The Obama Deception HQ Full length version

[IAmTheNight]

Just so that everyone remembers....Obama claimed that as soon as he took office he would bring the troops home, his first act was to SEND 17,000 MORE overseas. Great way to stick to your word, ohh and everything else he claimed he would do. Awesome for a President who wasn't even born in this country



/ done

Didn't he say it wouldn't be "over night"?

Didn't he say he had to send it more troops to secure the troops departure? You know, not all of the thousands of troops can just hop on a helicopter and just uh, leave.

Obama wasn't born in this country? Did you really dislike him that much to not pay a single bit of attention to what was going on with him during the election? Last I heard, Hawaii was a apart of this country.

Being president of the United States is a pretty big job. I'm sure whoever his boss is(sarcasm), had to have checked his background. I don't think they would over look something like that for a president. You can't even work for the fucking post office unless every little thing is checked out.

People amaze me.

According to this article, Obama promised he would remove troops within 16 months of taking the presidency.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7914061.stm

Saying that Obama was not born the United States is pure nonsense. He has produced a legitimate short-form birth certificate showing that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 (Hawaii was admitted to the Union in 1959, by the way).

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

3) I think the Federal Government is far too strong and we need to see a power shift from the Feds to the States. I've come to the conclusion that this can only come through the shift in the payments of taxes. Think of all the money that the states would no longer have to compete for. The way the system was setup was just one more way the Feds could keep control of the South after the Civil War. It's all about the funding. Furthermore, if the states had more rights/power then the health care thing would be a moot point. Cali could pass this Health Care system if they wanted, Missouri doesn't have to if they don't want it, and the citizens can then choose what set of rules they want to go follow. A final decision from Washington is too far and vast to cater to the individuals needs.

IMO state and local governments are more efficient in handling the needs of the governed because they can focus on small, culturally-similar regions, but the issue with reallocating power from the federal government back to the states is that the states will eventually do the same thing the federal government does: they will overstep their bounds. The people from my state could disregard the laws in your state, enter your state and cause trouble (take voter fraud as one example), and have their actions supported by my state's government or ignored altogether, perhaps for political reasons. We wouldn't be much of a union if we didn't have anything to unify us. That's what the federal government is for. Without a strong central government to use as a foundation for the direction of legislation, eventually we would have groups of states disagreeing with each other over different issues, breaking apart the union.

[quakerjoe]

IMO state and local governments are more efficient in handling the needs of the governed because they can focus on small, culturally-similar regions, but the issue with reallocating power from the federal government back to the states is that the states will eventually do the same thing the federal government does: they will overstep their bounds. The people from my state could disregard the laws in your state, enter your state and cause trouble (take voter fraud as one example), and have their actions supported by my state's government or ignored altogether, perhaps for political reasons. We wouldn't be much of a union if we didn't have anything to unify us. That's what the federal government is for. Without a strong central government to use as a foundation for the direction of legislation, eventually we would have groups of states disagreeing with each other over different issues, breaking apart the union.

Exactly, this is what happens when you have a country as large as ours with so many different peoples and agendas. The trick is, as citizens, to police our own government and keep them on a short leash. They will do what we let them do. The problem is when we flex our muscles they will straighten up until we go back about our business and everything becomes lax again, then they begin to consuming power again. It's like catching someone stealing your car and then say "No, no" then walking away without calling the police or kicking them in the head. Something we all have to come to terms with is that "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and our government has started showing signs of it. I still feel that we could be better off with more power in the states sector. Even if the states started acting like little kids and had a disagreement to break the union, the Federal government is still there to help keep the peace or bash some skulls in. But what I like about the Federal government in that scenerio? It is small and manageable.

BTW did I mention that I'm Libertarian?

[lil_dcb7]

According to this article, Obama promised he would remove troops within 16 months of taking the presidency.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7914061.stm

Homeboy has a good ten months to go.

[owequitit]

My thoughts? I absolutely agree that we should have stuck to one country...there wasn't any real need to go to Iraq because all Saddam did was oppress his own people in a dictarship..as you said the military hasn't been used properly since WWII except the Gulf War.

