Fred Barnes does a nice job of summarizing the Obama presidency and many of the pitfalls that have been laid. We were promised change, but it is much of the same old same old.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124804492049963557.html

During the presidential campaign last year, Mr. Obama said he was committed to bipartisanship. But congressional Democrats aren't, as he surely knew. They rejected input from House Republicans on the stimulus -- without a peep of protest from the president. Minor concessions to three Republicans gave them the 60 votes to pass the bill in the Senate.

 

The president's vow of bipartisanship wasn't the only promise to crumble. Democrats said they'd give Republicans (and the public) 48 hours to read a bill before a vote. But the final version of the 1,071-page stimulus package was unveiled in the House at 1 a.m. on Feb. 13 and passed later that day after one hour of substantive debate. Every Republican voted no. The Senate vote came 16 hours after the three renegade Republicans agreed to an amended version of the stimulus.

The above is one of the things that gets me...why have the Democrats tried to ram rod this down people's throats without a thorough examinations of bills...stimulus, then cap and trade and now this helath care deal...

I'm confused, are they

 

A. Bogged down

or

B. Moving to fast

I'm confused, are they

 

A. Bogged down

or

B. Moving to fast

 

They were moving fast. Now they're slowing down. Partisan Democrats don't want debate so slowing down is bad news for them. When people find out what the real impact of the legislation they'll be against it and they'll let others know about it. That will give pause to the few moderate Democrats and there just might be enough of them to stop the legislation. That's why Obama wants everything done by August; if it takes longer he might not get what he wants: government run healthcare.

Fred Barnes does a nice job of summarizing the Obama presidency and many of the pitfalls that have been laid. We were promised change, but it is much of the same old same old.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124804492049963557.html

 

The above is one of the things that gets me...why have the Democrats tried to ram rod this down people's throats without a thorough examinations of bills...stimulus, then cap and trade and now this helath care deal...

 

We all know why but don't make it out to be only Democrats doing it. Republicans would have done the same thing if they had been blessed with the numbers the Dems currently enjoy.

We all know why but don't make it out to be only Democrats doing it. Republicans would have done the same thing if they had been blessed with the numbers the Dems currently enjoy.

 

This argument makes absolutely ZERO sense to me.

 

Aren't we all supposed to be working together? It's comments like this that steer me away from politics.

They were moving fast. Now they're slowing down. Partisan Democrats don't want debate so slowing down is bad news for them. When people find out what the real impact of the legislation they'll be against it and they'll let others know about it. That will give pause to the few moderate Democrats and there just might be enough of them to stop the legislation. That's why Obama wants everything done by August; if it takes longer he might not get what he wants: government run healthcare.

I still wouldn't classify the activity of the White House as slow by any means. I think the attempt to classify them as such is an inaccurate attempt at making them look bad. You can hate every single policy of the Obama administration, but you can't say it hasn't been effective.

 

Now lets look at the other side of the arguement, you say that the Dems want to run everything through so fast that no one knows what is going on. The counter arguement is that the Republicans are playing a full on stall game. They know they don't have the majority and they don't agree with the policies so the only tactic they have to play is to try to limit as much as they can. I think it is a mix of two things, A. They simply don't agree with the policy, and B. They absolutely don't want the Dems to get credit for attacking these long lingering problems that have effected the nation.

I still wouldn't classify the activity of the White House as slow by any means. I think the attempt to classify them as such is an inaccurate attempt at making them look bad. You can hate every single policy of the Obama administration, but you can't say it hasn't been effective.

 

Now lets look at the other side of the arguement, you say that the Dems want to run everything through so fast that no one knows what is going on. The counter arguement is that the Republicans are playing a full on stall game. They know they don't have the majority and they don't agree with the policies so the only tactic they have to play is to try to limit as much as they can. I think it is a mix of two things, A. They simply don't agree with the policy, and B. They absolutely don't want the Dems to get credit for attacking these long lingering problems that have effected the nation.

 

And they do that by voting on things before anyone could have possibly read the whole thing. Interesting considering O said that there would be transparency.

I still wouldn't classify the activity of the White House as slow by any means. I think the attempt to classify them as such is an inaccurate attempt at making them look bad. You can hate every single policy of the Obama administration, but you can't say it hasn't been effective.

 

Now lets look at the other side of the arguement, you say that the Dems want to run everything through so fast that no one knows what is going on. The counter arguement is that the Republicans are playing a full on stall game. They know they don't have the majority and they don't agree with the policies so the only tactic they have to play is to try to limit as much as they can. I think it is a mix of two things, A. They simply don't agree with the policy, and B. They absolutely don't want the Dems to get credit for attacking these long lingering problems that have effected the nation.

