OMG like really a C+? Comon I can't believe this. Close to 400,000 people voted for this report too.
Sorry but something smells fishy here.
Printable View
OMG like really a C+? Comon I can't believe this. Close to 400,000 people voted for this report too.
Sorry but something smells fishy here.
No surprise. Same country thanked George W. Bush.
In approval ratings Obama is just a few percentage points below Dubya at the respective times in their presidency.
not really all that bad considering the economy.
Has nothing to do with people who voted for or against George Bush. Nothing at all.
I'll play more than just devils advocate here. People tend to look in their own backyards to determine how they feel the federal government is doing. Since Obama entered office, unemployment has ballooned. That's what people see -- that's what people react to. Unemployment, to his defense, is a trailing economic indicator. You could have a healthy economy for 5-6 quarters before you start to see the unemployment numbers start to go down again. Not that any of the following are or are not directly attributed to Obama's administration, but the stock markets are moving up, GDP is growing, the economy is showing signs of health, housing starts are ramping up, manufacturing is getting better, yet unemployment lags. People vote with what they see. The masses truly are asses. Nothing fishy at all...it is what it is.
Obama has yet to deliver on a number of things.
-The Wars,
We're still Iraq there just not in the cities and it had nothing to do with Obama. There is no sign that were going to do a complete pull out anytime soon, nor that our efforts will result in stability for the region.
-Gitmo
Still open for business and keeping not only prisoners who haven't been tried but also those who have been aquitted.
-Health Care
Obama hasn't been fighting for health care as much as he could be. He's even told Democrats to stop fighting blue dogs. The final bill may be too watered down to do any good.
Health Care... he should have learned from Clinton. If the Republicans don't want change, it ain't gonna happen.
The wars... meh. More people are needed in Afghanistan, can't pull out when more is needed.
In fact... with Rush and Nugent running around comparing Obama to Hitler and telling the president that he can sit on a machine gun and twist... even if **** turned around today, people will complain about something.
There aren't enough repbublicans in congress to stop health care. There were during the clinton administration. It's not just about republicans it's about poser democrats protecting thier campaign contributions.
There's enough press to make people support non-change.
I think it's more about a representative form of government representing where most people sit on the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frets
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...429438938.htmlQuote:
However, there are some numbers congressional Democrats can celebrate. Specifically, 63% of voters agreed with the president earlier this year when he said, “We must make it a priority to give every single American quality affordable health care.” Yet while they agree in theory, only 28% are currently willing to pay higher taxes to achieve that goal.
It's funny how fancy jewelry doesn't tend to look as good once you turn it up-side down and look at the price tag. ;)
Doubt it would matter anyways since the drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million (more than McCain spent on his campaign) on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care overhaul. source. This creeps me out a lot...Quote:
Originally Posted by Frets
What creeps you out?
That a change is needed, a change might come, or no change is needed, or no change might come?
As it stands, either way, on both sides of the spectrum, there's a need for something. If you're fortunate enough to be fully covered, you don't want **** to change. If you're not, you might be one of those angry ass people shouting stuff - that's if those demonstrators aren't being paid to do that.
Anyway, as it stands... the system is getting in need of something. I just would have rather that it wasn't Obama doing it because it will inevitably be met with shock, hatred, and disgust.
That, something I want to see happen, is somehow going to benefit the drug industry, which I see as inherently bad and not having people's best interest in mind, enough for them to spend $150mil on ads for it. On top of that, they have agreed contribute $80 billion over the next ten years? Just doesn't make sense to me.
These are the same people who have been paying for ghostwriters for medical journals. source. If PhRMA is on board it makes me less comfortable that this new plan is actually going to be for the good of the people.
So... you want less lobbying from the pharmaceuticals? Not following.
Hmm
USPS, Fed Ex, UPS
The health insurance industry has lots of different providers why are they afraid of one more?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKI9be55N00
Meanwhile Rate Hikes are getting big,
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun...s/fi-lazarus14
Some people are paying more in health insurance then their mortgage.
I didn't say I want anything... just that it makes me uncomfortable how on board certain constituencies are. If it matters what I want, I'd love universal health care.
People are generally shortsighted when it comes to voting and expect overnight results. I don't think Obama should care about a C but continue his efforts without distraction from such evaluations. I think Obama's problem is that he wants to satisfy everybody, which is not possible, because then nobody in the end will be satisfied with any solution.
However, he would do good to change the morals of bankers who give themselves huge boni. This is something, which needs to be changed starting from the roots. People are very upset about that and the banks are still not negotiating new relieve contracts for houseowners. Even Wall Street is upset about that.
Unfortunately, he HAS to pay attention to it. When you get elected President, your first order of business is to get re-elected. Presidents don't build their legacy in their first term, it's always their second term which makes or breaks them.Quote:
Originally Posted by cancerinform
Presidential to-do list
- Get elected
- Get re-elected
- Make long lasting policy
I could be wrong but i think both Reagan and Clinton took on some pretty big issues in their first terms.
The current healthcare was who's policy?
Yes, but many times, the legacy issues fall into the second term. Obama is dealing with economy issues (certainly about as big as they get) but I don't think that he wants his legacy to be defined by that. Anything done in the first term is usually in line with the 'getting re-elected' mantra.Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar