are you happy with Obama`s progress so far?

[fdresq4]

Thats true but when the president appoints all these progressives to the White house and most of Congress is one sided their isn`t much you can do. Who do you think is coming up with all these radical plans.It happens to be all these Chicago thugs that he appointed to be "ZARS" that word alone should tell you something.You got to remember most of these nut jobs in the senate and in congress were the hippie generation and now is the time for them to try to take over the country.Thats why on most of the laws that they pass are voted only by the dems,not by the republicans,not that the republicans are any better.When you have the majority of the house and senate not much can be done.That`s why the vote in november is very important.

I absolutley agree with you CC but Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Franks also deserve the blame. I don`t hear too many people talking about the Federal Government forcing banks to give loans to those who could never pay them back, ie Franks, Dodd, Waters, Clinton. When Pres. Bush, back in 2004 tried to warn everyone about Fannie and Freddie, Barney Franks and company blew it off and said that there are no problems that all was fine and nothing would crash. So started the ball rolling.

As far as comparing Obama to a Socialist, look up Van Jones, John Holdgren, Mark LLoyd, Cass Sunstein, Andy Stern and Anita Dunn, all individuals who he appointed to various positions. Then look up on YouTube there comments and statements, in their own words, and make your decision from there. That is if You Tube has not removed then for the world to see. You can tell a person by the company they keep.

I know in my post I have named many Dems but the Repubs and Bush have done things I did not agree with also.

That is why George Washington was right when he said the two part system would be the death of the country.

[CHEVYMAN]

I absolutley agree with you CC but Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Franks also deserve the blame. I don`t hear too many people talking about the Federal Government forcing banks to give loans to those who could never pay them back, ie Franks, Dodd, Waters, Clinton. When Pres. Bush, back in 2004 tried to warn everyone about Fannie and Freddie, Barney Franks and company blew it off and said that there are no problems that all was fine and nothing would crash. So started the ball rolling.

As far as comparing Obama to a Socialist, look up Van Jones, John Holdgren, Mark LLoyd, Cass Sunstein, Andy Stern and Anita Dunn, all individuals who he appointed to various positions. Then look up on YouTube there comments and statements, in their own words, and make your decision from there. That is if You Tube has not removed then for the world to see. You can tell a person by the company they keep.

I know in my post I have named many Dems but the Repubs and Bush have done things I did not agree with also.

That is why George Washington was right when he said the two part system would be the death of the country.

Amen to that brother. It`s great to talk to someone who has their head on their shoulders and understands the direction we are headed. Everything you stated is the absolute truth and the sad part is ,is that a lot of people either don`t care or will not believe the facts.I wish everyone out there would read the CONSTITUTION and then they would know what this country is based upon.like you said they think that everyone should own a house and that just doesn`t ring true, because some can afford one and some can`t and that`s just the way it is.case in point,the government has taken over loans for colleges.I can see where this is going, The government is going to decide who can go and who can`t. They think everyone should go to college if they want, but it just doesn`t work that way.

[WAS]

like you said they think that everyone should own a house and that just doesn`t ring true, because some can afford one and some can`t and that`s just the way it is.case in point,the government has taken over loans for colleges.I can see where this is going, The government is going to decide who can go and who can`t. They think everyone should go to college if they want, but it just doesn`t work that way.

+1. Loans, both housing and educational, should be given to those who qualify, not just to everyone who wants them.

[Lenny]

+1. Loans, both housing and educational, should be given to those who qualify, not just to everyone who wants them.

Way back when (late 1970`s, early 1980`s), you had to qualify, but just about anyone, who was middle class, who was NOT any only child, was pretty much going to qualify for something. It depended on need, determined by your parents income & assets, and how expensive the school you were attending was. That was the National Direct Student Loan Program, and interest rates were guaranteed to be low, lower than anything the banks offered (this was a high interest period in recent history), and all payments and accruing of interest was deferred until 12 months after you graduated. Program ran great, contrary to what all the conservative critics said.



The second loan you could get was the State Guaranteed Loan, which was still a federally funded program, where you applied for the loan through a bank or a credit union. Payment was deferred until 12 months after you left school, and the Feds paid your interest while you were in school. Also ran great.



Then by Reagan`s second term, they changed the programs, in a way that has made it much harder to get a student loan, and the student loans that you can have repayment start from the minute go. Sucks for today`s parents.



As far as I`m concerned, they can`t return to the old National Direct Student Loan and State Guaranteed Loan programs fast enough, and keep the banks out of education financing completely.

[WAS]

Way back when (late 1970`s, early 1980`s), you had to qualify, but just about anyone, who was middle class, who was NOT any only child, was pretty much going to qualify for something. It depended on need, determined by your parents income & assets, and how expensive the school you were attending was. That was the National Direct Student Loan Program, and interest rates were guaranteed to be low, lower than anything the banks offered (this was a high interest period in recent history), and all payments and accruing of interest was deferred until 12 months after you graduated. Program ran great, contrary to what all the conservative critics said.



