Meet the new boss, almost the same as the old boss

[MordechaiGoodbuds]

I haven't seen Obama do anything much differently than Bush has done. Our foreign policy is basically unchanged, other than a return to competent diplomacy instead of the "me hulk, me smash" mentality of Bush diplomacy. But otherwise, the goals are the same. The troops will remain in Iraq indefinitely, the war in Afghanistan (also an unnecessary one) is expanding, and Gitmo detainees are still held as political prisoners at Gitmo. Worse yet, Obama's introduced preventative detention which gives the government the right to arrest people because they might commit a crime in the future--a scary concept.

Obama's administration's economic policies are still pro-corporate, though they throw a few bones tor us. They did stop the automatic permits given to coal companies when they want to blow off mountain tops and destroy streams with black sludge. They gave us CHIPS. But, he's actually against socialized medicine, and greedy private insurance companies and pharmaceuticals will still have far too much influence.

I don't really see where there's a difference between Obama and what McCain would have done. This country desperately needs more political parties.

[KTC]

Do you mean meet?

[Robert Toy]

wait for the next 100 days

[Celia Cyanide]

He rescinded the Global Gag Rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_gag_rule

[Don]

The problems we face today will likely as not never be solved by voting, regardless of how many political parties we have. Big government, big business (including media) and big unions are aligned to take care of their own, and screw the individual.

Members of the press, politicians and career bureaucrats play musical chairs with jobs, belong to the same globalist organizations, claim minor differences is how they'll rule people are major philosophical divides, and give lip service to the little guy. Strong leaders who actually stand up for the individual against the state are either slaughtered or marginalized by the same press that cozies up to the political elite to gain their advantages.

Most people believe that if they just vote for the right person, the system will be magically transformed. I'm sure that was a popular viewpoint of Roman citizens during the descent from Republic to Empire and eventual deconstruction as well.

Wish I could be more optimistic.

[SPMiller]

I agree. Obama isn't remotely radical enough to satisfy me. Conservatives would have seizures if faced with an actual leftist instead of our current faux-left figurehead. For starters, Obama could make me happier if he did more for civil rights, and if he pushed for huge cuts to military funding coupled with relatively large increases to health (and to some degree, education) spending, plus a complete overhaul or elimination of several bureaucracies. But he's not really in control of that. Congress is.

That said, "meat" is a hilarious Freudian typo.

[cethklein]

This topic is spot on. One thing Obama's presidency HAS brought out though is te hypocrites. The same people now bitching about "the government can't take our freedoms" and "protect our right to privacy" never uttered a pee when bush did it. (of course when bush did it, it was mostly Muslims and other 'brown people" who were being targeted. now that it's Evangelicals and other people (i.e. those now complaining) it's a big deal.

This is why few people are listening to the complaints. There's little credibility. Those whining about Obama need look only in the mirror to see why he's getting away with what he's doing. They set the precedent, now they've got to live with it.

[mscelina]

Not all those now complaining are conservatives, ceth, and there are quite a few people who bitched under Bush who are still bitching now--or bitching even more because their demigod proved to have feet of clay.

[cethklein]

Not all those now complaining are conservatives, ceth, and there are quite a few people who bitched under Bush who are still bitching now--or bitching even more because their demigod proved to have feet of clay.

Of course there are, I'm one of them. I bitched under bush and am bitching now. But I'm referring to those who didn't bitch under bush yet all of a sudden have a problem with the way things are. Now that they're the target, they don't wave their flags and say "tough, this is America" quite so much when they're the victims.

[robeiae]

To be fair, Bush didn't run up a fifteen gazillion dollar bill in his first hundred days...

[Captshady]

This topic is spot on. One thing Obama's presidency HAS brought out though is te hypocrites. The same people now bitching about "the government can't take our freedoms" and "protect our right to privacy" never uttered a pee when bush did it. (of course when bush did it, it was mostly Muslims and other 'brown people" who were being targeted. now that it's Evangelicals and other people (i.e. those now complaining) it's a big deal.

This is why few people are listening to the complaints. There's little credibility. Those whining about Obama need look only in the mirror to see why he's getting away with what he's doing. They set the precedent, now they've got to live with it.