Obviously there's no way to easily pull out now because the fear of instability in Iraq is something that's always going to be the main issue with the government.

I always wondered why we could not be a neutral power..and just worry about what's going within our own borders..we were after one guy but Bush jumped the gun and went to Iraq.

And to Nail05, that's a stupid response..you can't give the guy crap for trying to pull us out of a jam, I don't agree with some of the routes he is taking BUT I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And he's trying..more or less the citizens want change..but it does not happen over night.

Republicans and Democrats can squabble back and forth..but really he's always going to be criticized for making the wrong moves even though in his mind it's the right move.

As Scott mentioned 'Bush's biggest war adversaries accused him of meddling in the affairs of other countries. ' I hold that as a very true statement...he did the right thing to try and go after Osama..but Saddam?

Saddam had nothing to with 9/11 yeah he praised the attacks..more or less it felt like a personal insult to Bush..but we had NO reason to invade.

The guy had outdated Scud's from the Soviet era...so there was no way in hell he would be able to conduct an attack on US soil..this all came out after they confirmed he had no WMDs.

Remember..he invaded Kuwait...we were asked to step in..we destroyed his fleeing army of thieves..and he never bothered us again.

Somalia was something that also never really needed to be helped either..I remember the photograph in Times where that US soldiers body was being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu...that was something very much painful to see.

And Scott, no worries. I just wanted an honest opinion basically. I've been told that the way he's conducting this whole recovery..it involves taxes being raised and I've also heard that by doing this...we will all be footing the bill for a very long time.

The problem with Iraq that everybody ignores is that there WAS what was believed to be good reason to go into Iraq. We had intelligence of money trails leading back to Iraq, and we also had intelligence that said he was in fact trying to produce and procure WMD. Of course the media doesn't talk about that, I am assuming because they have thier own agenda.

The other issue with Bush, that sort of exonerates him to a degree is that that same intelligence was supported by British and Russian intelligence saying the same thing.

So there WAS actionable intelligence. It turned out to be incorrect, and obviously created a quagmire as a result. It wasn't 100% incorrect, because according to 203cree, there was in fact stuff found, but the media didn't tell you about that either. He claims to have seen it first hand.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, that has been publicly one of Bush's biggest regrets about his term, and he has mentioned that several times in interviews. Unfortunately, sometimes actionable intelligence is wrong.

I don't honestly think that it was some political face slapping contest as much as it was a VERY costly mistake.

In terms of our reputation, it is going to be very costly. In terms of the healthcare issue, that is why I have such a problem with it being pushed through. It is a very potentially and gravely costly mistake, and I want to have a reasonable amount of time to see, think and decide about it. I don't like seeing the priority being making it happen by November because a bunch of politicians trying to use it for their own best short term gain, at the potential cost of TRILLIONS of dollars, and massive amounts of debt based on their cooking of the books.

[owequitit]

I love reading your responses Owequitit. To read something with thought behind it is a breath of fresh air.

Anyways, I want to throw in my $.01. (I don't have enough to make $.02.haha)

Overall, I'm almost completely dissatisfied with how the government has been running thing. Around every corner is another flaw, lie, scandal, or BS propoganda scandal. I think there are a couple basic things that I would like to see happen or at least I want to investigate them a bit more.

1) I've been trying to come up with a solution to the Health Insurance reform and came up with a thought of a member run health insurance company, kind of like a credit union. This could have the potential to remove some overhead from the costs the insured peoples would have to pay. Then by setting up a system of "True Health Costs" the members would pay a higher but reasonable cost, which are based on actual member health. Then through incentive programs members can lower their premiums.

A) One incentive program would involve the members achieving better health based on goals set by the system.

B) Another incentive program would involve a probationary period where the members visit history would be the focus. It seems like there are some people, for lack of better words, abuse their health insurance. They have a sniffle, they go to the doctor. They get a little cut, they got to the doctor. It would appear that they are trained to automatically default to going to the doctor if something happens. Through this program members would be rewarded for maybe going only when they really need it.

