Obama’s Big-Picture Problem

If Obama wants Universal Health Care without government taking direct responsibility he should promote Health Care Savings Accounts for everyone from birth. We could then take responsibility for ourselves.

And if you compare the stats from the past few recessions from the 1970's forward, this is still relatively mild, esp by 1980's standards.
If people were living beyond their means, spending money they didn't have, then the jobs and wealth created by that "irrational exuberance" were equally irrational. It's time to bring things back down to historical norms, returning to the expected advance, and decline, in our economy.
And it's not just the US. Eyrope is spiralling into the abyss even faster, with China and Russia looking pretty toasty, too.
You should've pulled your money out when the market started to tank back in Jan-Feb 2000 - the last devaluation of mythical monies.com. Of course, we did zip past those heights in the past few years. Until the Dems took back DC - now all is doom and gloom. Typical.

Since you bring up Kstrina, you will be glad to know that since that hurricane, the Federal Government has usurped yet another power from the sovereign states and can override the Governor's decisions when it comes to emergencies. Too bad Bush didn't have that power and was unable to act until the Gov got off her ass and decided she DID need help. "Chocolate City" Nagin basically left his citizens to their fates - but it's all Bush'sfault.

Hey, Denmill, do you really believe that stupid nonsense or are you just trying to provoke people? Careful or you are going to start making as much sense as Rush Limbaugh.

Sirhc: easy on the caps, dude. Conservatives don't respond to logic so volume won't work either.

We all know what BHO thinks of the role of the Federal government. "Take all the money that you can from the small business comunity whose owners already cannot afford to pay their bills due to high taxes and redistribute it to crack addicts. his support base from ACORN and illegal aliens so can be reelected by pulling another scam on the American people. By the way we the people also need to pay for promicuos teenager to have more abortion, and perhaps for gays to have social security from the partners. How about what our parents have always tought us "DO NOT BUY WHAT YOU CAN'T AFFORD?" I have never seen a president signing so many bills in less that 1 week in office. I have never seen a president trying so hard and so fast to pay his base in return for electing him, this behavior should be ilegal. America has becoming the Soviet Union. Please people do your job otherwise we will not have a Country in 2 years. Impeach BHO now. BHO needs some common sense.

What abt he 11 DINO's that voted against it? Not all Dems voted FOR it, so it was not a striclty party-line, partisan vote, now was it?
Perhaps we should ask the former pot & cocaine-using President how he feels abt it. He could ask some of the lobbyists he's hired how he should spin it. Better yet, check with the Muslims he just gave his first interview as Prez to and see how they like it.

THE REPUBLICANS ARE SUCH HYPOCRITES. EVERY REP. IN THE SENATE VOTED NO ON THE STIMULUS BILL. CATERPILLAR LAID OF 20,000 YESTERDAY, SPRINT 9000 YESTERDAY, BOEING 10,000 TODAY....... I BET IF THERE WAS A SECTION IN THE BILL THAT IF YOU VOTED AGAINST IT NONE OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS WOULD SEE A DIME THEY WOULD ALL SIGN THE FREAKIN THING ASAP...............INCREDIBLE...............THE SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO LET AN OBESE, RACIST, DRUG ADDICTED, CHICKENHAWKIN HYPOCRITE LIKE RUSH LIMBAUGH BE THERE MOUTH PEICE....AND THEY WONDER WHY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE VOTING THEM OUT OF WASHINGTON..............

NEWSFLASH!

BHO is just another politician. He's already started to move away from many of his pre-election positions. CIA "secret prisons", for example. Loopholes!
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/wall.bush-obama/index.html

Jacob's analysis is appropriate and thought provoking. This is a commentary rather than a news article. It is presented as such. The point is well made that Abraham Lincoln who was not popular at the time cut to the chase and succinctly defined the role of government. Having read Obama's inaugration speech the morning afterl, it occured to me that there is a absence of top level vision, supporting strategy, and connecting plans for the most pressing issues. Rather, it is a compilation of jabs at his predecessors and statements aimed at making his supporters feel good. Obama appears to be caught in a conflict between what he believes the nation needs and what will sustain his popularity. He needs pragmatic critical analysis to enable him to rise from a reactive politician to a proactive leader. This is somewhat analagous to George Washington who was a ineffective general until he inadevertently was exposed to his aides articulation of his inadequacies.

Obama originally was not campaigning on the middle ground. He was very left wing liberal. His movement to the center was not so much a change in his true political beliefs, but a better marketing strategy to win the masses - it is always about the perceived image, not the reality. Notwithstanding, the more I thought about this article, it really is useless as well as all the other articles about what Obama is going to (I will not even address the overgrown use of the Executive implied powers over the past 50 years) and not for the reasons that many have stated in their comments.

When it comes down to it, it really does not matter what Obama thinks. He is merely just a figure head of State with Executive checks and balances over the Legislature and the Commander-in-Chief of our National Defense. At the end of the day, what really matters is What is Congress doing!!!

The debate on the role of government at a time of global economic crisis is most certainly important. But, the manner in which it has been framed in this article, suggesting that Obama does not understand what government's responsibilities are is, with due respect, as misleading as it is redundant. For far too long, this world has been embroiled in an ideological argumentation on the exact role of government, a debate that has become as meaningless as it is useless, given that while an overbearing government fetters individual liberties, laissez faire, in its puritanical and undiluted version is partly responsible for our present global economic predicament. Yet, between these two extremes is a middle ground, where government acts in a commonsensical and practical way in charting the ship of state along the trajectory of sustainable economic development. I think this is what Obama stands for.