 

Attacking what lingering problems? According to polls 84% of the public is satisfied with with their current health programs. According to statistics the earth has been cooling for about the last 10 years. We have been through recessions before and did not have to spend trillions to get out of the recession or have the government takeover big businesses. Much of what the Dems are pushing as must do now reforms are overblown.

I watched a Jon Stewart show with Brian Williams last night and Williams said the Obama White House is doing all the tricks that the Clinton WH did, the Bush WH did to mold the story that is getting out to the American public.

 

If they don't like the way the news is going as the day progresses and they see a lead story on the news stations will be XYZ story that they don't like, they run the President or someone high up like that at 4:00 to change the lead story at the news broadcasts and mold the story to something they like during the day.

 

O the joy of transparency. Sure smells like the same ole crap. (to use Tony Danza's favorite word.)

This argument makes absolutely ZERO sense to me.

 

Aren't we all supposed to be working together? It's comments like this that steer me away from politics.

 

When did that last happen? I didn't say it was right, just that that's the way it is.

Attacking what lingering problems? According to polls 84% of the public is satisfied with with their current health programs. According to statistics the earth has been cooling for about the last 10 years. We have been through recessions before and did not have to spend trillions to get out of the recession or have the government takeover big businesses. Much of what the Dems are pushing as must do now reforms are overblown.

 

 

I assume your 84% statistic is of those Americans that actually have health insurance.

 

As to the global warming/not debate, we should still be stewards of the Earth for future generations.

 

Regarding the recession, I'm still astounded by the fact that despite many similar initiatives by Bush (bailouts, eg), Obama and the Democrats are the ones being blamed for overspending. It doesn't matter which president, what party, the fact of the matter is that something had to be done. We can go all the way back to stimulus checks, which I think were a dumb idea. It didn't just start last fall.

Regarding the recession, I'm still astounded by the fact that despite many similar initiatives by Bush (bailouts, eg), Obama and the Democrats are the ones being blamed for overspending.

:thumb::thumb::thumb:

 

Just as President Obama's overspending will handicap our healthcare industry, promote abortion, and blow up the deficit, President Bush's overspending outstretched our military, handicapped our education system, and blew up the deficit.

 

This is not a justification of President Obama's spending- but if any of you ticked off conservatives want to know why he is in office, it's because YOU elected and supported hypocritical Republicans, and the moderates are tired of it!

I assume your 84% statistic is of those Americans that actually have health insurance.

 

As to the global warming/not debate, we should still be stewards of the Earth for future generations.

 

Regarding the recession, I'm still astounded by the fact that despite many similar initiatives by Bush (bailouts, eg), Obama and the Democrats are the ones being blamed for overspending. It doesn't matter which president, what party, the fact of the matter is that something had to be done. We can go all the way back to stimulus checks, which I think were a dumb idea. It didn't just start last fall.

 

For health care you are most likely correct. Yet that shows we do not have to change everything to help a small percentage of the population. Let us remember there are those who choose to do without insurance and in the numbers of the uninsured a large number of illegal aliens (for the PC people, immigrants) are included.

 

We have been good stewards. Compare air and water quality to 30 to 40 years ago and we are much better off. Once again, make progress without having to go extremes.

 

Bush did overspend, yet nothing like what Obama has done and wants to continue to do.

 

Do we need some changes, maybe, possibly, but we do not need to tear the house down and rebuild it, when some remodeling is all that is needed.

For health care you are most likely correct. Yet that shows we do not have to change everything to help a small percentage of the population. Let us remember there are those who choose to do without insurance and in the numbers of the uninsured a large number of illegal aliens (for the PC people, immigrants) are included.

 

We have been good stewards. Compare air and water quality to 30 to 40 years ago and we are much better off. Once again, make progress without having to go extremes.

 

Bush did overspend, yet nothing like what Obama has done and wants to continue to do.

 

Do we need some changes, maybe, possibly, but we do not need to tear the house down and rebuild it, when some remodeling is all that is needed.

 

 

I agree that we most likely don't need to reinvent the wheel. And frankly, my personal thoughts on healthcare reform have more to do with overhauling the entire social aid program, and less about healthcare reform specifically. I personally believe the waste and overspending is in the administration of the welfare system as a whole, and not in any one specific program.

I agree that we most likely don't need to reinvent the wheel. And frankly, my personal thoughts on healthcare reform have more to do with overhauling the entire social aid program, and less about healthcare reform specifically. I personally believe the waste and overspending is in the administration of the welfare system as a whole, and not in any one specific program.

 

 

I agree with this whole heartedly. I do not, in any way, understand why people want to put more power and more control in the hands of the government, which is inefficient in virtually everything that it does.