Overall, I don't know dip about the health insurance industry, but at the moment I think that it could possibly lead to a more competitive market and it could instill some accountability that has been lost over the years.

2) I would love to see people start holding their reps accountable for what happens. I think people don't realize the power that they hold. The framers of the Constitution made Article 1 the longest and the first for a reason. It seems like people would rather blame the President rather than hold Congress at fault. It's easier that way, I suppose. I think one reason that Congress/Obama are really pushing to get the Health Care stuff pushed through is because they don't believe that they are going to hold the majority come fall of 2010.

3) I think the Federal Government is far too strong and we need to see a power shift from the Feds to the States. I've come to the conclusion that this can only come through the shift in the payments of taxes. Think of all the money that the states would no longer have to compete for. The way the system was setup was just one more way the Feds could keep control of the South after the Civil War. It's all about the funding. Furthermore, if the states had more rights/power then the health care thing would be a moot point. Cali could pass this Health Care system if they wanted, Missouri doesn't have to if they don't want it, and the citizens can then choose what set of rules they want to go follow. A final decision from Washington is too far and vast to cater to the individuals needs.


I've got to stop there. It's dinner time. Yum.

We have a sort of member run system at my work. We all get really good coverage, and it only costs me about $8 a month. They have 30,000 employees though, so that makes a difference.

The real trouble comes for the small companies, because they either have the choice of a really expensive private policy, or they have the choice of paying a fortune in taxes through a government run system. Either way, it is going to severely hamper their ability to compete.

The other thing I have noticed about a lot of the healthcare cost figures being thrown around is that they don't seperate the essential care costs and the discretionary care costs.

Obama argues that each American spends an average of ~$7200 a year on healthcare, and I GUARANTEE that number includes elective care, such as boob jobs, tummy tucks, liposuction etc. Not only should that NOT be included because it is elective, but it is being used to make the numbers look more dramatic than they really are.

If they were to come out and give a no B.S. cost assessment (which they aren't, because most independent estimates are much higher), and they gave a no B.S. financial health assessment (which they aren't because they are making income assumptions they know aren't going to happen), and they gave us a chance to discuss, debate and brainstorm. The problem with that is that politically, it would be seen as a defeat of his agenda if he doesn't pass it, and it would be an ideological failure if something else ended up coming to light as being better.

Right now I am in the process of reading TONS of stuff about it, but it is hard because I have been busy. I fully intend to post links to the information, assuming this thread even lasts that long.

The other thing that mostly irritates me is that the same people who are telling me what I need to do and how I need to be accountable for myself are constantly building double standards for themselves. Biggest reason I am for Congressional term limits? It limits the amount of power each person can give for themselves.

Case in point.

I can't cheat the IRS without severe penalty, but they can consistently lie about how much stuff is going to cost. That is not just a stab to the left either. When was the last time you saw ANY government project come in at or below cost without severely sacrificing quality?

The keep telling me I need to tighten my belt because of the economy. Meanwhile they have lifetime health and pensions, pay raises, private jets, etc etc etc. Yeah, you know, the same things they don't want the CEO's to have? I bet if they all worked for $1 like they want the CEO's of companies that can't make money do, we would save many many millions of dollars. Perhaps as part of the CEO compensation bill we would have a provision for lawmaker compensation as well, and we can stipulate that if the government does not take in more than it spends, they all go to jail, or lose their pay, just like the CEO's. Do you suppose they would like that? How about if we put them in jail for fraud if they cook the taxpayers' books to make shit look feasible that isn't? Would they like that? I don't see why not, they do it to others. Funny how that works! Did anybody see the recent attempted expenditure on $220 million for 3 new private Gulfstreams? The ones they slayed the big 3 CEO's for flying on?

Frankly, with the way people are starting to behave, I don't think it will. I do appreciate those that have been civil though.

Also, for the record, my purpose is not to make anybody agree with me. My purpose is, and always has been twofold.

The first purpose is to get people to actually think about what is going and start to learn about how things around them are working. I learn new stuff about it everyday, and I feel much better now that I can make assessments on it.

