How do you think Obama is doing

[Darth Ultor]

War on Terrorism: Not once did he refer to this conflict as the "War on Terror", and he handles it as a very unimportant issue. First of all, why the fuck are there troops still in Iraq when he clearly stated that there will be a withdrawal within the year? He has seldom made contact with the top General in Afghanistan, whereas Bush, who allegedly ignored Afghanistan, was on the phone with him every day. The only reason he's not getting an F on this is because he's finally sending troops into Afghanistan, and I can only hope he'll let them take a proactive role.

National Security: He's approaching the issue with a pre-9/11 frame of mind. This display we saw with the attempted attack on Christmas Day and how he didn't interrupt his surfing vacation only proves that.

Economy: Jobs are scarce, the value of the dollar is dropping, gas and food prices are going up, and everyone is holding on to what little money they have. His little stimulus packages aren't doing much, if anything.

Health care: I need to see how this works out first, because government-run health care works in some countries.

His general attitude: This man is very left-wing, yet he claims bipartisanship. There's no reaching across the line, only partisan politics. His associates are radical lefties, and if I were him, I would chose my friends more carefully. Most of all, he's very naive and he still acts like a Senator from Illinois, not the President of the United States. I especially don't agree with how he represents America abroad. He promised transparency and change in Washington and all we get is lefty instead of a tool. All I can say is, he'd better wise up.

Overall, he's doing a very poor job, and he can make all the inspirational speeches he wants. It's what's on paper that matters and the results of his decisions.

Final grade: D

 

[CassinoChips]

War on Terrorism: Not once did he refer to this conflict as the "War on Terror", and he handles it as a very unimportant issue. First of all, why the fuck are there troops still in Iraq when he clearly stated that there will be a withdrawal within the year? He has seldom made contact with the top General in Afghanistan, whereas Bush, who allegedly ignored Afghanistan, was on the phone with him every day. The only reason he's not getting an F on this is because he's finally sending troops into Afghanistan, and I can only hope he'll let them take a proactive role.

Bush stopped referring to it as the "War on Terror" when his people told him that phrase was no longer popular. Then it became the "Global Struggle Against Extremism". And, considering the state of the economy, health care, and education, it's not really an important issue.

There are still troops in Iraq because it's not feasible to withdraw them right now. I would argue that we will never be able to withdraw our troops completely from Iraq. McCain wasn't far off when he said it would last "100 years."

National Security: He's approaching the issue with a pre-9/11 frame of mind. This display we saw with the attempted attack on Christmas Day and how he didn't interrupt his surfing vacation only proves that.

What, exactly, is a pre-9/11 state of mind?

And the vacation argument is ridiculous when you look at how much time -literally record-setting - Bush spent at his Crawford ranch while the economy fell to pieces around him.

"Now, watch this drive."

Economy: Jobs are scarce, the value of the dollar is dropping, gas and food prices are going up, and everyone is holding on to what little money they have. His little stimulus packages aren't doing much, if anything.

Bush's little stimulus packages didn't do much either. All these economic factors started under the previous administration, who inherited a budget that had produced surpluses over the last few years of the administration before them. National economics has a long cycle.

Health care: I need to see how this works out first, because government-run health care works in some countries.

Ditto.

His general attitude: This man is very left-wing, yet he claims bipartisanship. There's no reaching across the line, only partisan politics. His associates are radical lefties, and if I were him, I would chose my friends more carefully. Most of all, he's very naive and he still acts like a Senator from Illinois, not the President of the United States. I especially don't agree with how he represents America abroad. He promised transparency and change in Washington and all we get is lefty instead of a tool. All I can say is, he'd better wise up.

Every politician promises change in Washington. Not one has ever delivered. Obama is no different. Obama is much more well received overseas than Bush ever was. Bush portrayed us as a bunch of redneck cowboys, hellbent on bullying everybody else into our way of thinking. Whatever Obama portrays us as, it's bound to be better than that. And anyway, the person who represents us abroad the majority of the time is the Secretary of State, and not the President. And by all accounts, she's been the best Secretary of State since Kissinger.

Overall, he's doing a very poor job, and he can make all the inspirational speeches he wants. It's what's on paper that matters and the results of his decisions.

Exactly. And how anyone can expect results in one year after the steaming pile of doo he was handed is beyond me. But there are some things he has done that are good, including allowing federal funding of stem-cell research and signing in the Matthew Shepard law among them. (Though I disagree with the concept of hate crimes in principle, if we're going to have them, they need to be applied to sexual orientation as well.)

Final Grade: D

Final Grade: Pending.

 

[Nilladar]

I would believe Obama has failed. Let me inform you that i am neither Democrat or republican, so my opinion is not based on political bias.