The second loan you could get was the State Guaranteed Loan, which was still a federally funded program, where you applied for the loan through a bank or a credit union. Payment was deferred until 12 months after you left school, and the Feds paid your interest while you were in school. Also ran great.



Then by Reagan`s second term, they changed the programs, in a way that has made it much harder to get a student loan, and the student loans that you can have repayment start from the minute go. Sucks for today`s parents.



As far as I`m concerned, they can`t return to the old National Direct Student Loan and State Guaranteed Loan programs fast enough, and keep the banks out of education financing completely.

Very interesting. Here in Canada, we have something called the National Student Loan program, which is administered by the federal government. The government waives interest until the day you graduate, and you don`t have any pay any principal payments until 6 months after you graduate (or you can apply for an extension, in case you can`t find work in the field of your study within 6 months of graduating). Excellent system. Believe it or not, I got this exact loan to attend the University of Illinois.



With the complete understanding that Michael Moore makes his movies to portray things the way he wants to, I just watched Sicko a few days ago, and well, it made me sick. I`ve heard of stories like what you see in that movie happening in European countries where health care is privatized, but to imagine such things happening in the USA, it`s really sad. There`s a detailer on this forum who`s trying to keep his business above water, while being homeless and broke and horribly in debt, all because he got sick and had to go to the hospital. Seriously, as a neighbour to the north who`s never, ever, had to worry about money when it came to going to the doctor or going to the hospital, it really astonishes me that Americans continue to accept such a system where insurance companies basically dictate your health care and treatments. These private insurance companies care about one thing and one thing only, and that`s how much profit they get to post every quarter to their shareholders. I`m not saying our system is perfect, but there is no way in hell you`d ever walk into a Canadian hospital, only to be told that your insurance company doesn`t cover services there.

[sulla]

I`ve heard of stories like what you see in that movie happening in European countries where health care is privatized, but to imagine such things happening in the USA, it`s really sad.

Yes that`s crazy...Sicko really opened my eyes...Before I watched that movie I never understood how bad US health care system is.. Cubans had their citizens`s health better than the americans and that`s appaling....Most advanced military, Most advanced technology, Richest nation on earth with a 3rd world country standard health care system.... I don`t understand how americans take that sick joke till now CMIIW...

[brianshaeffer]

It`s sad to see how misinformed people are about the state of health care in the US. Privatization has encouraged the advances in technology and increased life spans. We lead the world in innovation (in heath care) as a result. Public health care will certainly reverse this trend, bringing us down to the lowest common denominator with the rest of the world. You might get health care in Cuba, but it`s quality is no where near what people get in the US. I`ve also talked to many Canadians who have come to the US for care that they would have to wait for months to receive in Canada.

[sulla]

There`s no doubt privatization brings advancement to medicine but what i found saddening is in a 3rd world country a person may get diagnosed with a certain disease and he dies because the disease has no cure.. In the US a person get diagnosed and the doctors offer him various treatment packages ranging from remedies to total cure.. When you can only afford remedied and your loved one eventually dies..It`s sad to know your loved one can be cured but there`s nothing you can do about it.. You feel guilty you didnt try/earn hard enough and let your loved one die..At least in the 3rd world country you think your loved one dies of natural causes CMIIW

[Lenny]

It`s sad to see how misinformed people are about the state of health care in the US. Privatization has encouraged the advances in technology and increased life spans. We lead the world in innovation (in heath care) as a result. Public health care will certainly reverse this trend, bringing us down to the lowest common denominator with the rest of the world. You might get health care in Cuba, but it`s quality is no where near what people get in the US. I`ve also talked to many Canadians who have come to the US for care that they would have to wait for months to receive in Canada.

I have family, not just acquaintances, in Canada, and while some people do come to the US for elective procedures, it`s not true that they have to wait for non-elective procedures in all of Canada. It varies a little.



It`s also a huge, HUGE misconception, that private health care is responsible for the innovation in health care. People need to understand that health care research, in the United States, even that done by private industry, is publicly subsidized through the National Institute of Health (NIH), part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, at last report in 2000, to the tune of 36% of all medical research in the United States. It`s a joint effort. Also, of the top 21 drugs developed between 1965 and 1992, 15 of them were developed using information and methods from federally funded research, and the remaining 7 were completely derived from NIH`s own research.



NIH is also the worlds top research institution, not any private health research, in the US or elsewhere, funding more than 35,000 research grants each year to scientists across the country making advances against heart disease, cancer, and many other diseases. NIH-funded scientists have won 93 Nobel Prizes over the years, and researchers in the NIH’s own labs have won 5 Nobel Prizes. Not completely private research. Publicly funded research, coupled with publicly subsidized research.



That`s right, conservative sports fans, over one-third of supposed private medical research is actually publicly funded. So you may please stop with spreading the misnomer that private research is the innovator. It`s simply not true.

