Obama so far

[BooBearSH]

So, I know Obama had a rough start and some of you didn't like him being President, or even running for president, but how do you all see his Presidency now that he's been in awhile?

Discuss.

P.s. found this funny... some asshole made a countdown till he's out of office already...

Countdown until Obama leaves Office
1131 Days, 15 Hours, 36 Minutes, 45 Seconds.

[Chris]

I say he isn't the best, but by far not the worst.

Remember he walked into a pit of debt and war, how would you do?

[iamwilliam]

i believe that he hasnt done much yet...
but it only been less than a year

[Gabe]

He hasn;t done horrible but he hasn't done great either. Better than George Bush...

[Sutured]

He does have quite a plate in front of him , and I think hes fairing decently for being dropped into the situation that hes in .

[C0FFINCASE]

Obama is a failure.
He won by making his campaign about race. Doesn't listen to public opinion, just does what he want because we're too stupid to know what we want, but he has to read from a teleprompter. He has failed to fulfill any of his promises, which I'm happy about. His health care plan will destroy us by lowing health care standard available and make it less available.
He refuses to commit to the war, he wants to try and half ass it. It won't work. Britain deployed all the troops they did because the world is tired of him doing nothing.
He is a hypocrite with his Peace Prize for things he didn't do.
He's more concerned with trying to be a celebrity rather than run the country.
He's not American, we found his Kenyan birth certificate.
And he's not better than Bush, Bush did thing. Obama sits back and tell us its all our fault and that we need to apologize and suffer for that reason.
I'm not about to apologize for being American and doing thing the American way. He's turning us into the world's doormate and its supposed to be the other way around.

[BooBearSH]

What's sad about all your posts is, Coffin made the best post, and he wasn't even sticking up for Obama. You guys never gave examples worth shit. Nice post Coffin.

My personal opinion goes between Coffin's and Chris', sure, he's not the best, but he's trying to be. He's just not the "people's" president you may want.

[pringles]

i feel that after we get out of dept(if we do) things will be smooth sailing

[C0FFINCASE]

He's just not the "people's" president you may want.

Sure Boo. Hate spawns passion.

He missed the part where its his job to do what we want. Not what benefits him or his agenda. He;s not even playing politics, he's playing "what's good for Obama". He's pathetic. He doesn't care about America, he doesn't care about freedom, and he doesn't care about that's right. He's out to get what he can and to make us pay for some unknown crime.
And god these taxes. He's killing the economy he claims to be saving. Again he's made no jobs. The few he made have since disappeared because "green" jobs are not a business in demand. The figure of jobs he created was found to be bull because they counted the same jobs up to 4 times. He's affiliated with several organizations that are corrupt(Acorn).

[Souleater]

Considering that hes my boss, i hate him, and considering that hes the president, means that i think hes a doushebag. his entire presidency in my opinion is more about public opinion than that of acually doing something that would greatly benefit the country.

his plans havent worked and his outlook for war is miopic and nearsighted at best. Ooh-Rah USA, fuck Obama's presidency.

[C0FFINCASE]

Well the economy got worst by Bush the stupid ass one. And i believe it will get better.

Bush had nothing to do with the economy getting worse. Obama just isn't doing anything to try and fix it. Bush at least tried to fix it.

[BooBearSH]

He's WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Too into Health Care, it's so fucking old. He's suppose to have 50 advisers doing that shit, he needs to focus on other shit other than just that... Ever damn time I see him talking on the TV, he's just talking about Health Care, WOOT, I guess...?

[C0FFINCASE]

Well other people have their own beliefs.

Other people are fools then because they like to think Bush is a crazy witch doctor who waves his juju stick and make bad things happen. You can't blame him for the way the wall street idiots handled their credit nor can he be blamed for a hurricane.