Obama recently, after the Christmas bomb scare, released a list of what i believe is 13 nations that are required to go through advance screening. This is a violation of human rights, you cannot stereotype a terrorist. Americans are also terrorist so why do we not have to be advance screened?

Also Obama said he was going to start to pull troops out of iraq but recently signed a bill to send, if i remember correct, a record 104 billion to fund our troops. This is not what he originally said he was going to be doing. So Republicans and Democrats celebrate alike, the war machine is still being over funded.

http://www.crimethinc.com/ -- a site for people that want to make a change in this country. (Also Please dont tell me i hate this country. I enjoy America we just do some really messed up things and we need a revolution in it.

 

[blakstang98]

War on Terrorism: Not once did he refer to this conflict as the "War on Terror", and he handles it as a very unimportant issue. First of all, why the fuck are there troops still in Iraq when he clearly stated that there will be a withdrawal within the year? He has seldom made contact with the top General in Afghanistan, whereas Bush, who allegedly ignored Afghanistan, was on the phone with him every day. The only reason he's not getting an F on this is because he's finally sending troops into Afghanistan, and I can only hope he'll let them take a proactive role.

Well, if Obama calls it "War on Terror", doesn't that insult his own? I know it offends people when I say it, but I still believe that he is one of "them". I feel the war is necessary, so sending troops is a must. From his standpoint, he plays peacemaker, yet he sends troops anyways. Oddly enough, when Bush claimed to send more troops, people bitched about it, but when the choosen one does, he's a hero, total hypocracy. If I was a liberal supporter, I would be pissed that he took back his word. Bush made a grand effort to keep us safe and our safety is taking a big hit these days.

National Security: He's approaching the issue with a pre-9/11 frame of mind. This display we saw with the attempted attack on Christmas Day and how he didn't interrupt his surfing vacation only proves that.

Totally agreed. I don't just blame that on him because the people are thinking this way as well. Everyone was fired up when 9/11 happened and people took initiative in being safe, and now people are lightening up which makes us a target again. It's amazing how quickly people forget. I wouldn't expect one who supports terrorism/anti-American to interrupt his vacation.

Economy: Jobs are scarce, the value of the dollar is dropping, gas and food prices are going up, and everyone is holding on to what little money they have. His little stimulus packages aren't doing much, if anything.

This was the big promotion in "change" and yet we still don't see results. We were supposed to seeing millions of new jobs, yet unemployment is higher than it's ever been. Somehow Bush is still being blamed for this. The stimulus was a joke, it only hurts us in the long run. People don't see results in the stimulus, it just pads the pockets of the state governments (like they need more).

Health care: I need to see how this works out first, because government-run health care works in some countries.

I don't want to see this happen, hopefully it dies. Why should I pay extra money to health care to support someone other than myself (and family if I had a wife and kids)? Why should some crackhead or hooker turning tricks be supported by us employed people? Dare I mention the "death panel" that would undoubtedly deny my handicapped sister health care, god forbid she started having serious medical issues again because she doesn't contribute enough to society. Health care may work in other countries, but I don't see it working here and want it shot down immediately.

His general attitude: This man is very left-wing, yet he claims bipartisanship. There's no reaching across the line, only partisan politics. His associates are radical lefties, and if I were him, I would chose my friends more carefully. Most of all, he's very naive and he still acts like a Senator from Illinois, not the President of the United States. I especially don't agree with how he represents America abroad. He promised transparency and change in Washington and all we get is lefty instead of a tool. All I can say is, he'd better wise up.

Obviously he's just a puppet of a greater power, so I don't focus on how closed-minded he is as far as left and right is concerned. He was a Senator of Illinois, I think that says many things, don't you?

One thing that tends to annoy me is that when you say you don't support his ideas, then you're a racist. I mean, how does not agreeing with ideas make a person a racist anyways? It's awfully hard to debate issues when such petty statements get made.

Final grade: D

Final grade: F

Sorry for the long rant folks. I just very much dislike this guy, sorry if that makes us enemies now because of my political opinion.

 

[Sleepyfoxx]

Originally Posted by Darth Ultor
War on Terrorism: Not once did he refer to this conflict as the "War on Terror", and he handles it as a very unimportant issue. First of all, why the fuck are there troops still in Iraq when he clearly stated that there will be a withdrawal within the year? He has seldom made contact with the top General in Afghanistan, whereas Bush, who allegedly ignored Afghanistan, was on the phone with him every day. The only reason he's not getting an F on this is because he's finally sending troops into Afghanistan, and I can only hope he'll let them take a proactive role.