Yeeeeaaaaaahhhh, and those militant anti-war demonstrations are just as numerous from the non-hypocritical left, huh? Code pink is just as in-your-face and loud, huh? Cindy Sheehan is hanging outside Camp David, or Obama's Michigan home?

It's just the republicans that are hypocrites, right?

[dclary]

This topic is spot on. One thing Obama's presidency HAS brought out though is te hypocrites. The same people now bitching about "the government can't take our freedoms" and "protect our right to privacy" never uttered a pee when bush did it. (of course when bush did it, it was mostly Muslims and other 'brown people" who were being targeted. now that it's Evangelicals and other people (i.e. those now complaining) it's a big deal.

This is why few people are listening to the complaints. There's little credibility. Those whining about Obama need look only in the mirror to see why he's getting away with what he's doing. They set the precedent, now they've got to live with it.


Neither side has a monopoly on hypocrisy. In the same vein, the people who bitched about the government taking freedoms and subverting privacy under Bush are now ghastly mute in the face of their savior doing the same things.

[SPMiller]

Careful with your absolute statements about liberals. I've been very clear about my disapproval of Obama's presidency so far.

[Williebee]

To be fair, Bush didn't run up a fifteen gazillion dollar bill in his first hundred days...

However, he did write the first check, so to speak.

Do you think, if the players had been reversed, the actions would have been different?

I don't think so. That's probably what pisses me off most about the last five months.

[robeiae]

Do you think, if the players had been reversed, the actions would have been different?
Yes and no. I have no doubt that McCain would have continued on the "bailout." But putting us in the hole by trillions for a stimulus package, followed by another trillion dollar spending bill? I don't think so.

[nighttimer]

Anyone who had unrealistic expectations that Barack Obama could reverse the course of the last eight months in the space of six months is a fool who was doomed to disappointment.

Obama entered office facing two unresolved wars, massive budget deficits. a collapsing economy, and the stature of the American brand held in contempt by much of the world. I guess he should have fixed all that weeks ago, huh?

He has received virtually no positive response from a bellicose Republican Party and faces a Democratic majority divided between Nancy Pelosi's House more liberal and reactionary than he is and Harry Reid's Senate that plods along barely directed by his timid and uninspiring leadership.

The country is still polarized by contentious social issues as we have seen about gay marriage, abortion and race. There are many needs and little money to meet them all.

Many people are already growing impatient with the pace Obama is taking. Some feel he's moving too slowly. Others say he's taking on too much. You can't win.

People love to bitch about what's wrong or how somebody else would have approached the same problem. So what? Conservatives who didn't say shit when Bush was busting the budget have become born again budget hawks with a Democrat in the White House. Liberals who bashed Bush mercilessly over the war in Iraq but wouldn't give him any credit for adopting the successful surge strategy that made it possible for Obama to start bringing the troops home now gripe that the pace is too slow.

I'm still very satisfied by my choice and still quite confident that while no president can fix everything, this president is committed to fixing some things.

Obama has a four-year guaranteed contract. After that time he can be kicked to the curb in 2012 and all those folks who are so unhappy now will get their chance to put somebody else behind the desk and maybe this time all your dreams will come true.

:Shrug:

[Zoombie]

You COULD wait till 2012.

Or, you can just revolt.

Course, most Americans don't want a revolution.

Now its either cause they're brainwashed by the evil school system, lazy fat slobs, or sane, depending on whether your a Libertarian, a cynic, or me.

Me? Personally?

I'm fairly happy with Obama. He's done some things I don't like, some things I do like, and some things I'm not sure about.

On the whole, an improvement. A big one!

[dclary]

Anyone who had unrealistic expectations that Barack Obama could reverse the course of the last eight months in the space of six months is a fool who was doomed to disappointment.Wasn't his entire campaign based on convincing people that this is exactly what he was going to do?

[nighttimer]

Wasn't his entire campaign based on convincing people that this is exactly what he was going to do?


No, but if that's what you want to believe he was about I won't stop you. :Wha:

[dclary]

Well, that's why I asked.

Thanks for clarifying.

[poetinahat]

Wasn't his entire campaign based on convincing people that this is exactly what he was going to do?

No?