[ʝдɮ]

Obama is a failure.
He won by making his campaign about race. Doesn't listen to public opinion, just does what he want because we're too stupid to know what we want, but he has to read from a teleprompter. He has failed to fulfill any of his promises, which I'm happy about. His health care plan will destroy us by lowing health care standard available and make it less available.
He refuses to commit to the war, he wants to try and half ass it. It won't work. Britain deployed all the troops they did because the world is tired of him doing nothing.
He is a hypocrite with his Peace Prize for things he didn't do.
He's more concerned with trying to be a celebrity rather than run the country.
He's not American, we found his Kenyan birth certificate.
And he's not better than Bush, Bush did thing. Obama sits back and tell us its all our fault and that we need to apologize and suffer for that reason.
I'm not about to apologize for being American and doing thing the American way. He's turning us into the world's doormate and its supposed to be the other way around.

Now, it's time to refute your statement one point by one point.

Obama is a failure.

Disagree, but that's what this is all about.

He won by making his campaign about race.

Says who? Gimme some proofiez.

Doesn't listen to public opinion, just does what he want because we're too stupid to know what we want, but he has to read from a teleprompter.

He was elected by public opinion, and whatever he has done has been much more popular than our past president, and probably the one before him. Every president reads from a teleprompter. That's how it works. They read pre-written speeches.

He has failed to fulfill any of his promises, which I'm happy about.

He's had less than a year in office. You also seem to be forgetting that the president can not pass laws, only support them, and most of his promises have been about passing legislature. He has obviously been working with congress. We have our healthcare plan for an example.

His health care plan will destroy us by lowing health care standard available and make it less available.

How would it lower health care standards? It wouldn't effect doctor's pay, nurse's pay, or hospital's income. And how on earth would providing more health care make health care less available?!

He refuses to commit to the war, he wants to try and half ass it.

30,000 troops is hardly a lack of commitment. Also, you seem to be forgetting some major aspects of the war in Afghanistan. To begin with, the war in Afghanistan is currently about helping keep off Al Qaeda while the Afghanistanian government works on rebuilding itself. Sending loads and loads of soldiers in form of a surge, as it seems you want, will make the ratio of Afganistanian troops to American troops even more unbalanced, the war is a black hole of troops, one that requires less things to be put in it to fix the problem, not more. Also the nation, as well as the world is in an economic recession. It is estimated by non-Pentagon sources that for each troop in Afghanistan per year, we are paying 1 million dollars. Furthermore, a surge type method that we used in the Iraqian war will not be effective in combating Afghanistanian guerrillas. Unlike Iraq, which has major political, social, and economic centers, Afghanistan is a country of mountains and forests, with no clear target of where we need to position our troops.

Britain deployed all the troops they did because the world is tired of him doing nothing.

Damn bloody time. The number of international troops in Afghanistan in comparison to the American troops is a hilarious comparison, for every 10 of our soldier, they have 3. This includes all of the non-US players in the war, Britain, Canada, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands.

He's not American, we found his Kenyan birth certificate.

I have to contentions with this. To begin with: So what?! We should judge people by their credits, not anything like their skin color, or where they were born. Secondly, proof proof proof?

Now I'm to grumpy to keep going D:<

[Chris]

He's WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Too into Health Care, it's so fucking old. He's suppose to have 50 advisers doing that shit, he needs to focus on other shit other than just that... Ever damn time I see him talking on the TV, he's just talking about Health Care, WOOT, I guess...?

You realize that without the reform Medi-Care and other health care help will crash and be unavailable in the next 5-6 years.

Imagine those free visits to the doctor (Just visits to see if you are ok,) costing you the full $2,000.

[Shadow]

We can all say what we wish and everything, though we don't really know what it's like, nor will we ever.

Now I'm neither for or against Obama, but like other people have said, he did run for presidency in some rather hard times.
For that we do have to give him credit.
Though it has been a year, nothing so far.

He said he had huge plans coming done this August at latest. August, September, October, November, December, and still nothing.

Now he's planning on a national health care bill which will bump up our national debt from $9B to around $12B, perhaps even higher which will cripple the "economy" we have now.

Bush did the same thing when he decided that old people get free medication, since he knows old people vote. That cost the U.S. a ton of money we didn't have.