The second purpose is to get people to question, think, seek and then digest the information all on their own. I would like to see a move away from the trend of spoon fed ideology, and letting people tell other's what they need or don't need. I want people to go out, research, learn and decide for themselves, and most importantly to be able to back themselves up with something substantial and supportable. Real honest to god thinking and debating, so to speak. It makes me unpopular, but oh well. My students hate it sometimes too, but once they adapt to it, the results are phenomonal.

[quakerjoe]

We have a sort of member run system at my work. We all get really good coverage, and it only costs me about $8 a month. They have 30,000 employees though, so that makes a difference.

The first purpose is to get people to actually think about what is going and start to learn about how things around them are working. I learn new stuff about it everyday, and I feel much better now that I can make assessments on it.

The second purpose is to get people to question, think, seek and then digest the information all on their own. I would like to see a move away from the trend of spoon fed ideology, and letting people tell other's what they need or don't need. I want people to go out, research, learn and decide for themselves, and most importantly to be able to back themselves up with something substantial and supportable. Real honest to god thinking and debating, so to speak. It makes me unpopular, but oh well. My students hate it sometimes too, but once they adapt to it, the results are phenomonal.

Well, I knew I couldn't have been the first person to think of a member run health insurance company, but I’m glad to know that it can work. I wouldn't be opposed to the government helping to setup a public option that was member run. I think the toughest part about a system like that would be getting it established with a large bank account to cover everyone in the beginning. The thing that I like most about that option the government doesn't run it.

Anyways, I completely agree that people in this country depend to omuch on our "leaders" to tell them what to do. What happen to individual rights thought, and accountability?

I know some people in this country have it worse off than I do and have huge obstacles standing in the way of them and success, but everyone is born with the same right to pursue that success. How you go about achieving it is what makes the success story. I don't think people realize that. I personally believe that "You are where you want to be. If you aren't where you really want to be, then you will make the necessary changes to get there." There is also a false perception of success within America that success is being rich and famous, but this is not true. Success is different for every person. It's kind of like "One man's junk if another man's treasure." More or less it's about setting your goals high enough that you don't limit your abilities, but not setting them so high that you forget about things like family, friends, and health.

Obviously, there are some who have no drive or will to become more than they are and I don't think that they stand for the American dream. I grew up listening to my grandma and grandpa telling stories about how their family, being dirt poor growing up, refused to take help from others at all costs, unless they were able to repay in some way. They were proud back then of what they had and where they came from. They often told me how when FDR setup welfare their family still refused to take help and starved sometimes, but the flood gates were opened. That's when they began to see generation after generation, of the same families, begin mooching off other people.

I'm a firm believer that if you hold people to a higher standard, then they will meet that standard if they want to continue to live within the community, if not then they are shunned and cast out. I had a classmate last semester that did a project on the homeless and found, in history, the homeless were sent from city to city at the expense of the city. They were viewed as a drain on society and were told to step up or get out. The cities actually would rather pay/use resources to remove people who did not contribute to the community, than spend that money to upkeep them. I am not against giving a hand up, but I am completely against giving a handout. (There is a difference.)

I think people have become greedy and materialistic, thus losing the moral fiber that we, as Americans, once had. IMO, we will not see the government change as long as we lack that moral fiber in our "diets."

Be the change you want to see you want to see in America, folks.




Owequitit- I'm glad to hear that you engage your students in learning. I think people undervalue a teacher who can challenge students into thinking. I try to do the same with mine, but the group I work with is a little bit more difficult in some cases. I will say, if this country ever wants a chance to be as great as it once was, we will have to begin cultivating the future generations to be better and smarter. Thank you for leading the charge with this.

P.S. Sorry for the rant.

[IAmTheNight]

Homeboy has a good ten months to go.

Did you read the article? I've underlined some key words.


President Barack Obama has announced the withdrawal of most US troops in Iraq by the end of August 2010.

In a speech at a Marine Corps base, he said the US "combat mission" in Iraq would officially end by that time.