[Lenny]

There`s no doubt privatization brings advancement to medicine but what i found saddening is in a 3rd world country a person may get diagnosed with a certain disease and he dies because the disease has no cure.. In the US a person get diagnosed and the doctors offer him various treatment packages ranging from remedies to total cure.. When you can only afford remedied and your loved one eventually dies..It`s sad to know your loved one can be cured but there`s nothing you can do about it.. You feel guilty you didnt try/earn hard enough and let your loved one die..At least in the 3rd world country you think your loved one dies of natural causes CMIIW

And like I said above, private innovation is actually publicly subsidized. As it should be.

[rdorman]

To the OT, No. Health care, well I take a sort of Darwinistic view of the subject. Access to quality health care is not a right.

[WAS]

It`s sad to see how misinformed people are about the state of health care in the US. Privatization has encouraged the advances in technology and increased life spans. We lead the world in innovation (in heath care) as a result. Public health care will certainly reverse this trend, bringing us down to the lowest common denominator with the rest of the world. You might get health care in Cuba, but it`s quality is no where near what people get in the US. I`ve also talked to many Canadians who have come to the US for care that they would have to wait for months to receive in Canada.

Even if that were true, that privitization encourages the best advancements in medicine, it doesn`t mean you will live longer. What good is advancement in medicine, if you can`t get your insurance company to pay for the treatment. Have you ever been to Cuba and seen their health care system ? As for Canadians going down south, yes, it happens in very rare instances, where a procedure so rare has to be performed that an American surgeon is more qualified (government pays for this btw), or yes, for certain electives. But you know what ? I don`t feel bad that the person who threw out their knee while dirt biking has to wait 3 weeks for surgery because someone with a blocked artery needs to get into the OR first. It`s called priority, and when your life is at stake, vs waiting a short while for something non-life threatening, I can`t argue with that.

To the OT, No. Health care, well I take a sort of Darwinistic view of the subject. Access to quality health care is not a right.

.... W...., nevermind, no comment.

[spotter]

Seems clear to me where we are headed since I have seen my rights as outlined in the Constitution (the original one before the liberal Supreme Court justices made a mockery of it with the obviously unintended interpretations over the years) gradually eroded over the last 4 or 5 decades. Socialism wins the majority of votes and the public votes for whoever promises the most for "free" without consequence as to how it will be paid. The government can only redistribute the wealth for so long before there is none left to distribute. No incentive to create wealth (business or personal) when you just give it away as an entitlement. More government jobs may solve unemployment temporarily but if nothing is happening to stimulate real permanent job growth that adds to the economy instead of burdening the economy then it only prolongs the inevitable. I feel fortunate to be in my mid 50`s and hoping to retire in the next few years (may have to move out of the country to somewhere that wants me to spend my retirement savings instead of taking it and giving it away) and more importantly I am thankful that I don`t have any children to worry about. IMHO the next generation or two is royally screwed because they are the one`s that will have to endure the downfall of our country as we know it and live with the terrible unemployment, inflation, and debt burden our government is so hell bent on leaving coming generations to deal with.



Hope I am wrong but it looks pretty clear to me.....just my opinion!

[Bunky]

Seems clear to me where we are headed since I have seen my rights as outlined in the Constitution (the original one before the liberal Supreme Court justices made a mockery of it with the obviously unintended interpretations over the years) gradually eroded over the last 4 or 5 decades. Socialism wins the majority of votes and the public votes for whoever promises the most for "free" without consequence as to how it will be paid. The government can only redistribute the wealth for so long before there is none left to distribute. No incentive to create wealth (business or personal) when you just give it away as an entitlement. More government jobs may solve unemployment temporarily but if nothing is happening to stimulate real permanent job growth that adds to the economy instead of burdening the economy then it only prolongs the inevitable. I feel fortunate to be in my mid 50`s and hoping to retire in the next few years (may have to move out of the country to somewhere that wants me to spend my retirement savings instead of taking it and giving it away) and more importantly I am thankful that I don`t have any children to worry about. IMHO the next generation or two is royally screwed because they are the one`s that will have to endure the downfall of our country as we know it and live with the terrible unemployment, inflation, and debt burden our government is so hell bent on leaving coming generations to deal with.



Hope I am wrong but it looks pretty clear to me.....just my opinion!

The problem is not socialism. It is politics. Passing tax cuts without spending reductions or doing wars without funding is as bad as passing spending bills without raising taxing or finding spending.



Some group is going to suffer. It can be the defense welfare program, entitlements, etc. There is no one really to deal with the political consequences so the norm is to just oppose what the other party running the white house is doing.

[MSOsr]

I`m always amused that people think that tax cuts "have to be paid for." History has shown that tax cuts lead to INCREASED revenues for the government. Look at what happened when Kennedy dropped marginal tax rates, Reagan dropped marginal rates and Bush dropped marginal rates.....government income tax revenue went up markedly. It doubled during Reagan`s 8 years.



If you make it worthwhile for people to make more money, they`ll do it and pay the lower tax rate on much more money, resulting in the tax revenue going up. Furthermore, they`ll hire more people and those people pay taxes. If you tell people you`re going to raise their taxes if they do well, the economy slows and revenues go down.





Mike