Well, you can argue you're not "overstating it," but you are alluding to it. This is a big deal to you. And the people not offering meaningful compromise is the Republicans, not Obama. He's actually acting defensively which is pissing off a lot of people. He needs to believe in what he campaigned on -- DEMOCRATIC principles -- and go for it. He's afraid of Republicans. That is why some of his numbers are falling.
Neither of them are offering meaningful compromise. And given that the Democrats are the ones proposing laws and holding most of the seats here, that seems a bigger knock against them at the moment. They can do whatever they want; if they want bipartisanship, they should try some.
Whether you agree or not, Obama simply isn't offering the kind of compromise you've been advocating. You can point out that Republicans aren't either, but that hardly changes the point.
I told you all this during the election. I was afraid he was a wimp. I wanted a fighter. So, those numbers falling may not indicate what you think it indicates. Democratic "fare" happens to be what many people believe in. You say it like it's a curse.
Yes, many people believe in the Democratic platform. Many do not. My mention of it is not meant to make it sound like it's a curse, but to show that it's not
new. You asked me what people were "waking up" to, and I said, among other things, that I think they're waking up to the fact that Obama's ideas are made up of a lot of the same old stuff.
You are also rather obssessed with this idea of Obama being "transcendent," and you even use the word "Obamaniac" below. That is demeaning to us that voted for him. We knew he was a politician. We also believed he was the change we needed. That makes us "maniacs?"
No, of course not. Adding "aniac" to the end of things is common, it's not meant to be derisive. McCain supporters often called
themselves "McCainiacs." It's like calling someone a "fan" -- even though it's short for "fanatic," it's not a negative thing. I'm simply referring to people who were really crazy for him.
That said, I don't think lots of people who voted for him "knew he was a politician." I think a lot of people thought they were getting something new, and I'm surprised to hear that you feel otherwise, actually.
I see nothing wrong with this. We got our hopes up. My aren't dashed. I really don't see your point here.
My point is that Obama, more than your typical candidate, aroused a lot of people's hopes. So if people are expecting fast results, he had a hand in that. Though, again, the stimulus package was specifically designed to work quickly, so I don't know that it's terribly premature to suggest that it isn't working. We'll see. As I said before I do think we'll see a slight recovery, but I don't think it'll last.
Sorry, but it is relevant. Criticism of Obama is unfair when he is trying to clean up Bush's mess. It most certainly is important. How often did we hear that every single problem this country is going through was "Clinton's fault?" Please don't be hypocritical.
I don't recall calling all sorts of things "Clinton's fault." He left some issues, but every President does. I can't be hypocritical if someone
else said it. Regardless, I'm not saying the situation Obama inherited is not relevant when judging him. But it also doesn't mean he's immune from judgment. We can say "yeah, X was pretty bad when he took office, but it's only gotten worse (or hasn't gotten any better)."
I think it is due to very real concerns about what to do with these people. You characterize it differently than I would.
I don't deny that there are very real concerns about what to do with them. Not at all! But that was evident before Obama took office, too. What could he have possibly learned between the campaign -- where he was promising to shut it right down -- and the time he took office?
Yay.
*marks calendar*
I don't get you. Why are you so interested in him "reversing himself?" What does that mean to you? If anything, it should bother me a whole lot more than you.
That's one of the reasons I'm interested in it. I'm interested in people who I think give him a pass because they like him.
Our budget is CRIPPLED by unnecessary wars and bridges to nowhere.
Not so. These things cost plenty, but they're still largely one-off costs (yes, even with occupations and such). Entitlement programs are positively unrivaled in this department. They grow at ridiculous rates. I don't think there's a single politician in Congress -- Democrat or Republican -- who disputes the idea that they're coming to dominate our budget.
I think it is shameful that 14,000 people a month are losing their heathcare. I think it is shameful that we have a high infant mortality rate. I think it is shameful when people die because their insurance company decides they won't cover treatment for a variety of reasons. I think it is shameful when a whole group of people will not look at other countries' healthcare systems and analyze them for case studies (good idea, Yoda, why don't the Republicans support that?) and realize that we could have a public option if we TRIED to do it.
A lot of these things are shameful (I have some quibbles with the specifics, but I don't want to get bogged down). But they wouldn't simply stop if we implemented public healthcare. Some of them would still exist, and the problems it did solve would be replaced by others. Massive costs, and rampant rationing are among the kinds of things that can (and do) happen with such programs.
Re: case studies. Well, Republicans
do look at other countries. But then whey do, they don't come to the conclusion that everything's sunshine-and-daisies in places with public healthcare. Case studies show us that such things always, always,
always cost most than projected.
Sure, it costs money. But people are dying. Something should finally be done. We approached this many years ago and if another Republican had been elected, we wouldn't even be discussing it, I'm sure.
I think we'll be able to discuss this issue a lot more effectively if and when you believe that this isn't simply a case of "well, it costs money and isn't worth it." It's an issue of cost and effectiveness. If I thought we could really, genuinely fix this problem for a trillion dollars a year, I think I'd probably support it. But I don't think it'll fix the problem, and it'll cost more than that, too.
It's not like we'll all just grit our teeth a little for the greater good and spend a little money. What about the things that
won't happen because we're spending trillions on healthcare? Economist Henry Hazlitt talked about this in a great book called
Economics in One Lesson (if you decide to delve into some of these concepts, I'll buy you a copy!
It's an easy read). In it, he talks about the "seen and the unseen." When government funds something, we all get to see it being built. We all get to see the ways in which it is good. But what we don't see are the things that never are because of it. We don't see the shop that isn't opened, the research that never happens, etc. Hazlitt uses the example of a broken window, and how it looks like it helps the economy because the window-maker gets more business. But we never see the things the window owner would have done with the money he used to fix the window.
It's a fundamental problem with judging economic policy. Government-funded projects are nice and visible and tangible. The downside to government-funded projects is abstract and nebulous. It is an unfortunate, inevitable truth that still clouds and influences economic policy.
You may be right. You may not be. I honestly don't know.
Well, surely you know that making it cost more to hire someone makes it less likely that they'll be hired. And surely you can see that the stimulus bill was crammed with pork.
Where is this innovation going to come from? Why hasn't it happened in the last 8 years? He's addressing it. That's fine with me.
This is kind of like asking me to guess when something's going to be invented. I don't know, I just know that we always seem to make better things when not overtly interfered with.
I'm not sure what "he's addressing it" really means. He's certainly doing something, but that's not necessarily good. None of us are really for just
doing something, I'd hope. Modern politics is such that you apparently need to have a specific plan for everything, which unfortunately rules out the possibility -- which is often the reality -- that lots of problems are solved by us, the people of America, in ways no politician could ever have predicted.
Ah, love the way you phrased that. Either way, I'm screwed, eh?
She addressed the comment. It was not important to spend hours and hours on it.
Well, she said something about the comment, but I don't think she really addressed it. There are multiple instances of her saying things that directly conflict with prudent judicial philosophy. Her response was to basically play it off as some kind of half-joke. I'm not sure I really buy that. Do you? Or does it not matter so long as she's not a conservative?
Closed Thread
I could say that maybe it's to rebuke misconceptions, but the cynical man in me knows otherwise. 
: I am not getting out of the way, and I sure as Hell will not stop talking. Sorry, I was not raised that way. I respect your passion, but you have a duty to respect mine.