I'm also a little pissed at the fact Obama made such a big speech about bring them home, a few months later I find out in a newspaper that he has a change of change and now a good friend of mines will be sent over there this month (sighs) to me this just shows that the man is afraid of any possible outcome if he withdraws the troop and I can understand that, however don't make such a daring speech only to double cross your words

National Security: He's approaching the issue with a pre-9/11 frame of mind. This display we saw with the attempted attack on Christmas Day and how he didn't interrupt his surfing vacation only proves that.

Well he did order tighter security afterward...there's nothing much more he can do about the attempt, unless you want another speech >_>

Health care: I need to see how this works out first, because government-run health care works in some countries.

I'm glad this is going to happen soon, however this took too long and I'm now paying for my own coverage but he gets a thumbs up

His general attitude: This man is very left-wing, yet he claims bipartisanship. There's no reaching across the line, only partisan politics. His associates are radical lefties, and if I were him, I would chose my friends more carefully. Most of all, he's very naive and he still acts like a Senator from Illinois, not the President of the United States. I especially don't agree with how he represents America abroad. He promised transparency and change in Washington and all we get is lefty instead of a tool. All I can say is, he'd better wise up.

There will never be change in Washington, I'd ignored him when he said this, I mean how many Presidents of the past had said something like this only to show no results...the answer is too big of a number in my book

Final grade: D

It's still too early for my grade...I gladly gave Bush an F, hopefully Obama will maintain an C at least if he's lucky

 

[GBJoker]

War on Terrorism: I am still irked by the fact people call it a "war." I'm pissed that people think we are in a war in Iraq. Little hint: We're not. If we were at war with any one, the military could do a lot more. Irked by people being mad that we stayed in Iraq now 7.5 years. Tip: We're still in Germany too...

That said, I expected nothing less from Obama. He took 3+ months to send 30k troops to Afghanistan. That's too long for such little amount of soldiers on the ground. Sending record funding bill for troops to Iraq/Afghan... Expected. He's a spender. Like all Dems/Libs.

National Security: Again, expected. "We can't try the terrorists in military court because we might damage their self-esteems!!"

Economy: Sure, it's not Obama's fault. It's not Bush's either. It's Clinton's. Deregulating derivatives and other types of loans and loan trading in the late 90s made this recession inevitable. And we need to stop lending money to any company at this point. You CEOs and other management types ran your own business into the ground, accept it. Of course, the usury lords can't accept it. That's what makes me feel good knowing that naive little Pawn Obama is in power.

Health Care: Yes, I feel great knowing that I'm pretty sick, and definitely very sick for my age (22), but I'm going to get taxed beyond belief because I refuse to accept any government hand outs. Not to mention his little plan doesn't take effect until 2013, after he and his minions/masters get re-elected.

General Attitude: Holier than thou? Yep, that's covered. Blaming every one but himself? Yep, got that one still as well. Hell, I got pissed when every one mentioned how humble he was the morning he heard he was getting the Nobel. He wasn't being humble, he was making his daughter look naive and humble. He knew full well that getting the Nobel only solidified his place as the coolest dude on the planet. Too bad Putin and Ahmadinejad couldn't give a rat's ass.

My score: Expected failure. But no one can say that because it's racist.

PS: Race relations only went up one time in the past 40 years... You guessed it, when Bush Jr was in office. Obama erased all of that by August. It now stands almost as low as when Nixon was in office.

 

[CassinoChips]

That said, I expected nothing less from Obama. He took 3+ months to send 30k troops to Afghanistan. That's too long for such little amount of soldiers on the ground. Sending record funding bill for troops to Iraq/Afghan... Expected. He's a spender. Like all Dems/Libs.

Oh come on now, you and I both know that while Democrats have been stigmatized as overspenders, they've never been accused of pumping too much money into the military. You're speaking out of both sides of the Republican mouth here.

National Security: Again, expected. "We can't try the terrorists in military court because we might damage their self-esteems!!"

We can't try the terrorists in military court because they're not military combatants.

Economy: Sure, it's not Obama's fault. It's not Bush's either. It's Clinton's. Deregulating derivatives and other types of loans and loan trading in the late 90s made this recession inevitable. And we need to stop lending money to any company at this point. You CEOs and other management types ran your own business into the ground, accept it. Of course, the usury lords can't accept it. That's what makes me feel good knowing that naive little Pawn Obama is in power.

The economy is far too complex an animal to blame or credit any one person for, outside of rare, specific instances.

Health Care: Yes, I feel great knowing that I'm pretty sick, and definitely very sick for my age (22), but I'm going to get taxed beyond belief because I refuse to accept any government hand outs. Not to mention his little plan doesn't take effect until 2013, after he and his minions/masters get re-elected.

Again, the U.S. has one of the smallest tax burdens in the world. They could triple your taxes and you still would be within the bounds of "belief".

General Attitude: Holier than thou?

As compared to the previous President, who claimed God spoke to him?

