Vent: Watch the (b) tags. :D However, I will agree that the bumper-sticker-length posting is … old. However, I do not agree that Republicans are calling Obama worse names than Democrats called Bush. Bush was called a large variety of names, one of which was War Criminal. That implies he is was on the same list as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. He made mistakes, but he is nowhere near comparable to them. My point that I was trying to make is that Obama is at least portraying himself to be more focused on finding ways to get re-elected (as evidenced by the number of his fund raisers to-date that outstrips any other president in history) than he is on focusing on the US Economy and the debt. Instead of thinking and pushing for cognitive and substantive suggestions, he demonizes groups of people and comes up with bumper-sticker tag lines that do nothing but inflame tensions between income levels. It’s been proven that even with the tax suggestions he’s making we would fall woefully short of closing the defiict gap (something like only covering 46 billion out of 1.5 trillion). If he were serious about solving problems that matter to Americans, he never would have expended his political capital on the PPACA. He would have instead utilized that capital to figure out a way to get our economy back on track. He may have halted the free-fall, but his actions have also kept our job market at the same levels as when the free-fall ended. People are entering the workforce faster than jobs are being created. That’s a problem. When he took office, universal health care was not a priority, the failing economy was. When 2010 came around, universal healthcare was no longer just a “not a priority,” it became a lightning rod that should have been a signal to Obama to focus on the economy and the debt. But instead of taking that as a sign that he needs to trim his sails and come more to the center, he blithely ignored the signs and continued pushing in his leftward direction. The issue I take with Obama is not the intent of the PPACA, but rather the timing and execution of that bill. Compare the current history with the possible alternate reality: Instead of burning capital on the PPACA, and throwing up regulations that inhibited business growth, and he instead worked with both parties to come up with a solution that both parties supported to not only shore up the failing economy, but also to kick start the private economy. If REAL unemployment right now were only 5-6%, he would have much broader support. His approval rating, I dare say, would likely be in the 60’s or 70’s, instead of the 40’s and 50’s that you see now. He rode in on a tide of support, and he squandered it on something that wasn’t a pressing issue… until he made it one. So let’s say he got the unemployment down to 5%. That would mean the US economy is running strong. THEN he could have passed PPACA with more support on two grounds. First, the Economy would have been able to more-easily shoulder the financial burden of it, and second, the burden would have been smaller since fewer people would need to apply for it. The real impact to our debt and GDP would have been smaller. Personally, my issue with PPACA is a couple, but second most importantly (first being the mandate) that there is not enough money to pay for it. The bill would be smaller and the receipts would be larger, and thus we’d be able to pay for it if he had tried to implement it after the economy was healthy again.And vent, despite our disagreements in the past, I wouldn’t say you don’t have ideas. I just think you have bad ideas. ;)
Vent: Watch the (b) tags. :D However, I will agree that the bumper-sticker-length posting is … old. However, I do not agree that Republicans are calling Obama worse names than Democrats called Bush. Bush was called a large variety of names, one of which was War Criminal. That implies he is was on the same list as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. He made mistakes, but he is nowhere near comparable to them. My point that I was trying to make is that Obama is at least portraying himself to be more focused on finding ways to get re-elected (as evidenced by the number of his fund raisers to-date that outstrips any other president in history) than he is on focusing on the US Economy and the debt. Instead of thinking and pushing for cognitive and substantive suggestions, he demonizes groups of people and comes up with bumper-sticker tag lines that do nothing but inflame tensions between income levels. It’s been proven that even with the tax suggestions he’s making we would fall woefully short of closing the defiict gap (something like only covering 46 billion out of 1.5 trillion). If he were serious about solving problems that matter to Americans, he never would have expended his political capital on the PPACA. He would have instead utilized that capital to figure out a way to get our economy back on track. He may have halted the free-fall, but his actions have also kept our job market at the same levels as when the free-fall ended. People are entering the workforce faster than jobs are being created. That’s a problem. When he took office, universal health care was not a priority, the failing economy was. When 2010 came around, universal healthcare was no longer just a “not a priority,” it became a lightning rod that should have been a signal to Obama to focus on the economy and the debt. But instead of taking that as a sign that he needs to trim his sails and come more to the center, he blithely ignored the signs and continued pushing in his leftward direction. The issue I take with Obama is not the intent of the PPACA, but rather the timing and execution of that bill. Compare the current history with the possible alternate reality: Instead of burning capital on the PPACA, and throwing up regulations that inhibited business growth, and he instead worked with both parties to come up with a solution that both parties supported to not only shore up the failing economy, but also to kick start the private economy. If REAL unemployment right now were only 5-6%, he would have much broader support. His approval rating, I dare say, would likely be in the 60’s or 70’s, instead of the 40’s and 50’s that you see now. He rode in on a tide of support, and he squandered it on something that wasn’t a pressing issue… until he made it one. So let’s say he got the unemployment down to 5%. That would mean the US economy is running strong. THEN he could have passed PPACA with more support on two grounds. First, the Economy would have been able to more-easily shoulder the financial burden of it, and second, the burden would have been smaller since fewer people would need to apply for it. The real impact to our debt and GDP would have been smaller. Personally, my issue with PPACA is a couple, but second most importantly (first being the mandate) that there is not enough money to pay for it. The bill would be smaller and the receipts would be larger, and thus we’d be able to pay for it if he had tried to implement it after the economy was healthy again.And vent, despite our disagreements in the past, I wouldn’t say you don’t have ideas. I just think you have bad ideas. ;)