But up to 50,000 of 142,000 troops now there will stay into 2011 to advise Iraqi forces and protect US interests, leaving by the end of 2011, he said.

Mr Obama praised the progress made but warned: "Iraq is not yet secure, and there will be difficult days ahead."

Some Democrats are concerned that the timetable falls short of his election pledges on troop withdrawal.

Mr Obama had said previously that he would completely pull out troops within 16 months of taking the top job.


August 2010 is:
-18 months after inauguration
-not even the date which all US troops will completely pull out of Iraq, as Obama said.

[IAmTheNight]

So there WAS actionable intelligence. It turned out to be incorrect, and obviously created a quagmire as a result. It wasn't 100% incorrect, because according to 203cree, there was in fact stuff found, but the media didn't tell you about that either. He claims to have seen it first hand.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, that has been publicly one of Bush's biggest regrets about his term, and he has mentioned that several times in interviews. Unfortunately, sometimes actionable intelligence is wrong.

To add to this:

The Iraq Survey Group, formed by the Department of Defense to find traces of WMDs in Iraq, found no evidence of recent stockpiles of WMDs. However, they did find the remains of inactive weapons from previous weapons programs and evidence of current production capability, the latter being of the most importance and relevance. According to the ISG, the Iraqi government under Hussein was seeking to improve their chemical and biological weapons, so that part of the intelligence was somewhat correct. They did produce and stockpile raw materials that could be used in weapons of mass destruction. They did set up laboratories with the intention of developing chemical and biological agents, some of those being sarin, botulinum, and Agent Orange, but their weapons programs were rudimentary, only intending to improve capabilities. There was no clear evidence that Saddam Hussein intended to use weapons on Americans, although he purposefully hid his activities from U.N. inspectors. One could argue that we removed a potential future threat, but that is a cynical approach. I could argue that Canada or Mexico is a potential future threat with similar reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_an...ss_destruction

[Straight Success]

I've been doing some reading after's Scott's call out. My whole gripe is not that Obama can't get the job done, 'cause he can. It's the fact that when he reaches out for support and help to fix the current situation, all of the fat money cats are sitting on their lazy asses trying to maintain their wealth instead of helping the economy grow. He has some excellent plans from what I have been reading, and I back him up for his positive efforts. I do think we should have affordable health care for all Americans. I don't want to hear no B.S. about we can't afford it. The two richest guys on the planet are American. Why can't the wealthy help us get to were we need to be as a nation. Some of them obatined their wealth right here. Do people not believe in giving back anymore? America is where the money is.

Please don't try to blame Obama for the country's current problem and make claims that it's getting worse. It's going to take some serious effort (which is being worked on right now) to fix everything. This problem didn't start in the mid to late '90's. That's when our national debt and our unemployment rates were the lowest. During the period of the early to mid 21st century is when things got really bad. I wonder why and how. We all know, but everyone wants to try to clean it up and put the current status of our nation on the shoulders of Obama. We as Americans know the real truth, but it seems as if people don't want to say it or put in in black and white. That's seems to be too much like right.

I'll tell you what though, Obama's not going to fold, break, or crack. He's going to get us back to where we should be as a nation. Even though Obama did not get us 'here', he's going to get us out of 'here'. Oh yea, and who got us here again? I'm still waiting for the correct and honest answer.

[quakerjoe]

Oh yea, and who got us here again?

We did.

[IAmTheNight]

I've been doing some reading after's Scott's call out. My whole gripe is not that Obama can't get the job done, 'cause he can. It's the fact that when he reaches out for support and help to fix the current situation, all of the fat money cats are sitting on their lazy asses trying to maintain their wealth instead of helping the economy grow. He has some excellent plans from what I have been reading, and I back him up for his positive efforts. I do think we should have affordable health care for all Americans. I don't want to hear no B.S. about we can't afford it. The two richest guys on the planet are American. Why can't the wealthy help us get to were we need to be as a nation. Some of them obatined their wealth right here. Do people not believe in giving back anymore? America is where the money is.