A 92 year old man froze to death in his own home because he couldn't afford to pay his utility bills. There is something wrong with a society that can brag about getting electricity to every home in the country and then let a man freeze to death. Despite the protests of many, taxes are needed to maintain a civil society and regulations are needed to protect people from abuse. Until we all agree on that and can compromise on the details, we're doomed.

There is severe corruption on both sides of the parties (hence, why I am independent) and provided that Congress is working legitimately (it'll never happen but...), and not working for large campaign donors to line their own pockets, smart regulation, not government bureaucracy, is the way to go. We should have a separation of big business and State. This would alleviate a lot of the corrupt influence.

As for the "war machine" one talks about, sorry, there really is a large group of people that just want to kill you. If the world could just play nice, I could agree with the argument, but you know what, I know enough that if I was allowed to tell you, you would crap yourself, go home and crawl under your bed and start sucking your thumb in the fetal position - seriously. Americans and the ubber liberal Europeans do not have a concept or a clue.

Ultimately, the main point of this story is that Obama is speaking in generalities when really, we need specifics. The good thing for Dems, is that generalities is how they continue to win the masses. On my election website, I have proposed legislation that provides explicit directions and implementation. Having general legislation does not help the executive branch execute the laws because now they have to find a way to fulfill the law even if they lack the capabilities and resources to emplace and enforce the law and try to do it under the confines of the law. See why being very specific and explicit is necessary (minus all the excess pork mind you). Oh, that reminds me - why should Obama being placing restrictions against lobbyists to avoid pork. Lobbyists do not write legislation. Maybe, that regulation should be directed at the real problem - all 535 members of Congress taking kickbacks and bribes to get the added pork on legislation for the lobbyists. If Congress could no longer do this, lobbying power should drop considerably. This is simple problem solving at the root - not trying to band aid an amputee when a tourniquet is needed. Again, that's the issue. No common sense. Sorry, I digress. There are many difficult issues and willy nilly legislation to cover up the real problems will only make matters worse. Some issues are easier to define than others but state that opposed to making promises. Fix the fundamental issues at the root cause and the answer is NOT the government takes everything over. Regardless of one's political party, neither is seeing this. Dems want immediate action to create a bigger socialism and I hope, dare not say communism without really looking at what is at stake. Repubs are just completely muted at this point - by everyone. We need a strong, independent America with smart legal oversight - not cumbersome Government bureaucracy and control.

I am not misusing the terms and I am not a republican - I am an independent and highly educated. I refuse to be bought and sold by either party. I believe in common sense which both parties lack. Socialism is the dividing of wealth across the masses. This is usually done by heavily taxing those that make more and providing GOVERNMENT run (that's the key) universal social programs. Communism is a step further by taking are economy and making it all state run. With the bailout, we now have direct government share in some of our financial businesses - that's walking the path of Communism. Nationalizing banks is Communism. No longer will the market decide, which is free enterprise - there is no misuse or synonymous use. How one can make the assertion that I am looking like a communist is a spurious relationship based on faulty reasoning.

As I stated earlier, I said during the Clinton Administration. If one would listen, the President does not pass legislation. Congress does. Proper regulation is not communism - its checks and balances which is really the main role of our President on Congress, if people could remember correctly. A government wanting a controlling stake in everything is communism. We need smart regulation, not more government bureaucracy. We need not punish those that excel. If we do, we will stifle American ingenuity and growth (look at our public education system for a great example of that). I am all for a flat tax - it???s fair to everyone.

On other nations that are socialists and have populations considerably less than ours: they do not have to pay for 20 plus million legal and illegal immigrants coming to this country and do not have a military like ours to pay for (because they are neutralists). It is much easier to create and establish social programs at an 80% tax expense to their public. 66% of their populations are not overweight and obese helping to drive up health care costs (that's only one factor to health costs) - Nothing is free people. It kills me that Americans never want to take any blame for themselves. Look at the housing mess. Buyers were not forced to sign these crazy mortgage contracts - they did so on their own accord. It is always easier to blame someone and that person is Bush. The Dems ran on that campaign but it was completely false. I guess it is just easier to shut one's eyes instead of looking at the truth and not necessarily at the crap that national media puts out. There has been a lot of half and mistruths pushed in that forum.

Why should I work harder if the government is going to take all my money? I can just sit on the sidelines and collect all the "free" social stuff and not have to work hard for it? Brass tax - conservatives want less government and more people doing for themselves. Liberals want more government bureaucracy and want people DEPENDENT on the government. Ask not what your country can do for your, but what you can do for YOURSELF.

Government can not grow any larger. The size and scope of government is out of hand. Privitize as much as can be sent to the private sector and reduce the remainder by 10%. God love them, but government (Federal, State, and Local) emloyees are not customer service friendly, on average not to bright, and heavy handed with their perceived authority.

test

Unfortunately, the conventional labels of conservative and liberal have been shown to create a lot of confrontation and deadlock. Anyone stating a position that can be tagged as either of these risks joining the fray and accomplishing nothing. It is only when the public can elevate itself from ???ideology???, as we call it today, that action is possible. Fortunately, ???what works??? and ???pragmatism??? are modalities that resonate with today???s public.

Unfortunately, the conventional labels of conservative and liberal have been shown to create a lot of confrontation and deadlock. Anyone stating a position that can be tagged as either of these risks joining the fray and accomplishing nothing. It is only when the public can elevate itself from ???ideology???, as we call it today, that action is possible. Fortunately, ???what works??? and ???pragmatism??? are modalities that resonate with today???s public.