PS: Race relations only went up one time in the past 40 years... You guessed it, when Bush Jr was in office. Obama erased all of that by August. It now stands almost as low as when Nixon was in office.

Ah, yes. George W. Bush, that shining beacon of racial equality.

How do you quantify "race relations"? Also, the major flaw in your premise is that, currently, we have a black man as President of the United States. Considering that that was virtually impossible previous to 2000, I'd say that's a pretty good step towards "higher" race relations.

 

[GBJoker]

Oh come on now, you and I both know that while Democrats have been stigmatized as overspenders, they've never been accused of pumping too much money into the military. You're speaking out of both sides of the Republican mouth here.



We can't try the terrorists in military court because they're not military combatants.



The economy is far too complex an animal to blame or credit any one person for, outside of rare, specific instances.



Again, the U.S. has one of the smallest tax burdens in the world. They could triple your taxes and you still would be within the bounds of "belief".



As compared to the previous President, who claimed God spoke to him?



Ah, yes. George W. Bush, that shining beacon of racial equality.

How do you quantify "race relations"? Also, the major flaw in your premise is that, currently, we have a black man as President of the United States. Considering that that was virtually impossible previous to 2000, I'd say that's a pretty good step towards "higher" race relations.

I really need to learn how to split up quotes like you did... Anyways...

I'm not a Republican. Besides, as some already pointed out, and was pretty obvious anyways in 08, Obama was pushing hard for reducing military peoples on the ground, and sending money there. Since he is doing the opposite of that, I'm just saying he's doing what I expected a Democrat to do.

You're right, they're technically not military combatants. But they aren't US citizens either. And I don't accept the UN as a good international party to try these people.

And in this specific time and part of the economy (derivatives, home loans, mortages, loans in general), this is a very specific spot that Clinton and his administration deregulated.

We do have one of the smallest income taxes in the world, and dare I say the smallest. But we're also one of the few with both income and sales taxes. Not to mention SS, state, and local. SS being by far the worst of all of them. It's kind of a pain in the ass to know that my 250 dollars a week will be turned into about 190ish dollars a week if the currect health care bill were to take effect tomorrow.

Yes, even compared to some one who believes "god" spoke to him. Any politician who goes around saying they are the coolest most bad ass dude humanity has ever seen, needs to be immediately removed from power.

The President's race is not much of a factor in race relations. Just look at the Gates arrest this past August. What matters is how the President handles race matters. How often was race brought up when Bush was in office? Rarely. Obama barely hit 8 months when he made damn sure what he thought of white cops.

 

[CassinoChips]

I really need to learn how to split up quotes like you did... Anyways...

[ quote=UserName]text[ /quote]

Without the spaces.

I'm not a Republican. Besides, as some already pointed out, and was pretty obvious anyways in 08, Obama was pushing hard for reducing military peoples on the ground, and sending money there. Since he is doing the opposite of that, I'm just saying he's doing what I expected a Democrat to do.

Never said you were. And what is it you expect a Democrat to do? The implication is lie. All politicians do that.

And in this specific time and part of the economy (derivatives, home loans, mortages, loans in general), this is a very specific spot that Clinton and his administration deregulated.

"A financial deregulation bill was passed in the early 1980s under the Reagan administration, lifting many restrictions on the activities of savings and loan associations, which had previously been limited primarily to the home-loan market. The result was an orgy of speculation, profiteering and outright plundering of assets, culminating in collapse and the biggest financial bailout in US history, costing the federal government more than $500 billion."
--Martin McLaughlin, 1999

Sound familiar?

That bill can be traced to the fight over the CRA in 1977. Which can be traced to many aspects of the New Deal. Which is a direct result of the Great Depression. And on and on... The economy is not controlled strictly by the PotUS. In fact, there is very little any President can do to affect it.

We do have one of the smallest income taxes in the world, and dare I say the smallest. But we're also one of the few with both income and sales taxes. Not to mention SS, state, and local. SS being by far the worst of all of them. It's kind of a pain in the ass to know that my 250 dollars a week will be turned into about 190ish dollars a week if the currect health care bill were to take effect tomorrow.

It's also kind of a pain in the ass not to be able to afford health insurance and live in abject fear of getting seriously sick/injured. Your/My $60 vs. 50 million people without insurance.... I know which one I'd choose.

Yes, even compared to some one who believes "god" spoke to him. Any politician who goes around saying they are the coolest most bad ass dude humanity has ever seen, needs to be immediately removed from power.

Where did he say this? When did he say this?

Obama barely hit 8 months when he made damn sure what he thought of white cops.

Finish the sentence. ... of white cops who pull over/arrest black males in disproportionately large numbers.

How often was race brought up when Bush was in office? Rarely.