I recall him saying it wasn't going to be easy, it wasn't going to be done in four or perhaps even eight years. I'll search for a link; if I can't find one, I'll delete.
I haven't found a link yet to support a commitment to any such timeframe, either mine or yours. I'll look again later; I've deleted the original post, but I've left the quote here for accountability's sake.

[kdnxdr]

I guess I'm just enough of one of those knot-headed conspiracy theorists types who believe the picture is bigger than the presidency. We always get "what we didn't work for". By that, I mean, the American public, by large, is extremely complacent about taking polictical action as a political body. If every citizen did even a little, there would be a different group of people in Washington.

I don't think Obama came "out of nowhere". I believe he was groomed for this particular time in history. I also believe that the undermining of the US economy has been intentionally orchestrated for a specific purpose. As well, the undoing of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is being intentionally orchestrated to coincide with the demise of the economy.

I believe there are some serious unresolved questions as to what is the working relationship between the branches of government during a presidential directive and the Congress and the Senate. The National Continuity Policy, Annex A, contingency plans for police of the people - Rex 84 type exercises and Operation Garden Plot type training, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the National Ermergencies Act....the questions just go on and on.

And then, in the midst of all the different crisis we have going on, there is the whole unresolved question of just his nationality, his past alliances that he was tutored under and what foreign entities helped to fund his compaign.

But, like I said, I'm a knot-head and knot-heads are thick so I just don't get "it" when "it" comes to politics.

I was naive to believe that it had something to do with just representation of the people coupled with fair taxation.

I guess corruption and apathy ruined all that, though.

[rugcat]

Yes and no. I have no doubt that McCain would have continued on the "bailout." But putting us in the hole by trillions for a stimulus package, followed by another trillion dollar spending bill? I don't think so.But that would have been worse. A half measure would have had no chance whatsoever of succeeding. Some economists believe, in fact, that Obama is not spending enough to effect a recovery.

And as far as people being disappointed, Obamas ratings are still very strong. And that's because a great many people who voted for him were moderates -- not far left liberals. And far from being the dangerous radical, socialist, or marxist that the far right paints him, he actually is a mainstream, left leaning moderate himself.

Personally, if the far left was praising him to the skies, I'd be worried.

There are some things he has done, or rather not done, like not addressing the question of gays in the military, that have disappointed me. But I have more confidence in him now than I did when I voted for him.

[dclary]

I haven't found a link yet to support a commitment to any such timeframe, either mine or yours. I'll look again later; I've deleted the original post, but I've left the quote here for accountability's sake.

Here's an article that seems to indicate that maybe the timeline for change has itself changed as Obama's campaign went from "get me elected" to "let me do my job."

http://www.butasforme.com/2008/11/06/leaked-memo-how-to-break-a-campaign-promises-with-hope-and-change/

[rugcat]

I haven't found a link yet to support a commitment to any such timeframe, either mine or yours. I'll look again later; I've deleted the original post, but I've left the quote here for accountability's sake.I remember that quote; it was in a speech, I believe, though I don't have a link either.

[SPMiller]

But that would have been worse. A half measure would have had no chance whatsoever of succeeding. Some economists believe, in fact, that Obama is not spending enough to effect a recovery.Indeed. My argument at the time was that either we spend a lot (far more than most people would be comfortable spending) or we spend none. The arguments made by the economists you allude to were very convincing. I'm actually expecting the stimulus to fail, but if it works, great.

[dclary]

How many more trillions, do you think, would it take to just REALLY rock this bitch?

[SPMiller]

Well, dclary, I'm not educated enough in economics to make a solid guesstimate, but since it's extremely unlikely Congress would spend an appropriate amount, I'd much rather they had spent nothing at all. Instead, what I suspect they have done is wasted taxpayer money.

[poetinahat]

Here's an article that seems to indicate that maybe the timeline for change has itself changed as Obama's campaign went from "get me elected" to "let me do my job."

http://www.butasforme.com/2008/11/06/leaked-memo-how-to-break-a-campaign-promises-with-hope-and-change/

Interesting - but that discussion appears to be about managing expectations that people have developed - not changing the dates on a committed timetable.

Maybe I missed it; I'll come back to it later.

[poetinahat]

How many more trillions, do you think, would it take to just REALLY rock this bitch?
Man, I just want my jetson car.