Please don't try to blame Obama for the country's current problem and make claims that it's getting worse. It's going to take some serious effort (which is being worked on right now) to fix everything. This problem didn't start in the mid to late '90's. That's when our national debt and our unemployment rates were the lowest. During the period of the early to mid 21st century is when things got really bad. I wonder why and how. We all know, but everyone wants to try to clean it up and put the current status of our nation on the shoulders of Obama. We as Americans know the real truth, but it seems as if people don't want to say it or put in in black and white. That's seems to be too much like right.

I'll tell you what though, Obama's not going to fold, break, or crack. He's going to get us back to where we should be as a nation. Even though Obama did not get us 'here', he's going to get us out of 'here'. Oh yea, and who got us here again? I'm still waiting for the correct and honest answer.

Oh my god. Is this what I sound like when I talk politics?

[Straight Success]

Politics is always a crazy road to be on. Things seem to never be straight forward. It seems as though if we want one thing that's positive, we sometimes have to sacrifice something else to get there.

Let's take a look at the major concerns of today's nation.

1. The biggest topic that is a major factor in the lives of Americans is the ecomony. We have a shortage of jobs and people are broke and in debt. That's putting it straight forward. From what I see and what I read, I am able to conjure up two different views. I know I am in only one location at a time; however, I see people who have jobs and are living well in today's crisis. Then I also see people who can't get a job and others who have two and three jobs, and they are still struggling. Why is America that way right now? I honestly don't know all the facts or have all of the answers. I do know that we did not get here overnight, and damn sure didn't get here in the past 7 months. What can we do to fix it? Again I don't have all the answers, but it seems as if Obama is doing a lot to fix it. Stimulus packages, Cash for Clunkers, etc... He's trying to stimulate the flow of money in the economy to get us back on our feet. I've personally seen progress attributable to his efforts.

2. Health care. I've been reading up on this health care reform. I haven't taken a look at the 2000 page bill. I can only go on what others write about it (those in politics who have read it). I am getting two sides to this bill. I opted to go with the more positive one. There's always sacrifice with a plan of this magnitude. I honestly think the sacrifice of a small amount of extra money from the government, and a tiny tax hike for some is well worth it for every American. In the long, this helps us become stronger and healthier as a nation.

[owequitit]

To add to this:

The Iraq Survey Group, formed by the Department of Defense to find traces of WMDs in Iraq, found no evidence of recent stockpiles of WMDs. However, they did find the remains of inactive weapons from previous weapons programs and evidence of current production capability, the latter being of the most importance and relevance. According to the ISG, the Iraqi government under Hussein was seeking to improve their chemical and biological weapons, so that part of the intelligence was somewhat correct. They did produce and stockpile raw materials that could be used in weapons of mass destruction. They did set up laboratories with the intention of developing chemical and biological agents, some of those being sarin, botulinum, and Agent Orange, but their weapons programs were rudimentary, only intending to improve capabilities. There was no clear evidence that Saddam Hussein intended to use weapons on Americans, although he purposefully hid his activities from U.N. inspectors. One could argue that we removed a potential future threat, but that is a cynical approach. I could argue that Canada or Mexico is a potential future threat with similar reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_an...ss_destruction

The only problem with your threat assessment is intent.

Yes, Canada and Mexico CAN use WMD against us, but they don't have the intent. Saddam did. He wouldn't have been hiding it under cover and using all of the other tactics he was using to keep us from finding stuff. Not to mention that he had made it know the first time that he wanted them to tip the balance of power in his favor.

If you are a broken regime, and want to regain your former glory, who do you go after to get it done? The people that took your power away, AKA the US.

[owequitit]

I've been doing some reading after's Scott's call out. My whole gripe is not that Obama can't get the job done, 'cause he can. It's the fact that when he reaches out for support and help to fix the current situation, all of the fat money cats are sitting on their lazy asses trying to maintain their wealth instead of helping the economy grow. He has some excellent plans from what I have been reading, and I back him up for his positive efforts. I do think we should have affordable health care for all Americans. I don't want to hear no B.S. about we can't afford it. The two richest guys on the planet are American. Why can't the wealthy help us get to were we need to be as a nation. Some of them obatined their wealth right here. Do people not believe in giving back anymore? America is where the money is.