2002: Trent Lott's Segregationism at Ole Miss
2003: Limbaugh v. McNabb
2006: Jena Six, Michael Richards, Mel Gibson
2007: Don Imus

And on and on. It was not as rare as you think.

 

[GBJoker]

[ quote=UserName]text[ /quote]

Without the spaces.

Thank you.

Never said you were. And what is it you expect a Democrat to do? The implication is lie. All politicians do that.

I expect a Democrat to back step as fast as they can whenever they get slapped in the face with evidence of them lying.

"A financial deregulation bill was passed in the early 1980s under the Reagan administration, lifting many restrictions on the activities of savings and loan associations, which had previously been limited primarily to the home-loan market. The result was an orgy of speculation, profiteering and outright plundering of assets, culminating in collapse and the biggest financial bailout in US history, costing the federal government more than $500 billion."
--Martin McLaughlin, 1999

Sound familiar?

Yes, very similiar to practices by Clinton and his administration. President Bush Jr barely tried to change the economy as far as I know. He was kinda busy shooting missiles at random Arab countries. Which was fine with me, really.

That bill can be traced to the fight over the CRA in 1977. Which can be traced to many aspects of the New Deal. Which is a direct result of the Great Depression. And on and on... The economy is not controlled strictly by the PotUS. In fact, there is very little any President can do to affect it.

More proof that it is entirely possible to learn something new every day. Thanks for a second time.

It's also kind of a pain in the ass not to be able to afford health insurance and live in abject fear of getting seriously sick/injured. Your/My $60 vs. 50 million people without insurance.... I know which one I'd choose.

Odd that the bill takes my 60 bucks and then makes me poor enough that I can't afford private insurance, forcing me to become reliant on YOUR 60 bucks to have health care. Tort reform should have been presented far before a public insurance plan.

And it's not 50 million people. It's closer to about 15-16 mil.

Also, only, at best, about 30ish% of those are actually sick enough to really need any kind of insurance.

To rephrase your question... Your/My 60 dollars vs. about 4 mill people who need insurance AND about 10 mil people who sit on their lazy asses and refuse to get a job while already receiving more money from SS and other welfare programs than I make in a year for doing real work? I've alreay made my choice.

Finish the sentence. ... of white cops who pull over/arrest black males in disproportionately large numbers.

Yes, because all white cops are racist, and all black cops aren't. Nevermind the fact that there were black officers at the Gates arrest, nevermind the fact that Gates was acting jumpy and aggresive, and the standard trained response any officer learns for that situation is to have your hand on your gun. And of course, every one forgot who the original racist was. The dumb old woman who saw a black guy going into a house and immediately hit 911 on the phone.

And by the way, while more black people get pulled over, there are almost equal numbers of whites and blacks in prison and jail.

 

[CassinoChips]

I expect a Democrat to back step as fast as they can whenever they get slapped in the face with evidence of them lying.

Again, all politicians do that, regardless of party.

Yes, very similiar to practices by Clinton and his administration. President Bush Jr barely tried to change the economy as far as I know. He was kinda busy shooting missiles at random Arab countries. Which was fine with me, really.

Really? Because that contributed to a tripling in the price of gas.

Odd that the bill takes my 60 bucks and then makes me poor enough that I can't afford private insurance, forcing me to become reliant on YOUR 60 bucks to have health care.

Let me take the conservative standpoint here: Make more money or don't get sick/in an accident.

Honestly, if you're able to afford health insurance on $1000/mo., you need to tell me who you insure under.

And it's not 50 million people. It's closer to about 15-16 mil.

"Data released today [8/29/06] by the Census Bureau show that the number of uninsured Americans stood at a record 46.6 million in 2005, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage. “The number of uninsured Americans reached an all-time high in 2005,” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “It is sobering that 5.4 million more people lacked health insurance in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001, primarily because of the erosion of employer-based insurance.”"

"A new Census report finds that, in 2008, the number of people without health insurance increased from from 45.7 million to 46.3 million (the number of uninsured has increased by 7.3 million since 2000)."

Also, only, at best, about 30ish% of those are actually sick enough to really need any kind of insurance.

You don't get health insurance because you're sick. (In fact, most insurance companies won't cover pre-existing conditions.) You get health insurance in case you become sick or get in an accident.

Yes, because all white cops are racist, and all black cops aren't.

Sure, that's what I said.

And by the way, while more black people get pulled over, there are almost equal numbers of whites and blacks in prison and jail.

"According to the Bureau of Justice of Statistics, by the end of 2005 there were 3,145 black male prison inmates per 100,000 in the United States compared to 471 white male inmates per 100,000."

Sure looks almost equal to me.

