QUOTE (Kodachi Claws @ Jul 21 2009, 04:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
God Dammit Sir Whirly, you took my job!!! 
Well, personally, I think in the short time he’s been in office, Obama has been doing alright. If nothing else, most of his foreign policy seems to be steps in the right direction. He’s certainly has his faults, but if you guys are panicking over these baby-steps you’re calling “change”…I don't want to know how you will react in the unlikely event these changes do occur.
In all fairness, I do find the deficit we’re facing quite frightening. But consider the problems we’re facing…the war on terror, healthcare, collapsing economy, climate change…even if you don’t agree with the amount of money he’s spending, he has to do something. Healthcare and climate change in particular are problems that have been ignored for years, and if the president doesn’t do something now, they could get worse and cost even more to fix. While this defecit is the largest on record, it’s not so much the numbers that matter but its size relative to the economy. The current defecit is still under 50% of the economy; in World War 2, FDR raised the deficit over 120% relative to the economy back then, and we got out of the depression and experienced a middle-class boom. I’m not saying that will be the case with Obama’s budget; I’m just saying it may not necessarily turn bad.
As for healthcare, keep in mind the World Health Organization ranks Canada as #30, the U.S. is #37. Obviously, both systems are far from perfect, but if an organization on health ranks Canada’s healthcare higher than our own, I doubt a huge number of them come over here. In fact, those that do are small relative to the Canadian population, and most cannot afford to cross the border to see one of our doctors While it’s true the Canadians have longer wait times, those times vary upon the province they live in, and are prioritized by the urgency in which they need care (healthcare plans are determined by province, not the entire government. The long wait times are concentrated mostly in rural Canada and often result from lack of specialists as opposed to some waitlist.
Well, personally, I think in the short time he’s been in office, Obama has been doing alright. If nothing else, most of his foreign policy seems to be steps in the right direction. He’s certainly has his faults, but if you guys are panicking over these baby-steps you’re calling “change”…I don't want to know how you will react in the unlikely event these changes do occur.
In all fairness, I do find the deficit we’re facing quite frightening. But consider the problems we’re facing…the war on terror, healthcare, collapsing economy, climate change…even if you don’t agree with the amount of money he’s spending, he has to do something. Healthcare and climate change in particular are problems that have been ignored for years, and if the president doesn’t do something now, they could get worse and cost even more to fix. While this defecit is the largest on record, it’s not so much the numbers that matter but its size relative to the economy. The current defecit is still under 50% of the economy; in World War 2, FDR raised the deficit over 120% relative to the economy back then, and we got out of the depression and experienced a middle-class boom. I’m not saying that will be the case with Obama’s budget; I’m just saying it may not necessarily turn bad.
As for healthcare, keep in mind the World Health Organization ranks Canada as #30, the U.S. is #37. Obviously, both systems are far from perfect, but if an organization on health ranks Canada’s healthcare higher than our own, I doubt a huge number of them come over here. In fact, those that do are small relative to the Canadian population, and most cannot afford to cross the border to see one of our doctors While it’s true the Canadians have longer wait times, those times vary upon the province they live in, and are prioritized by the urgency in which they need care (healthcare plans are determined by province, not the entire government. The long wait times are concentrated mostly in rural Canada and often result from lack of specialists as opposed to some waitlist.
These are "baby-steps?" That's a vast understatement.
It's bad enough that the Chinese and Russians are calling for a world currency, that the dollar's been tanking, and that Gietner and Pelosi had to go to China (where they got laughed at) to beg them to continue to buy our debt. And we still have yet to pass either Cap and Tax or Health Care Reform. He's estimated to run up 12 trillion in debt in 10 years. Our debt wasn't that much when he took office.
It might not necessarily turn out bad...I see nothing in the horizon that leads me to believe this. I do see, our biggests creditors getting worried, investors moving to commoddities to hedge against the expected inflations thats being predicted, and Obama telling us to get ready for more unemployment. And we've only hit the tip of the iceberg regarding the debt he's expected to rack up during his term.
