ago.) I found the the last time the WHO did it almost 10 years ago the US was way down there (37th).
The U.S. does not have the best health care system in the world, it has the best emergency care system in the world according to my limited research.

The ratings I and the other guy were talking about were life expectancy not health care. The life expectancy chart is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ife_expectancy

BTW, the 37th ranking from the WHO has already been busted as bogus but I'll post it again:

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/ci_1...ce=most_viewed

[FutureDonkey]

Originally Posted by Wevv Mang

Glen Beck may get viewers, but he's become a freak show, not a voice of rationality. Same with Limbaugh. They're not doing the Republican party any favors.

As if McCain ever did us any favors.

[Man from Nowhere]

Originally Posted by FutureDonkey

As if McCain ever did us any favors.

Amen to that. BTW, Glenn Beck is not a Republican and he could give a flying crap about the parties.

What is coming is the changing of the paradigm in this country and Glenn can see it coming. The change is the end of the relevance of the parties. More and more people are registering as independents or 3rd parties. People identify themselves by ideology now instead of by party. Liberal, Conservative, Progressive, Libertarian. McCain was a Republican but he was not a Conservative. He was, and is, a Progressive Republican. I totally agree with Glenn that Hillary would have been a better choice than McCain. McCain worse than Obama is iffy from my point of view but I can see the argument. Both parties have become rife with corruption, particularly the Dems. It took Bush to open the eyes of the right to what the Republican party had become, and now Obama is doing likewise for the left side. Change is certainly coming, the question is the change to what.

[Irishsara]

Politics are Corrupt? OMG NO!

There has never been one political movement in history of the world without a certain level of graft or corruption. It is how the world works. it is human nature. Democrats and republicans are no more corrupt than they were 30, or 50, or 100 years ago. Hell, popular election by the people in the US Senate only came after the first world war, how do you think you became a senator before that? Mr. Smith goes to Washington, Sweetheart deals, epic scandals and handshake agreements. There will always be a certain amount of shadowy dealings involved in politics, you sacrifice something to get something its the way of the world. Should there be more parties based on ideology? probably, but party politics isnt going anywhere.

We all know how i feel about Glenn Beck (uses fear to get ratings and lies and exaggerates to make his point on the great conspiracy)

[FutureDonkey]

Originally Posted by Man from Nowhere

Amen to that. BTW, Glenn Beck is not a Republican and he could give a flying crap about the parties.

What is coming is the changing of the paradigm in this country and Glenn can see it coming. The change is the end of the relevance of the parties. More and more people are registering as independents or 3rd parties. People identify themselves by ideology now instead of by party. Liberal, Conservative, Progressive, Libertarian. McCain was a Republican but he was not a Conservative. He was, and is, a Progressive Republican. I totally agree with Glenn that Hillary would have been a better choice than McCain. McCain worse than Obama is iffy from my point of view but I can see the argument. Both parties have become rife with corruption, particularly the Dems. It took Bush to open the eyes of the right to what the Republican party had become, and now Obama is doing likewise for the left side. Change is certainly coming, the question is the change to what.

The reason electing McCain would have been worse than electing Obama is simple: McCain would have merely been a poor man's version of G-dub and would have only delayed the inevitable election of Obama or someone like him. McCain would have continued Bush's progressivism while simultaneous turning more and more away from the Republican party. By the time his first term would be over, Obama (or someone like him) would have had a guaranteed victory in 2012. Besides that, McCain would have been a lame duck president with Congress firmly rooted against him (especially after 2010).

I may not like Obama, but sadly he is the only reason a few Republicans are starting to wake up and recognize the dire situation that we are currently in. The two party system needs to end, however, in the day and age of partisanship I see no chance of that happening. Unfortunately, the only way to combat the President's policies is to side with the Conservative Republican side of the fence. I'd rather have a third party involved, but a third party just won't win and, therefore, the Democrats will, if a third party get enough support from the conservatives.

[Man from Nowhere]

Originally Posted by FutureDonkey

The reason electing McCain would have been worse than electing Obama is simple: McCain would have merely been a poor man's version of G-dub and would have only delayed the inevitable election of Obama or someone like him. McCain would have continued Bush's progressivism while simultaneous turning more and more away from the Republican party. By the time his first term would be over, Obama (or someone like him) would have had a guaranteed victory in 2012. Besides that, McCain would have been a lame duck president with Congress firmly rooted against him (especially after 2010).

I may not like Obama, but sadly he is the only reason a few Republicans are starting to wake up and recognize the dire situation that we are currently in. The two party system needs to end, however, in the day and age of partisanship I see no chance of that happening. Unfortunately, the only way to combat the President's policies is to side with the Conservative Republican side of the fence. I'd rather have a third party involved, but a third party just won't win and, therefore, the Democrats will, if a third party get enough support from the conservatives.

On domestic policy I completely agree. McCain, W and Obama are all very similar on domestic policy with the only difference being speed. Where the difference is, is foreign policy which is McCain's one strength.