 

[Valkyrur]

I'm not American, so it's somewhat difficult for me to grade him accurately based on his actions in his home country. Furthermore, I'll admit that I do not keep up much with his actions, though I do read those news about him occasionally. I'll give my personal opinion of Obama, as 'someone overseas'.

As some news have already reported, Obama's fame overseas is probably greater than his fame back home. I'm probably one of those that like him as well. When he was running for Presidency, the impression he left on me was huge. And, so far, his recent actions have done little to weaken that impression.

If I were to rate him with my superficial view right now, it'll be a decent Grade A. This grade would probably be super inaccurate though, seeing as I'm merely rating him based on my personal impression and discounting all recent mistakes he may have made.

 

[.Ted]

Im in the same position as Music. I also learned a lot from the debate between CassinoChips and GBJoker, so my thanks to the both of you in updating what our situation is. To be honest, I rarely watch the news relating to our President, and barely know any politics myself. Also, I don't have CNN or FOX News which is probably where we all hear this stuff (and online as well).

After reading what other members said about him, I decided to give him a B-minus.

Was there a draft recently, by the way? I know a lot of people signed up to serve this country we call America. But we should all know the consequences to our actions. No one knows how long exactly our troops will remain away from their families. But they chose to remain away in order to serve this country in the first place. I don't think they would complain about it, or they would be hypocritical in my opinion.

This, of course, can only be true if there was no draft lately. I'm only 19, so if there was a draft that happened long ago, I wouldn't know about it. I beg everyone: If I'm wrong, please let me know. I don't want to make anyone mad or anything.

EDIT: Changed "whine" to "complain". There is a difference between those words and I would like to apologize, especially if I offended anybody. I'm really trying my best not to.

 

[GBJoker]

Again, all politicians do that, regardless of party.

But my question is, what makes Obama Hope & Change war machine so different?

Really? Because that contributed to a tripling in the price of gas.

That was inevitable. Because of both the US and China. I just find it interesting that, oh, since Bush attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, gas jumped up and it's clearly his fault and is killing our wallets. But Obama proposes 1 trillion to a healthcare bill that we will be taxed on the second it passes but won't actually do anything until 2013 is a-okay.

Let me take the conservative standpoint here: Make more money or don't get sick/in an accident.

Let me take the liberal standpoint here: We'll force others to take care of you whether they want to or not.

Honestly, if you're able to afford health insurance on $1000/mo., you need to tell me who you insure under.

Wal-Mart's insurance plan for employees. Which will disappear in 2013, because it's cheaper to pay the 8% to the government for the public insurance, than the approximately 12-13ish% WM currently pays it's insurance company.

"Data released today [8/29/06] by the Census Bureau show that the number of uninsured Americans stood at a record 46.6 million in 2005, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage. “The number of uninsured Americans reached an all-time high in 2005,” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “It is sobering that 5.4 million more people lacked health insurance in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001, primarily because of the erosion of employer-based insurance.”"

"A new Census report finds that, in 2008, the number of people without health insurance increased from from 45.7 million to 46.3 million (the number of uninsured has increased by 7.3 million since 2000)."

Remember, Obamahdinejad's health care plan doesn't cover all of them. Only about 15 mil of them.

You don't get health insurance because you're sick. (In fact, most insurance companies won't cover pre-existing conditions.) You get health insurance in case you become sick or get in an accident.

You're mostly right. Insurance when first created was designed as a group pool. Every one who agrees to these set of rules pools money together at the end of the month, and should one of us get sick, they can take out a reasonable amount to pay for medical bills, or funeral bills, or car bills, etc. The problem became when the self-esteemers and liberals of America believed they deserved more than what was equivalent to how much they put in through the agreed upon rules.

Yes, I know full well that I'm giving up about 5 bucks a week for insurance through Wal-Mart that other people use but I haven't yet, which is similiar to Obama's proposal. But, the people my money is currently supporting are people I know work at WM and therefore, I know are actually doing something to help me as well. Most of the people who will be covered by Obama's plan aren't doing anything to help me, or hardly any one in this country. Hell, almost none of them are even registered to vote. If they were, they could have easily granted Obama his claimed 70% majority in 2008. (He actually won by 53% vs 46% McCain)

According to the Bureau of Justice of Statistics, by the end of 2005 there were 3,145 black male prison inmates per 100,000 in the United States compared to 471 white male inmates per 100,000."

Sure looks almost equal to me.

To me as well.

Was there a draft recently, by the way? I know a lot of people signed up to serve this country we call America. But we should all know the consequences to our actions. No one knows how long exactly our troops will remain away from their families. But they chose to remain away in order to serve this country in the first place. I don't think they would complain about it, or they would be hypocritical in my opinion.Was there a draft recently, by the way? I know a lot of people signed up to serve this country we call America. But we should all know the consequences to our actions. No one knows how long exactly our troops will remain away from their families. But they chose to remain away in order to serve this country in the first place. I don't think they would complain about it, or they would be hypocritical in my opinion.