And on foreign policy...just glad I don't live in Honduras...I'd still be trying to pull that knife out of my back. He wants to saddle them with their own version of Hugo.
QUOTE
Most countries spend less on healthcare than we do, yet we still can’t beat them in performance.The Canadians also report higher satisfaction with their doctors and they make fewer medical errors. Canadians also have higher life-expectancy and lower-infant mortality rates than the U.S.; this is not because of their system, but rather, it seems they make it more of a point than us to take care of themselves than we do. Of course, there are some doctors who are critical of the system; but most of them do not want a plan like that of the U.S. Some people argue that if a public option were available, the private firms will not be able to compete with those offered by government. If that’s true, why do some healthcare systems like those in France, Germany, and Switzerland have a mix of public and private healthcare? If government healthcare really is inefficient, what are the private insurers so worried about?I also suspect the reason why the state-run healthcare programs failed was simply because the states were not willing to raise taxes. Yes, nobody likes raised taxes, but considering the debt we’re all in, we’ll have to pay them sometime. There were most likely other political factors that terminated the programs.
I’m also vexed when people claim they know what will happen under “Obamacare”. “Obamacare” does not even exist yet, and by the time it is born it will likely be a watered-down form of what he wanted. While in 2003 he did say he was a proponent of single-payer, today he is not even considering single-payer for his healthcare plan. Granted, politicians contradict themselves over the years, but with the healthcare industry spending millions in lobbying, it’s likely that what will occur will not be a major overhaul.
As for how the president is doing things with zero republican support, it means nothing. Just look at the Republican Party of today: their strategy right now is to say no to everything. But none of them provide any alternatives to the administration; instead, they continue to focus on family value issues which they are notorious for breaking and their latest gig is blocking Sotomayor from taking a job in the supreme court claiming she’s a racist. Are they giving Obama advice on how to finish the War on Terror correctly? No, they just want him to intervine in everything. Are they providing alternative approaches to solving healthcare? No, they want him to let things stay the way they are. Climate change? Many still deny it even exists.
I’m also vexed when people claim they know what will happen under “Obamacare”. “Obamacare” does not even exist yet, and by the time it is born it will likely be a watered-down form of what he wanted. While in 2003 he did say he was a proponent of single-payer, today he is not even considering single-payer for his healthcare plan. Granted, politicians contradict themselves over the years, but with the healthcare industry spending millions in lobbying, it’s likely that what will occur will not be a major overhaul.
As for how the president is doing things with zero republican support, it means nothing. Just look at the Republican Party of today: their strategy right now is to say no to everything. But none of them provide any alternatives to the administration; instead, they continue to focus on family value issues which they are notorious for breaking and their latest gig is blocking Sotomayor from taking a job in the supreme court claiming she’s a racist. Are they giving Obama advice on how to finish the War on Terror correctly? No, they just want him to intervine in everything. Are they providing alternative approaches to solving healthcare? No, they want him to let things stay the way they are. Climate change? Many still deny it even exists.
I'm one of those who is still not convinced it exists. Evidence continues to mount that the science is far from settled and the number of detractors continue to increase. This year saw record cold in many places and the global temperature has stagnated since 1998. It doesn't help that one of its standard barers, Al Gore, still refuses to debate skeptics. I don't want to engage in an economy killing plan that hasn't worked where its been tried on a possibility that continues to look less likely than advertised.
What are they worried about? Simple. Aside from the contents of the house bill (discussed below), the fact that government insurance is ineffecient doesn't prevent it from crowing out private insurance. It's hard to compete with someone when your competitor has no obligation to make a profit. It's not a genuine competitor, when your competition can monetize its loses and has the power to set the legal parameters in which you operate. Nothing about Obama's plan is genuine competition.