Obama won over young people, though it wasn't such a good move for the U.S. Like above posts have said, he won by popularity in mostly young voters, who at most times are very uneducated.

[C0FFINCASE]

Now, it's time to refute your statement one point by one point.

Says who? Gimme some proofiez. The proof is that when ever you didn't support him during the election

People just labeled you racist because of it.You yourself passively imply that I am later. He played a black guilt card to get people to vote for him.
If you're stupid enough not to think it was there you need to just stop arguing with me because you'll never win.

He was elected by public opinion, and whatever he has done has been much more popular than our past president, and probably the one before him. Every president reads from a teleprompter. That's how it works. They read pre-written speeches.

No, he was elected based on the college of reps. votes. The people have no say really. He's not more popular than any one, his popularity is among the liberals who still think he's the messiah. He's popularity has been falling fast for months. Just being elected doesn't give you the mandate to do whatever the hell you please. If 50% of the people don't like you plan you need to stop and see what it is that want instead.
Not ever president read teleprompter, some of them can memorize their speech, Bush included.

He's had less than a year in office. You also seem to be forgetting that the president can not pass laws, only support them, and most of his promises have been about passing legislature. He has obviously been working with congress. We have our healthcare plan for an example.

I know what the president can and can't do. Our health care plan will destroy health care. We already have a shortage of doctors, we don't have the money for the system, we're forcing the government option on to people, it will lower the quality of health care, and its going to turn health into cost effective government business(this will screw the old and very ill)

30,000 troops is hardly a lack of commitment. Also, you seem to be forgetting some major aspects of the war in Afghanistan. To begin with, the war in Afghanistan is currently about helping keep off Al Qaeda while the Afghanistanian government works on rebuilding itself. Sending loads and loads of soldiers in form of a surge, as it seems you want, will make the ratio of Afganistanian troops to American troops even more unbalanced, the war is a black hole of troops, one that requires less things to be put in it to fix the problem, not more. Also the nation, as well as the world is in an economic recession. It is estimated by non-Pentagon sources that for each troop in Afghanistan per year, we are paying 1 million dollars. Furthermore, a surge type method that we used in the Iraqian war will not be effective in combating Afghanistanian guerrillas. Unlike Iraq, which has major political, social, and economic centers, Afghanistan is a country of mountains and forests, with no clear target of where we need to position our troops.

Unfortunately 300000 is a joke. The fact there is no clear target is why we need more men and more time. We at war. You can't send part of the military and say in a year we're leaving. We are just pussy footing around with this. It was a political play not military move. He was trying to make everyone happy and he failed and is playing with lives. We're going to be in Afghanistan and Iraqi for a good long time. We need to send in the damned military so they can do their job quicker and maybe we can get out before 2040. Afghanistan is years from stable, we leave it goes to hell and we've accomplished nothing. Iraq is obviously not finished either. Oh, and if you didn't notice war, when you don't out source production is amazing for the economy. If we had Americans financing the war effort and manufacturing everything we' have more jobs and money.

Damn bloody time. The number of international troops in Afghanistan in comparison to the American troops is a hilarious comparison, for every 10 of our soldier, they have 3. This includes all of the non-US players in the war, Britain, Canada, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands.

It are war. No one else has to be there. The rest of the world is tired of us doing nothing to clean up our mess and have decided to do it since Obama obviously isn't going to try.

I have to contentions with this. To begin with: So what?! We should judge people by their credits, not anything like their skin color, or where they were born. Secondly, proof proof proof?

It a law you have to be born in America to be the president. I don't care that he's black, he could be green and we can paint me orange for all I care. The man's a socialist with a vendetta against any one that worked hard in life to do well for themselves. Proof? Its on file look it up. There is a court in Cal. that is reviewing if Obama is qualified to be Pres. They have his Kenyan birth certificate and are doing all kinds of research on him. Even if they deem him unworthy it won't come out. It would cause such an uproar and embarrass our country.

[C0FFINCASE]

How would it lower health care standards? It wouldn't effect doctor's pay, nurse's pay, or hospital's income. And how on earth would providing more health care make health care less available?!

