Our president, not many threads about him.

[get some]

thank you Rogue for reminding the community that i am in fact not a company guy....for anything. im used to being called a fence-sitter because of it but i refuse to blindly accept any organizations ideology out of hand. including Democrats.

regardless of the topic, i am encouraged at what i see Obama trying to do...change the focus and the tone of the discussion. both parties seem to be a bit slow to jump on board, and are clinging to their partisan ways. my feeling, as an individual, is that i would like to see our government get rational and start addressing these issues like reasonable adults. there probably isnt a magical perfect solution to any of our issues but its really frustrating as a citizen when you hear elected officials that are supposed to be working on solutions to these problems spew useless rhetoric aimed at denegrating the opposing side in hopes of furthering their parties position for the next election. makes me inclined to think all elected positions should be capped at one 2 year term. do your job cause you aint getting another shot at it!

but i digress...

obama made the promise to change the way washington did business. i do see him making an effort at doing so. whether or not he is successful remains to be seen...he's got 3 more years.

[NUTS!]

Your first post says Obama sucks because his budget does not include added trillions to bailout Fannie/Freddie. Now you say Obama sucks because of TARP. What is your argument? That we should budget for bailouts? Or we shouldn't?

Funny never said President Obama sucks, but you digress....
I am against TARP, Government bailouts,etc. Arguments? I could be snide and say look at our current economy but that would be short sighted. I have mentioned zerohedge numerouse times. Sorry, not just going to copy and paste for you.

But make sure it recognizes the FACT that the best economic minds of today -- liberal and conservative alike -- said we needed TARP, and needed to do it extremely quickly, in order to avoid a financial meltdown the likes of which I'm not sure many can imagine

Its also a FACT that many of best economic minds were also very against it. http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.co ... rotest.htm just one of a few examples.....Yes, the previouse administration did hand over a ton money as well. Was against that too. So we agree, President Obama is no better than President Bush.

Next, if you want to make an argument that we can solve the nation's fiscal problems without reforming healthcare and that Obama sucks for trying to do so, go ahead. Let's hear your argument. But make sure it distinguishes between a TEMPORARY BUDGET surplus and a LONG-TERM strategy to solve for the national DEBT

As I pointed out before, we have had balanced budgets and surpluses in the past. I think we need to get away from the Keynsian economic model.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo ... r_embedded[/youtube]

I would honestly like to hear a real argument from you explaining why Obama sucks for supporting TARP and/or trying to reform healthcare. Yes, a real argument, as opposed to Fox News gibberish about socialist plots and wasted, out-of-control spending.

so far this has been a one sided exchange. Like to see why you think that what he is doing is working or can work.

[NUTS!]

Or, if you can't handle those arguments, maybe you'd rather just hang some tea-bags from your hat, hold a poster of Chairman Mao and yell "Obama blows!". That takes a lot less thought.

Better than remaining ignorant. Tell me how is this admintration any better than the last.

baaaa

[GRRReat]

I have a solution to all our government problems.

Have the president,vice,congress and every one else connected with the federal government.
All come to one place for a very important national security life or death situation.
If you don't come you are automatically out of office.


Once we are sure they are all there. Drop a bunker buster bomb on the place.

Step 2 elect all new (working class) people. Ones that knows how real life is.

Give it a year and see what happens.


LOL LOL LOL

[KKB]

44

We already have healthcare for everyone. Nobody gets turned away from the hospital insurance or not.

Plus, medicaid (run by the government) has been a huge financial disaster. Why would we want our sloppy government to run something much larger? So we can waste more? Is that what you want?

No matter how you pitch Obama's health care plan the government will have their hands on it one way or another.

And what is this retoric about Obama trying to bring both sides together? Absolutely absurd!

Obama aint doing sh.it...

[Matt-Ectl-Xp-]

I myself am dumbfounded.

Well people wanted change. They got it. Or did they?

$100 says he will not be reelected, that is if he makes it through his first term.

I Agree i place $100 as well i myself am not to happy with the what he says he would do but so far all we got was this one big blank word "NOTHING"
well, anyways some kids call him drama lol

[General Vig-VT-]

^^ Not true KKB. Families and individuals without insurance are not guaranteed a hospital bed and prevention of whatever illness may have befallen them. Lets take for example, two elderly women fall in similar circumstances, and have to be taken to the emergency room to be checked for any serious damage. Lady A has good, quality health insurance, whereas Lady B cannot afford health care. Lady A is covered for all the tests that are run and Lady B is charged 7 Grand for the trip, how do you expect her to pay for that if she cannot even purchase adequate health care?

What Obama is saying about having "Groups" (sharing the cost of healthcare with one or more individuals, just like sharing rent with a roomate) is absolutley brilliant. Sure, its not fool proof, but with a few BIPARTISAN tweaks, It will be the greatest form of legislature since the 12th amendment (enacted circa 1804).

Can't we all just get along and be Democrats? xD.

-Vig

[Mighty Mouse]

As I have found, the hospital is by law obligated to care for both patients and to come to payment terms with the poor lady. They don't take her and repo her house to pay, although sometimes it may take that.

[dad]

^^No hospital can deny emergency care to a patient, regardless of their ability to pay.

Secondly, your example is a poor one. You mention that both women are "elderly". At the very minimum, both are covered under some sort of government funded healthcare due to their age.

Thirdly, to use the word brilliant in any description of this president makes me laugh.

[Triv]

Here is goodie for you. Watch to the end part 3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQts21QiKTQ