There was technically a draft in USA until the late 1960s, early 70s. The Vietnam war forced a lot of people to be shipped out. But it's massive unpopularity then forced Nixon to shove a bill through that eliminated the draft altogether, as far as I know. It might only come back for America if there was WWIII that started in East Europe or Africa, which isn't likely to happen anyways.

 

[.Ted]

There was technically a draft in USA until the late 1960s, early 70s. The Vietnam war forced a lot of people to be shipped out. But it's massive unpopularity then forced Nixon to shove a bill through that eliminated the draft altogether, as far as I know. It might only come back for America if there was WWIII that started in East Europe or Africa, which isn't likely to happen anyways.

Thanks for allivieating my ignorance a bit. Now I know about the most recent draft (it is the most recent, right?)

That's all I wanted to know; to know if there was a draft recently. If there wasn't, I wouldn't want people to get mad at our recently-elected President about not bringing our troops by the end of '09. Granted, that was a promise he couldn't keep. But it's also been pointed out to me that not many politicians keep that kind of promise. After all, I've made some promises myself that I thought I could keep when I actually couldn't, so I kinda understand why they couldn't. Of course, that's just me.

I just don't want the troop promise to be everyone's top reason of hating, if nothing else, our President. After all, our troops chose to serve our country during this century. They weren't forced to do so by any draft. They have my respect and I do hope they come home soon, at least for a while.

I mean absolutely no disrespect, especially since I'm not much educated on politics. I would love to be friends with even those that disagree with me, just to show that there are no hard feelings between us.

 

[CassinoChips]

But my question is, what makes Obama Hope & Change war machine so different?

It isn't. Politicians are all the same. The only reason he has this groundswell of support is due to the reaction against the previous administration, which was, to put it bluntly, horrible.

That was inevitable. Because of both the US and China. I just find it interesting that, oh, since Bush attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, gas jumped up and it's clearly his fault and is killing our wallets. But Obama proposes 1 trillion to a healthcare bill that we will be taxed on the second it passes but won't actually do anything until 2013 is a-okay.

We (Americans) get nothing out of higher gas prices. We get something out of a health care bill.

Wal-Mart's insurance plan for employees. Which will disappear in 2013, because it's cheaper to pay the 8% to the government for the public insurance, than the approximately 12-13ish% WM currently pays it's insurance company.

So then Wal-Mart won't be taking your health insurance benefits out of your paycheck any more. So it won't actually be $60/wk.

Remember, Obama's health care plan doesn't cover all of them. Only about 15 mil of them.

Of course. Because conservatives would flip the hell out if we tried to do something crazy like cover everybody.

Give it time, it'll happen.

But, the people my money is currently supporting are people I know work at WM and therefore, I know are actually doing something to help me as well. Most of the people who will be covered by Obama's plan aren't doing anything to help me, or hardly any one in this country.

I'm sure you've met all 47 million uninsured people in the U.S., and can determine what they are or aren't doing for the country.

But this is the inherently selfish mentality that drives me nuts about those opposed to public health care and conservatives in general. "I receive no benefit from this, therefore it is bad." What is ironic is that it is supposedly the conservatives who are patriotic and all about sacrificing for the U.S. But apparently that's all just rhetoric, because the second they get the opportunity to actually sacrifice something of their own to imporve the living standard of millions of people throughout the country, they balk, for no other reason than they can't see past their own wallet. The hypocrisy is astounding.

[/rant]

To me as well.

Right, getting incarcerated at a rate of 7:1 when the population distribution is more like 1:8 is absolutely equal. And just to be clear, [/sarcasm]

 

[GBJoker]

It isn't. Politicians are all the same. The only reason he has this groundswell of support is due to the reaction against the previous administration, which was, to put it bluntly, horrible.

Compared to...? Clinton? Don't make me laugh. Bush Sr? I'm not entirely sure what exactly Bush Sr did, so... Maybe. Reagan? Sure. Carter? Don't make me laugh. Nixon? Finally, some one who for sure beat Bush Jr... Only had to go back 30 years...

We (Americans) get nothing out of higher gas prices. We get something out of a health care bill.

And that would be? Higher taxes? A government run system? And of course, from a government that can't run crap. See USPS, virtually all recent military operations, economic matters, etc.

So then Wal-Mart won't be taking your health insurance benefits out of your paycheck any more. So it won't actually be $60/wk.

Yeah, they will. It'll drop from 60 to 40 bucks a week. If you think for one second that the tax imposed on businesses won't get passed down the food chain, you're deluding yourself.

Of course. Because conservatives would flip the hell out if we tried to do something crazy like cover everybody.