Public health care works like this: You now allow everyone to go to the doctor's for free so they do. Waiting list become insanely long. It will take months for you to get a simple physical or scan, mean while you may die. You lower the quality by increasing the quantity. Because the government now runs health care it does lower doctor's pay. Doctor shortage is already a problem we have and it will be worse because they will go from wealthy profession to government job pay. Right now the quality of health care is at the level it is because doctors set their rates and have private practice and are forced to compete with each other, having to contently seek the best possible healing methods so they can stay in business. You take away that quality goes down. You want proof,we're modeling our system on the European one. People in Britain pull their rotting teeth in their garage cause the dentist won't see them for two years. I have a Bulgarian teacher who says he came to America to get away from the exact system we're trying to start.
# There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a transport vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? If any private business failed year after year to achieve its objectives and satisfy its customers, it would go out of business or be passed up by competitors.

# "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it?

[C0FFINCASE]

# Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.

# Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.

# Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.

# Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant.

# Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.

# Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?

# A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money.

# Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency.

# Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits. When you're dealing with any business, for example a privately-funded hospital, if an employee negligently causes an injury, the employer is ultimately liable in a lawsuit. If government funds all health care, that would mean the U.S. government, an organization with enormous amounts of cash at its disposal, would be ultimately responsible for the mistakes of health care workers. Whether or not a doctor has made a mistake, he or she is always a target for frivolous lawsuits by money-hungry lawyers & clients that smell deep pockets. Even if the health care quality is the same as in a government-funded system, the level of lawsuits is likely to increase simply because attorneys know the government has the money to make settlements and massive payouts. Try to imagine potential punitive damages alone. When the government has the ability to spend several trillion dollars per year, how much will a jury be willing to give a wronged individual who is feeble, disfigured, or dying?

# Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms. With government-paid health care, any risky or unhealthy lifestyle will raise the dollar cost to society. Thus, politicians will be in a strong position to pass more "sin" taxes on things like alcohol, high-fat food, smoking, etc. They could ban trans fat, limit msg, eliminate high-fructose corn syrup, and so on. For some health nuts, this may sound like a good thing. But pretty soon, people will find they no longer have the option to enjoy their favorite foods, even in moderation, or alternatively, the cost of the items will be sky high. Also, it just gives the government yet another method of controlling our lives, further eroding the very definition of America, Land of the Free.


# Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government. While a centralized computer health information system may reduce some costs of record keeping, protecting the privacy of patients will likely become very difficult. The government would have yet another way to access information about citizens that should be private. Any doctor or other health professional would be able to access your entire health history. What if hackers get into the data?

[C0FFINCASE]

# Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what. Any time you have politicians making health care decisions instead of medical or economics professions, you open a whole group of potential rationing issues. As costs inevitably get out of control and have to be curtailed, some ways will be needed to cut costs. Care will have to be rationed. How do you determine what to do with limited resources? How much of "experimental" treatments will have to be eliminated? If you're over 80, will the government pay for the same services as people under 30? Would you be able to get something as expensive as a pacemaker or an organ transplant if you're old? Would your political party affiliation or group membership determine if you received certain treatments? What if you acquire AIDS through drug use or homosexual activity, would you still receive medical services? What if you get liver disease through alcoholism, or diabetes from being overweight, or lung cancer from smoking--will the government still help you? You may or may not trust the current president & Congress to make reasonable decisions, but what about future presidents and congressional members?

# Patients will be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment. Stories constantly come out of universal health care programs in Britain and Canada about patients forced to wait months or years for treatments that we can currently receive immediately in America. With limited financial and human resources, the government will have to make tough choices about who can treatment first, and who must wait. Patients will like be forced to suffer longer or possibly die waiting for treatment.

# Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control. Social security was originally put in place to help seniors live the last few years of their lives; however, the retirement age of 65 was set when average life spans were dramatically shorter. Now that people are regular living into their 90s or longer, costs are skyrocketing out of control, making the program unsustainable. Despite the fact that all politicians know the system is heading for bankruptcy in a couple decades, no one is rushing to fix it. When President Bush tried to re-structure it with private accounts, the Democrats ran a scare campaign about Bush's intention to "take away your social security". Even though he promised no change in benefits, the fact that he was proposing change at all was enough to kill the effort, despite the fact that Democrats offered zero alternative plan to fix it. Despite Republican control of the presidency and both houses, Bush was not even close to having the political support to fix something that has to be fixed ASAP; politicians simply didn't want to risk their re-elections. The same pattern is true with virtually all government spending programs. Do you think politicians will ever be able to cut education spending or unemployment insurance?...Only if they have a political death wish. In time, the same would be true of universal health care spending. As costs skyrocket because of government inefficiency and an aging population, politicians will never be able to re-structure the system, remove benefits, or put private practice options back in the system....that is, unless they want to give up hope of re-election. With record debt levels already in place, we can't afford to put in another "untouchable" spending program, especially one with the capacity to easily pass defense and social security in cost.

(yes, there are 3 post in a row there. If there wasn't a bloody char. limit. It'd be one post.)

[Elliot]

# Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what. Any time you have politicians making health care decisions instead of medical or economics professions, you open a whole group of potential rationing issues. As costs inevitably get out of control and have to be curtailed, some ways will be needed to cut costs. Care will have to be rationed. How do you determine what to do with limited resources? How much of "experimental" treatments will have to be eliminated? If you're over 80, will the government pay for the same services as people under 30? Would you be able to get something as expensive as a pacemaker or an organ transplant if you're old? Would your political party affiliation or group membership determine if you received certain treatments? What if you acquire AIDS through drug use or homosexual activity, would you still receive medical services? What if you get liver disease through alcoholism, or diabetes from being overweight, or lung cancer from smoking--will the government still help you? You may or may not trust the current president & Congress to make reasonable decisions, but what about future presidents and congressional members?

# Patients will be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment. Stories constantly come out of universal health care programs in Britain and Canada about patients forced to wait months or years for treatments that we can currently receive immediately in America. With limited financial and human resources, the government will have to make tough choices about who can treatment first, and who must wait. Patients will like be forced to suffer longer or possibly die waiting for treatment.

# Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control. Social security was originally put in place to help seniors live the last few years of their lives; however, the retirement age of 65 was set when average life spans were dramatically shorter. Now that people are regular living into their 90s or longer, costs are skyrocketing out of control, making the program unsustainable. Despite the fact that all politicians know the system is heading for bankruptcy in a couple decades, no one is rushing to fix it. When President Bush tried to re-structure it with private accounts, the Democrats ran a scare campaign about Bush's intention to "take away your social security". Even though he promised no change in benefits, the fact that he was proposing change at all was enough to kill the effort, despite the fact that Democrats offered zero alternative plan to fix it. Despite Republican control of the presidency and both houses, Bush was not even close to having the political support to fix something that has to be fixed ASAP; politicians simply didn't want to risk their re-elections. The same pattern is true with virtually all government spending programs. Do you think politicians will ever be able to cut education spending or unemployment insurance?...Only if they have a political death wish. In time, the same would be true of universal health care spending. As costs skyrocket because of government inefficiency and an aging population, politicians will never be able to re-structure the system, remove benefits, or put private practice options back in the system....that is, unless they want to give up hope of re-election. With record debt levels already in place, we can't afford to put in another "untouchable" spending program, especially one with the capacity to easily pass defense and social security in cost.

(yes, there are 3 post in a row there. If there wasn't a bloody char. limit. It'd be one post.)

If you used a code tag then a 3 part post would not be needed.

[Polka Dots]

Well at least is not George Bush anymore
Anything is better than that retard-ow.

[Sorrow]

Well at least is not George Bush anymore
Anything is better than that retard-ow.

I'm sorry, but how deeply were you involved in politics? Because if you're saying that just off of what people say about him...

