I agree with some of that. and though I hate helping people get out of their own trouble when I've had such a struggle, I also think that if we let them go to the streets and allow foreclosure than they will be getting govt money anyway, property values will go down in the areas which they are foreclosed in. that's just the top 2 things i can think of right now. Govt run health care I think is a good idea. As it is so damn expensive right now and it keeps going up. i also think that a national banking system is in order. As I've stated before, Govt is not as evil as a lot of people think. I don't think it should run our lives and be the only option but I do think it should be out there. I would use a govt bank over any other. The Govt is out to screw you and make a huge profit, US bank, Chase, Capital One, and all the other ones are, in fact a lot of these problems wouldn't be happening had greedy aholes not have mad massively bad greedy decisions. It is the role of a good govt to make sure that things run smoothly just like a parent looks after their children. you can disagree which I am sure you will but less regulation on these corporations is not the answer as that is what has been happening. A national health care would be much cheaper in the long run and allow all to have the option for care and regular treatment. Like I stated before kuzi, I whole-heartedly feel like you do, in that I don't want to pay for others' bad mistakes but in terms of a larger, much grander scale one has to look past the "me" factor. If you want to look back on when the "credit" think took over in the 80's, since it has become the only way one purchases things and most people have gotten so use to paying for things "later". That is and always has been a bad thing but hey it got corporations lots of money and very quickly but F'd up our culture and our lives. Though again some of us (me not in that) didn't get on that band wagon. But most did. The credit way of life was in part a big mistake and I do accredit it to part of the problems we have now. I'm not for govt interference or complete govt control, but I am for a govt that will fix problems and that is what I believe Obama is trying to do.
We voted to put Obama in office so that he wouldn't have to spend his time doing something like that. As it is now, he can sit at the White House, and suck money out of your pockets whether you like it or not, then throw it around as he wishes. I don't see where your solution is any better
Its also my understanding some of his supporters and backers (I will try to find the article) are beginning to raise their eyebrows at his perceived lack of ABILITY to run the country. Drawing critisism as a pretty boy articulate speaker but no substance.....possibly because he is starting to lean so far left. The insiders always have a better understanding of what strenghts and weaknesses are way before it trickles down into some rating poll.....
Its also my understanding some of his supporters and backers (I will try to find the article) are beginning to raise their eyebrows at his perceived lack of ABILITY to run the country. Drawing critisism as a pretty boy articulate speaker but no substance.....possibly because he is starting to lean so far left. The insiders always have a better understanding of what strenghts and weaknesses are way before it trickles down into some rating poll.....
come election time, how many votes do those insiders get?
If it simply comes down to money, how did he win in the first place? IIRC, he didn't have nearly the money that Hillary had, until he got support. So are we going to say he bought support with his money, or are we going to say he got money from his support?
If his voting record was so far out of touch with the insiders, how did he find so much support?
You are arguing in circles... That was my whole point. He was elected because he speaks well and ran his campaign as a middle of the road kind of guy. Most people just bought into that because he spoke well and sounded like the kinda guy they wanted in office regaurdless of his record. Even Jim Cramer admited he supported Obama because he seemed like a middle of the road candidate, but now regrets that choice because he is not sticking to what he said in his campaign. He hasn't stuck to his campaign promises at all either. He has broken SEVERAL of the key points of his campaign already and he is only about 50 days into his term...
Wouldn't it be irresponsible, as a voter, to elect someone on a speech rather than their voting record? Were the insiders swayed by his speeches despite his voting record?
Wouldn't it be irresponsible, as a voter, to elect someone on a speech rather than their voting record? Were the insiders swayed by his speeches despite his voting record?
Yes, it is VERy irresponsible, as a voter, to elect someone on the way he speaks, but our nation did just that. And I'm not sure what "insiders" you are refering to because some of them supported him and some of them didn't. My point is he is not and has not done what he has promised to do. He is going against most of the things he claimed to be in his campaign.
Can you give a specific example? I'm not asking for "because he said he wanted to bring all sides together but instead he's just promoting Democratic ideals!" He doesn't have the power to pass laws all by himself. It's also not fair to characterize the divide in Congressional voting as a failure on his part. Republicans have said repeatedly that their grip is with Nancy Pelosi.
Comments