Of course they don't want to raise taxes, especially in the middle of a recession. It retards growth and punishes a populace already suffering. I doubt its coincidence that some of the highest taxed states (New York, New Jersey, California) are in some of the most trouble.
I'll ask you what I asked Sir Whirly: With Medicare dying in unfunded liabilities, Medicaid killing the states, and the VA system a national disgrace, why should I trust this to work when every other excusion by the government into this area has been a failure?
There is versions of the bill floating around. It kills private insurance. He tells you not for single payer or that you can keep your plan...that's blatantly not true. He either has no idea what the house bill says or he's a liar. The House Bill BANS new enrollment. So you can keep your plan, provided you never, ever change your insurance plan or you're not one of the many people who will sit and watch their employer off load their insurance for the government version. It won't say single payer, but that's the long term effect of that provision as well as the bills gutting of ERISA.
Say no to everything? Please. What exactly did the Democracts do from 2003-2008 under George W. Bush? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Second, if they think his solutions are bad, why should they say yes solely for the sake of a solution they think will fail? Were they Democrats giving advice to Bush outside of telling him to flee? No. They opposed the surge. They tried to kill the war through the back door because they didn't have the courage to do it directly. They called Petreus a liar before he even testified.
Him doing things without Republican support means more for the Republicans than anything else. If it bombs, he and his part ywill get the blame for it. If Republicans join in and it bombs, what can they say about his failure, they voted for it too? It gives Barack Obama cover.
That they offer no alternatives is false. When they tried amending stimulus did not Barack tell them "I won?" Sounds like he's reallt receptive to alterantives. Republicans also offered their own stimulus package. Republicans have also been repeatedly shut out on these bills and what's with adding numerous several hundred page amendments at the eleventh hour?
Are he, Pelosi, and Reid, giving any indication they're willing to listen to alternatives? They're trying to cram this through at light speed. Why the hell would they have any reason to believe that anyone is going to listen to an alternative at this point?
You make it sound like the Dems and Obama have willing to be bipartisan and the only reason its hasn't happen is because of Republicans, which isn't true. Obama's bipartisanship has been nothing but meaningless and empty overtures, and Pelosi has been ten times worse.
And Sotomayor...that was tame compared to what the Democrats did to Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and don't even get me started on Miguel Estrada and what they didn to him. Robert Bork was blocked. Alito and Thomas barely passed, and Estrada was obstructed for 2 YEARS and never even received the decency of a vote because Democrats feared that Bush was gearing him for the Supreme Court. He got blocked because he was hispanic. Janice Rodgers Brown got called a racist. It's tough to shed tears over Sotomayor. At least she gets a vote, unlike Estrada.
Democrat obstructism and fillibustering was so bad during the Bush years, that talk of the "nuclear option" and the "gang of 14" were necessary to get anything done. They have no right to whine about Sotomayor.
EDIT: Seems Obama just admitted he doesn't know what's in the house bill. We have to pass thing yesterday...this thing where he doesn't know its contents.
No one read Stimulus. No one read Cap and Tax. I'm sensing a trend here...though I'd suppose more people would read it if the Democrats allowed time for it, but they're not.
QUOTE
Even if the two parties disagree on how these issues should be handled, it is their job to work together and acknowledge these issues exist while holding the other side accountable. Today, the Republicans are not doing their job, just like the Democrats weren’t doing theirs when Bush started his war on Iraq.
The fact that some democrats oppose his plan does not mean that his policies are too far to the left; many democrats are socially conservative, where most of his opposition lies. For example, Oklahoma is one of the most conservative states in the country. Yet the democrats make up the majority in the state politically. If a democrat from California or Massachusseetes opposes an Obama plan, that might be cause for concern, but from states like Nebraska, Arkansas, even Texas at times…take it with a grain of salt (this does not mean that the democrats who oppose Obama on a few issues are WRONG…it’s actually good when a political party will hold it’s own accountable).