[robeiae]

But that would have been worse.In your opinion, you mean. In my opinion, the bailout was eight ways stupid and I don't see the sense in throwing good money after bad. A half measure would have had no chance whatsoever of succeeding. Some economists believe, in fact, that Obama is not spending enough to effect a recovery.Well, that's the talking point for every program/initiative under the Sun that doesn't seem to work: "it's underfunded, we need more, then it will work."

Regardless, as I demonstrated on another thread (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3672948&postcount=13), some of those economists--like Krugman--are simply recreating their position to make it appear that they are right.
And as far as people being disappointed, Obamas ratings are still very strong. And that's because a great many people who voted for him were moderates -- not far left liberals.I think it's because all he does is campaign, even after he has won. I'd like to see him sit down and actually govern, myself.

[dclary]

Well, dclary, I'm not educated enough in economics to make a solid guesstimate, but since it's extremely unlikely Congress would spend an appropriate amount, I'd much rather they had spent nothing at all. Instead, what I suspect they have done is wasted taxpayer money.

I also wish they'd spent nothing, and I wish a long, excruciatingly painful eternity in hell for every politician who voted for or supported every bailout from the AIG/insurance bailouts, to the auto industry. I can see where the concept of a stimulus package appeals to politicians, so I can't wish them a burning damnation for signing that -- even though it was the wrong thing to do IMO.

But you're dead on at the end. Bottom line: It was just a massive pile of pork so high you can see it from space.

[rugcat]

In your opinion, you mean. Well, of course. But I think that the stimulus may work, or it may not. But half as much would have no chance of success at all -- according to economists that you completely disagree with, that is.

[robeiae]

Well, of course. But I think that the stimulus may work, or it may not. But half as much would have no chance of success at all -- according to economists that you completely disagree with, that is.
How can I not disagree with people that are completely wrong...;)

[Williebee]

Yes and no. I have no doubt that McCain would have continued on the "bailout." But putting us in the hole by trillions for a stimulus package, followed by another trillion dollar spending bill? I don't think so.


Actually, when i wrote the post, in my head I was thinking if it had been Pres. Obama in office, and then Pres. Bush.

Wow, talk about some short term memory loss, Sen. McCain didn't even enter into the thought process.

[robeiae]

Wow, talk about some short term memory loss, Sen. McCain didn't even enter into the thought process.
That's okay. He probably doesn't remember running for President...

[Zoombie]

I don't get the constant refrain of "Oh, he's only campaigning, he can't *actually* lead."

Its just...weird...

Hasn't he, ya know, done all sorts of things that you're complaining about? If he's not actually governing, then how could he do all the things you're bitching about!?

Make up your mind, damn you!

[robeiae]

I don't get the constant refrain of "Oh, he's only campaigning, he can't *actually* lead."

Its just...weird...

Hasn't he, ya know, done all sorts of things that you're complaining about? If he's not actually governing, then how could he do all the things you're bitching about!?

Make up your mind, damn you!I didn't say he "could not" lead.

But he IS--imo--spending too much time "campaigning," regardless. How does a speech in Cairo help the U.S. economy? He's got plenty of seats to fill at the Federal Reserve. Maybe he should actually start filling them.

But then, he has time to fire an Inspector General because--apparently--that person wasn't making everything "smell good."

My mind is made up: I now think Obama really doesn't know what to do, at all, so he's filling his days with events. Take it or leave it, I don't care.

[dclary]

I don't get the constant refrain of "Oh, he's only campaigning, he can't *actually* lead."

Its just...weird...

Hasn't he, ya know, done all sorts of things that you're complaining about? If he's not actually governing, then how could he do all the things you're bitching about!?

Make up your mind, damn you!

Zoombie... Maybe he didn't have to fly to Chicago today to talk about his healthcare plan (at a cost of about a quarter million dollars). Maybe he could have done that over the phone or something. Issued a memo, perhaps?

This is what R-vowels means.

[Zoombie]

<shurgs>

I have my opinion, you have yours.

Now we just wait and see who was right!

I'm betting on myself...

[Williebee]

That's okay. He probably doesn't remember running for President...


That's cold.

I've got no real problem with some of the trips Pres. Obama has made, but yeah, enough's enough.

Add to that, if you want to be the "technology" and "change" President, use the tools. Save the gas and manpower and video conference yourself into these places.