Give it time, it'll happen.

Yep. When every one is poor, and can't afford any private insurance, because they're getting taxed to hell and back. Fortunately, soon afterwards, the whole system will run out of people to tax and we'll see something very similar to SS now. And damn... That's just going to make SS right now look like we went apesh*t over 20 measely dollars.

I'm sure you've met all 47 million uninsured people in the U.S., and can determine what they are or aren't doing for the country.

But this is the inherently selfish mentality that drives me nuts about those opposed to public health care and conservatives in general. "I receive no benefit from this, therefore it is bad." What is ironic is that it is supposedly the conservatives who are patriotic and all about sacrificing for the U.S. But apparently that's all just rhetoric, because the second they get the opportunity to actually sacrifice something of their own to imporve the living standard of millions of people throughout the country, they balk, for no other reason than they can't see past their own wallet. The hypocrisy is astounding.

[/rant]

Good thing I'm not a conservative, or I might have been offended by that paragraph.

And liberals aren't patriotic either. Hell, I believe I'd have to look a very long time to meet another person who is.

Right, getting incarcerated at a rate of 7:1 when the population distribution is more like 1:8 is absolutely equal. And just to be clear, [/sarcasm]

When more blacks per capita commit crime than whites (I know it's not 7:1, more like 3:2, but still), then more blacks will be in prison/jail.

That's all I wanted to know; to know if there was a draft recently. If there wasn't, I wouldn't want people to get mad at our recently-elected President about not bringing our troops by the end of '09. Granted, that was a promise he couldn't keep. But it's also been pointed out to me that not many politicians keep that kind of promise. After all, I've made some promises myself that I thought I could keep when I actually couldn't, so I kinda understand why they couldn't. Of course, that's just me.

I just don't want the troop promise to be everyone's top reason of hating, if nothing else, our President. After all, our troops chose to serve our country during this century. They weren't forced to do so by any draft. They have my respect and I do hope they come home soon, at least for a while.

Nah, none of the troops Bush or Obama sent over were drafted. 100% voluntary.

Quite frankly, I'm glad Big O sent 30k over. We need to just kill all those SOBs. The Islamics in Iran are tolerable, especially the younger ones, but those old geezers in Afghan/Paki and now Yemen need to just be wiped off the face of the planet.

 

[FinalHeart]

Meh, he hasn't been particularly good or particularly horrible if you ask me. I liked the general idea of the health care plan (although I didn't know the details) with public option and such, but you know, that would make us "socialist". As if any socialism at all is bad.

You know, what the people need is to realize what is good and what is bad, because they obviously don't know that. They see "socialist" and they think "EVIL BURN!!!!". They see "capitalist" and they think "SUPER PATRIOTIC!!! YAY!!!". In reality, that's a load of bullshit. In my opinion, the economy will only work with a mix of socialism and capitalism. That way, we get some freedom with capitalism, and some of the stability of socialism. I'd be insane to think it would work perfectly like that, but I would hope that it would work somewhat.

Also, the healthcare bill has been taken and stretched in so many ways by the media that no one can really see what the hell it is. First of all, Fox News took a couple of stories of people who had problems with healthcare in countries like Canada and the UK, and made it seem like that reflected the majority. Meanwhile, of the people from "free healthcare" countries (which is quite a large number out of the modernized ones) that I have talked to on the internet or in real life, NONE have had any issues with it. I mean, I don't know how similar the American bill is to those countries, but I can't imagine it could be radically different though.

I kind of went off on a tangent there, but basically, I think he's doing just okay. I really like the ideas he has, but I don't particularly like the execution of those ideas. He has to eventually do something, and he fails to do so, my opinion of him will continue to decline.

 

[GBJoker]

Right, getting incarcerated at a rate of 7:1 when the population distribution is more like 1:8 is absolutely equal. And just to be clear, [/sarcasm]

http://www.racerelationsproject.org/2009/11/the-obama-effect/

The Obama Effect.

Also note how Bush did. Junior, not Senior.

EDIT: And does he really need teleprompters to talk to little kids?

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//100119/480/9131bc77c7534185bdbf267bb4ab8497/

 

[CassinoChips]

Racism and race relations in general is far too complex an issue to simplify it to that extent. For example, the question "Do you think blacks in your community have as much access to jobs" or whatever it was, is as much a socioeconomic issue as it is a race issue.

Moreover, you could make the argument that there's the 'backlash against whites' only in reaction to the backlash against Obama. As in black folks didn't realize how racist white folks were until we elected a black man and the idiots came out of the woodwork. So nothing's really changed.

I'll go with what I see with my own two eyes in a community that is 49% black and 49% white over a graph that asks vague, overbroad questions in search of oversimplified answers.