The fact that some democrats oppose his plan does not mean that his policies are too far to the left; many democrats are socially conservative, where most of his opposition lies. For example, Oklahoma is one of the most conservative states in the country. Yet the democrats make up the majority in the state politically. If a democrat from California or Massachusseetes opposes an Obama plan, that might be cause for concern, but from states like Nebraska, Arkansas, even Texas at times…take it with a grain of salt (this does not mean that the democrats who oppose Obama on a few issues are WRONG…it’s actually good when a political party will hold it’s own accountable).
QUOTE
Anything is possible for 2010, and while I can imagine the Republicans taking back a few seats to cancel the supermajority, I doubt they can take back control of congress. Polls indicate that nationally only around 20% of the American people identify themselves as Republicans. Not only that, but I hear the Republicans are actually trying to purge themselves of moderates; not a good idea. To win elections on a national level, you need moderates in your party to appeal to a wide variety of people. That's why John McCain won the primaries last year, despite the fact many conservative personalities hate him for being "too liberal". The American people are by no means in love with the democrats...but the way the opposition is behaving now, they'll take the Donkeys over the Elephants any day. There's even talk that like previous political parties in America, the Republicans will die out and be replaced by a third party. It's too soon to tell really, but as far as I can see, it's not looking very good for the Republicans.
Yeah, and John McCain lost.
Republicans also lead in the general Congression ballot right now, but, no, they can't take it back, but not for the reason your citing. Democrats are defending fewer seats in 2010.
Where did you hear this? I've heard that they're purging Moderates too, but from sources who I doubt have the Republicans best interests at heart. And they way they're behaving now? Please. Again, I ask what exactly did Dems do for Bush's entire 8 years? Offer him glowing support? But I bet that was justified.
QUOTE
No, it will make no difference. Kids are already smoking weed, cigerrates, drinking, and now they’re getting high on cough syrup. Out of all of them, weed never killed anybody (prescription drugs killed Michael Jackson for crying out loud!), and some of the most successful celebrities today tried pot sometime in their life. I’ve even worked with two people in college who smoked pot, and they were very aware of their surroundings, the world, and hard workers when they had to arise to the occasion. Then again, legalizing drugs can ruin communities. Just look at Amsterdam:
That's also false. If Intoxicated Manslaugher and Intoxicated Assault can be considered all alcohol related death/injuries....then weed kills too. Driving while high is a really bad idea and I prosecute people who do that all the time. I've also had friends who smoked pot. If was their first taste on the way down to methaphetamine's. Last I heard he was living out of his car.
QUOTE
The stimulus money wasn't expected to kick in until later this year. Even then, it kind of depends on what kind of job you're looking for.
That's not how it was advertised when it was sold to the public. His administration said the effects would be immediate. The raised expectations are Obama's own fault and its impossible for me feel sorry for him being the victim of his own expectations. He made his own bed with that one. Even his own CBO said the long term effects would be negative. But their estimates are "wacky" anyway. At least according to Shumer.
Second, if that's the case, then why the heck has only 6% been spent this year. It was sold as being necessary NOW. Most of it is to be spent next year, which just so happens to be an election year. It's probably just a coincidence, I'm sure. He can call it stimulus all he wants, but its nothing but a $783 billion dollar pork bill.
QUOTE
Nate, I'm sorry to get under your skin again, but the articles you cited regarding the UK's healthcare system are faulty. Many of them openly take right-wing positions. The Daily Mail in particular is anti-EU and Pro-monarchy, and the Times are owned by Rupert Murdoch. It's best when arguing to cite sources that either take no political sides or are nonpolitical (The Canadian Medical Journal you used is a perfect example). In fact, I remember Illjwamh last year mentioning the British printed press was worse than ours.
It doesn't get under my skin. If you choose to disbelieve it solely because Rupert Murdoch owns it or it's Anti-EU, I don't care at all.