Fact checking mission:

1) Why do those people owe anybody anything? Most of the "rich" people in this country are rich because they made smart choices with their money. Why should they be punished for being smart?

2) The two richest people in the world (Warren Buffett and Bill Gates) have each given over half of their fortunes to charity. Is that not giving back?

3) There is a substantial fundamental difference between "giving back" and "taking back."

4) The top 1% of the population in this country accounts for 60% of all tax revenue generated. That means that they are paying AT LEAST several thousand times as much tax as you or I. Is that not enough? Should those 3 million people completely support us all? Do you want to know what will happen if you ask them to? They will send all of their money to China, and will create jobs there instead of here. Why? Because they don't want to be punished for making good choices.

Let me know if you want proof of those tax figures because they are readily available on www.irs.gov.

5) Why don't you give YOUR whole income to charity? They don't owe to anyone any more than you or I do.

Please don't try to blame Obama for the country's current problem and make claims that it's getting worse. It's going to take some serious effort (which is being worked on right now) to fix everything. This problem didn't start in the mid to late '90's. That's when our national debt and our unemployment rates were the lowest. During the period of the early to mid 21st century is when things got really bad. I wonder why and how. We all know, but everyone wants to try to clean it up and put the current status of our nation on the shoulders of Obama. We as Americans know the real truth, but it seems as if people don't want to say it or put in in black and white. That's seems to be too much like right.

1) Our debt was lowest at around the turn of the century (1900) if I remember correctly, because at that time debt financing was an unacceptable business practice. You might want to study up on the history of the national debt, because it has only grown in the last half of the 20th century and into the current century. That means that each year it was worse than the last.

If you are referring to Bill Clinton's "balanced budget" we have already discussed that. It was a paperwork excercise which means it never added up in real life because they made bad assumptions.

2) Yes, our current economic issue DID start in the mid 90's. What you need to do a little more research on is how things affect the economy and how long it takes. There were certain financial things that were not done in the mid 1990's that would have prevented this mess. Clinton ignored them, and George W Bush ignored them, Congress ignored them and the House of Representatives ignored them because times were good, so they just rode the wave of positive publicity. The issue transcends political affiliation. The Democrats in the White House and the Congress are just as guilty as the Republicans in the White House and Congress. You have been screwed by your "leaders." Yes, even by the ones in YOUR party of choice.

3) I would like to see your list of factual things attributable to Obama. I am curious if there are programs on there I am not aware of. Please cite sources, as I am prepared to do the same.

4) If you go to the bookstore, read the Constitution or go to someplace like the Library of Congress etc, you will see that the weight of the problem is actually on the ordinary people.

a) The President does not make all of the decisions. Our system of government was very specifically defined by and built around checks and balances.

b) Whatever decisions the President and Congress make is ultimately shouldered by the public, be it the taxes, the laws or the fallout, and thus the weight of the problem is actually on the citizen's shoulder's not Obama. Obama is not a messiah, he is not a martyr, he is not a super hero, and he is not super-human. He is a man elected, by the people, to do a job, and nothing more. He is a cog in a system. He is a big cog, but a cog nonetheless. You should also know that Obama does NOT feel your pain. He is set for life. The best part? YOU and I get to pay for it.

I'll tell you what though, Obama's not going to fold, break, or crack. He's going to get us back to where we should be as a nation. Even though Obama did not get us 'here', he's going to get us out of 'here'. Oh yea, and who got us here again? I'm still waiting for the correct and honest answer.

Do you really want the correct answer, because it is going to cover about 30 years, 7 admininistrations, 4 or 5 economics lessons, and a whole slew of other stuff. Ordinarily, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but it is clear from your posts that you are not yet willing to discuss it neutrally.

The Top 2 problems are economic and health care, you are correct. However:

1) The economy is recovering itself without help from Obama's stimulous plan. Again, a simple lesson in Civics and Free enterprise would teach that. I am guessing that you haven't taken the time to read everything in this thread?