And as for Obama...While I didn't vote for him in 2008, I think people are expecting too much from him, and at the same time, I'm still not sure if even Obama knows what he's doing. I mean, when he was senator, he never made any 'firm' choices which was why I didn't think choosing him as President was entirely the brightest idea.

And as for the war...If you go back to 2001 when the "War on Terrorism" campaign started, you'll see that America was pretty much on the top of their game, and when they intervened in a war, it was fast and cheap. So when Bush started the war, it might have been in the hopes that the war would be quick and simple, but which turned out to be longer than expected. And our original goal while we were in Afghanistan was to track down Al-Qaeda, which then turned more into a "Help Afghanistan".

And like C0FFINCASE said, America's in between a rock and a sword. If America backs down now, it reflects as a "America can't finish what they've started", and then makes it look like Americans are just wimps. So what Obama's trying to do now is to bring more troops into Afghanistan not because he wants to prolong the war, but because he wants to try and force out terrorism in Afghanistan (which was the primary reason Americans went into Afghanistan in the first place) using brute force.

[BooBearSH]

If you used a code tag then a 3 part post would not be needed.

Thank you for doing so well at staying on topic. @ Your post, it's funny, because he didn't do that because he A) wanted it read, and B) didn't want to go down every damn line and hit enter so it doesn't stretch. But hey, you're a genius and you're right... right?... Funny man, funny.

@Coffin, true points...

@Dots, Bush wasn't as bad as the press makes him out to be, just like the way they make Obama look.

[Sorashikari]

I like his policies and I like what he's doing so far even though it's had congress in a hullabaloo. Change is good - especially change from Bush - I mean already Green technology is becoming huge where as Bush was oil oil oil (*and guess what Bush has oil*) - a little profit for himself there. Hopefully we'll actually stop using oil soon.

[C0FFINCASE]

I like his policies and I like what he's doing so far even though it's had congress in a hullabaloo. Change is good - especially change from Bush - I mean already Green technology is becoming huge where as Bush was oil oil oil (*and guess what Bush has oil*) - a little profit for himself there. Hopefully we'll actually stop using oil soon.

We're not going to stop using oil soon. Everything runs on oil and the people that mine oil run a monopoly. Our society is built on the use of oil as fuel. It will take hundreds if not thousands of years before we switch if we do before we run out. Reasons: We lack alternative fuel, yeah you hear about solar and electric but they are highly impractical and very expensive so that won't happen. Every thing we produce runs on oil, with out we have no cars and no electricity.
Obama has done next to nothing green, he keeps talking it but doing nothing.
Change is bad, when a system works and you change it you often break it.

@ Boo agree. The media is worthless, Bush was evil villain and Obama is messiah. They don't play anything fair. Even when Obama messes up they make it out like he craps gold nuggets and his piss cures cancer. People that allow themselves to be spoon fed by the news are idiots. You know you're in trouble when at times Rush is lest bias than the "news".

[FoRspArTA]

I think he sucks. He is ruining our economy with all these spending bills, and it is going to be a while before it goes back up. And @BooBearSH's first post about the countdown, I have that on my facebook page. With this Maya 2012 shit and Obama being president, I think he just might end the world. I actually have a lot of friends who think he is the AntiChrist. I wouldn't be surprised if he is. haha
And the healthcare is just terrible. By making healthcare public, doctors will make less money. This means they will work less hard and make the same amount, making our medicine worse. Just look at other countries with public health care.
PS: I know a lot of doctors, and they all are saying they are going trk much less hard to make the same money since it isn't worth it to go all out.

[iLuwMuffinz<3]

i Think he has done good job as a president of the United States for now, i hope he will do even better in future (:

[Eli]

I think that the presidency before him gave him a huge mess to clean up.
He can't really focus on what he wants to do until we are out of Iraq.
However what he has done aside from the war was pretty good.

I give Obama a 7/10.

[sighkick]

He started off in a horrible start...but as a fellow African i believe that he will do good in office...its hard to cure a debt problem

[sighkick]

Also shojo...he didnt win because he was black...so stop making stupid comments like that(sorry for double posting)