I also agree with Obama's election galvanizing the political right. Obama did something McCain could never do and that is unify the political right. Like I've said for a while now, it's better to have someone stab you in the front rather than stab you in the back which is exactly what McCain would have done.

[YouMakeMeLeery]

The health expenditure numbers are accurate, however the reason they are so high is because of government bureaucracy and the limiting of the free market that has already happened. Our health care system is already partially socialized and it has gotten worse in terms of cost to benefit ratio. If we further socialize it it will get worse. We need to introduce more free market economics and allow for more competition. That will drive down cost and improve coverage.

I want to mention a few points.

1. I agree somewhat on the point about our costs and the interaction between government and private insurance. The fact that we have a mixed system is definitely contributing to higher costs. Of course, I am sure you will counter back with, "teh free marketz rulz all!!!!." You and me could probably agree that having government and free market doing the same thing is screwing up the system, but without any real proof you will attempt to say it is merely the fault of the government itself.

2. The realities of the situation is that if we got rid of all government health insurance, rates would rise and benefits would decrease. The facts bear this out quite simply when you compare the administrative costs of private and public. Not too mention the fact that when you add a profit motive in, everything gets more expensive.

How come free marketers can't understand that in order to get 10% profit on a product, the prices have to go up or quality has to go down, yet with no profit, you can save that 10%. I mean, it's so simple!

3. The reason that the government insurance is so high, is because it ACTUALLY PAYS OUT. It certainly isn't because the government is trying to turn a profit, which it isn't. The government runs into a spending problem with healthcare, because instead of money being eaten up in administrative costs and profits, they are actually paying for the servies the people on the government system need.

I don't think it's strange to assume that when healthcare costs rise, and your insurer actually covers people, they they would end up paying out. Just like point # 2, it's so simple!

4. Obama is not left, but you can keep trying to paint him as such. Let's look at the TRUTH.

- The Bailout.
: Republican idea was tax credits and rebates. This was a large portion of the bill and got even larger as Republicans pushed the issue and Obama bent over for them.
emocratic/Liberal/Genius Economists idea was using the money for infrastructure building, which was badly needed in our country anyway, but this was slashed and became a very small portion of the bill.

The end result was a bill that got almost no Republican support, but contained tons of Republican ideas.

- Prisoner Abuse Photos

: Republican idea was not to release them.

emocratic idea was to release them.

The end result was that they were not released.

- Van Jones

:Republicans wanted him fired for using his free speech.

emocrats wanted to finally see Obama push back against Republican hissy-fits and stand up for something.

The end result is that Obama caved and the Republicans got exactly what they wanted when Van Jones was fired.

- Iraq and Afghanistan War

:Republicans want a long-term troop prescence in Iraq and many are on board with trying to fix Afghanistan as well.
emocrats wanted Obama to stop wasting money and troops lives on something we can't possibly solve or win.

The end result is that Obama has put more American presence in the Middle East that Bush or Cheney could have dreamed of.

- War on Drugs

:Republicans wish to continue this foolhardy policy that goes against human nature and the realities of life. Republicans want this to continue because they love punishing people, even though they themselves often commit wrong doing. Republicans love the police state.

:Liberals want to see and end to the war on drugs altogether, or least to stop punshing marijuana smokers who are making a safer choice than most beer drinkers.

The result is that Obama laughs at marijuana smokers real concerns in a town hall event and doesn't change policy all that much.

-Healthcare

:Republicans want a give away to private companies. Republicans want to see tort reform. Republicans want no private option. Republicans want no end-of-life counseling, unless they are advertising it on their radio show or not in the political spotlight and decide they want to act serious.

emocrats/Liberals want a Canadian, Swedish, French, British style system where the government provides a baseline of health insurane for everyone and nobody gets bills that cause bankruptcy. At the very least, a public option, especially if people are going to be FORCED to get health insurance.

The end results. No public option. A bill that health care companies LOVE, and one that caused their stocks to rise when announced. Oh, and for those have more than two brain cells it will obvious that a crazy leftist takeover of healthcare would most certainly not be loved by health insurance companies. The bill also includes healthcare tort reform. The bill was written by some of the most conservative Democrats and three republicans, yes you heard that right, the committee that wrote the bill was half one party and half the other. I could imagine Bush doing something like that if he had the same kind of power Obama does...NOT. The most the bill does is help subsidize the insurance of those who can't afford it, but will have to get private insurance anyway, which amounts to giant payday to the healthcare companies.

I'm sorry, but anyone who is serious about politics at all knows that Obama and socialist don't mix at all. He is a corporatist just as much as the Republicans are. He has not enacted any real, revoluationary, piece of life changing legislation yet and probably won't. He has given more than half of his bills away to the ideas of a party that was summarily ousted from all places of government by the people.

The truth is, the Republicans know they have Obama by the balls and he will bend to their will. They know it, but they don't vote for anything, because even though he basically alters bills to their liking, it is politically advantageous for them to vote against it. They can vote against, and then if a bill fails they can claim they were always against it and if it succeeds they can say it only succeeded, because of changes that were enacted due to their hissy fits.