We're spending a lot...get over it!

Really, the spending lately has been huge. Obama is taking a lot of heat for it. Rightly so, he is the POTUS and its his responsibility.

Or you could think through the problem and realize that the spending was done to halt a systemic meltdown. It was started by Bush and no matter who won in November, was going to continue. Really you should be angry and what caused the meltdown in the first place (http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=175721).

No one likes it. No one wanted it to be this way. Its just the way that is is. We did what we had to do. Our job now is to prevent it from happening again.

So you can keep bitching about it, or you can be a part of the solution.

I come here every few months and the same people are saying the same BS. Learn! Move forward! Articulate what you have problems with a present solutions. Some of you are so blindly partisan its ridiculous.

 

I tend to agree. However, I don't believe we should just bend over and have this burden "thrust" upon us (sorry). Laws should be changed, and the perps, I'm thinking of the Harvard MBAs mostly, in light of all the suffering and death this mess has caused, should be hanged.

 

Government spending on most domestic programs is growing at its fastest pace in nearly 30 years. That leads to natural skepticism of politicians from people who have been paying attention to more than just the last two elections. For them the increase in spending is irregular. Irregularities like uncharted territory bother them. It scares them. They want moderacy.

Besides the growth of domestic programs the general public has and still is skeptical of the bailouts. Yes there is a legitimate argument that the bailouts stopped a meltdown but the general public doesn't think of the bailouts that way. When they think bailout they think about corrupt banks and politicians stealing tax payers money. A person who appreciates moderacy may allow one radical change in the system because of irregular circumstances. Multiple ones and they are starting to think they are being used.

Obama is also receiving heat because he said his stimulus plan would stop the unemployment fall at 8.5%. The unemployment number is a very popular economic number among the general public. When moderates saw Obama make that prediction and when they see the number getting bigger and bigger there is no question what they think.

The majority of the heat Obama is taking now (unsurprisingly to those who are engaged with the thought process of the general public) has much more to do with an inexperienced president attempting to vastly change the healthcare system while the economy is still suffering. Lets say theoretically that when Obama became president the economy was perfect. Even if the economy was perfect moderates and the general public would still have a problem with Obama changing healthcare. The reason isn't because he is black or because he is a liberal. They would have a problem with it because he is still a newly elected president. The healthcare issue is a personal issue to just about everyone. In order to truly communicate policy and ideas that relate to personal issues trust and a level of comfort must be formed before even the process of debate and talking can start. This trust and comfort comes from multiple years of success and an overall solid record. Obama is attempting to take on an issue that involves trust even though he has none. He might as well be telling people up front that he is an out of touch politician and president.

 

Well said. But did Obama really say the stimulus program would halt unemployment at 8.5%?

 

The administration said the stimulus would stop the unemployment rate from going above 8%. I guess you could interpret that as 8.9%.

It's currently at 9.7%.

 

Once again, you show yourself to be extremely IGNORANT and terribly simplistic.

Health care reform has nothing to do with whether or not someone is a newly elected President. Apparently, you conveniently ignore the fact that Bill Clinton was unable to advance his healthcare reform, either.

Let's face it . . .

America’s largest organization representing physicians – the American
Medical Association (AMA) – has historically opposed broad systemic change tothe nation’s healthcare system. In the 1960s, for example, it opposed
establishment of Medicare and Medicaid. Again in the 1990s, the AMA was vehemently opposed to key elements of the Clinton administration’s attempt to
move the nation toward universal healthcare.

Only in the last two years
has the 160-year-old AMA begun to support fundamental, comprehensive change.

While America’s healthcare practitioners have led efforts to develop new technology, new drugs and new procedures for caring fortheir patients, they have abdicated the job of determining how to make them universally accessible. Instead, they have left that task to Congress, the states,politicians, advocacy organizations and special interests.

The result: Derision,dissention, diversions and the absence of any broadly acceptable solutions.

 

Well, I wish he had posted that here so we could have contradicted it! For one thing, it's an average. For another, it's pretty widely known that employment indicators lag most other indicators. I'm going to file this under "empty promises made by a politician seeking office". Fat folder.

 

You just said congress doesn't know how to efficiently deliver a universal option. Why then would the people of this country trust a president who claims to have the public option all figured out? I don't know about you but advocating the passage of a bill that includes a public option when it hasn't been figured out is reckless.

And yes like it or not people do not trust Obama with healthcare because he has no track record. Disagreeing with someone that claims trust is a very important aspect of leadership shows that you don't know the first thing about leadership. If you don't know anything about leadership then what makes you think you can analyze a president?

 

Why would you need a government option if your goal is to truly reform health care? Isn't that (indirectly of course) admitting that you know the reform won't work? If the government goes through with reforms to the financial industry, should they also include a government run bank?

How come the left views what we spend on health care as a negative, but they don't view spending on education or welfare the same way.

Why would you want to change the current system when 9 out of 10 working Americans are already covered by their employer and the vast majority of those are happy with the coverage they have?