2) Nationalization of healthcare does not fix the problem. There is no such thing as guarantee or entitlement. They are fictitious ideologies invented by people. Nature is all conquering. Nature does not even guarantee life, let alone a standard of living. Nature does not guarantee that you should have healthcare, a house, or that there will even be taxes to collect. We live in a world of finite resources. That means that nobodies' life will ever be perfect, and nothing is going to be assured to be waiting for you in the morning.

Unless Obama's plan addresses all of the main issues, it isn't going to work. Period. It simply transfers costs from insurance companies to tax payers. That's it.

His cost estimates are hopelessly optimistic which was confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office today. As such, he has backed down on national healthcare because there is not enough support for the plan as he has drawn it up. It has been confirmed that it would cost far more than he was projecting, and that it would force people currently on private insurance to the public plan, because those still on private insurance would be paying 2 times.

So the cost of the program went from his estimated $1 trillion over 10 years to effectively 3-4 Trillion per year. For the record our last budget was just over 3 trillion dollars, so that means it would double our current budget and thus your current taxes.

I currently pay approximately 23% of my gross income in taxes. That means that AT MINIMUM, my new taxes are going to be just under 50% of my gross income. I can't survive on that, which means I would have to quit my job and collect benefits from the government in order to survive. That drives YOUR taxes up further, creating a domino effect through the economy that ultimately results in something other than economic recovery.

A good life example of this stuff.

An economics professor at a community college had a class of students that thought this plan was the greatest thing ever. So he made them a deal to illustrate what socialism really is and how it was. He wanted to make sure that it was something they could tangibly understand, i.e. it had to directly effect them.

He made them a deal. The class would all get the same grade, based on an average of all the scores.

The entire class flunked.

On the first test the average was a B. The people who worked really hard for an A were upset and the people who didn't try as hard and got C's were happy.

The next test, the average was a D. The students who got C's before decided they could live with a C, so they didn't try as hard. They were still happy with a D because it was "passing." But the students who worked hard for an A the first time, didn't want to waste their time, so they didn't try as hard, and many averaged a C.

By the third test, the result was an F, because the students who had previously been carrying the average, put in no effort at all, because it wasn't worth it to them to do so, while those happy with skating along continued to do so, and the entire class failed.

That is a true story.

[owequitit]

Politics is always a crazy road to be on. Things seem to never be straight forward. It seems as though if we want one thing that's positive, we sometimes have to sacrifice something else to get there.

Let's take a look at the major concerns of today's nation.

1. The biggest topic that is a major factor in the lives of Americans is the ecomony. We have a shortage of jobs and people are broke and in debt. That's putting it straight forward. From what I see and what I read, I am able to conjure up two different views. I know I am in only one location at a time; however, I see people who have jobs and are living well in today's crisis. Then I also see people who can't get a job and others who have two and three jobs, and they are still struggling. Why is America that way right now? I honestly don't know all the facts or have all of the answers. I do know that we did not get here overnight, and damn sure didn't get here in the past 7 months. What can we do to fix it? Again I don't have all the answers, but it seems as if Obama is doing a lot to fix it. Stimulus packages, Cash for Clunkers, etc... He's trying to stimulate the flow of money in the economy to get us back on our feet. I've personally seen progress attributable to his efforts.

Instead of insinuating remarks, why don't you provide some links?

2. Health care. I've been reading up on this health care reform. I haven't taken a look at the 2000 page bill. I can only go on what others write about it (those in politics who have read it). I am getting two sides to this bill. I opted to go with the more positive one. There's always sacrifice with a plan of this magnitude. I honestly think the sacrifice of a small amount of extra money from the government, and a tiny tax hike for some is well worth it for every American. In the long, this helps us become stronger and healthier as a nation.[/QUOTE]

How is a something between a 20% increase and doubling taxes a small tax hike?

Why would you trust a bunch of people who's career is to lie and distort to get re-elected so that they can continue to get money and power? Would you take a CEO at his word?