You are not logged in.
I listened to a news clip this AM on the CBC about Obama's comforting words at the event in Arizonia.
You know I wasn't too impressed when Obama first became president but the guy is really developing into a real statesman. It is easy to see now what qualities he brings to the role of president.
Yitzak I did not watch the video. As far as I am concerned Palin is so far out in a world of kooks I can't take her seriously at all.
I agree she did not pull the trigger in this case but the blood of the innocents slain is still on her hands.Some of course is on Macains for giving her access to national politics.
Bob , you are an expat Canadian how can you stomach the crap from the right wing wingnuts in US politics. You of all people should know better.
Offline
Ole Abe, Abraham was a wise man, you have not listened or watched with an open mind. The Right wing of the political continuum won the House of Congress back. That was just November of 2010. Here in January the left is still hurt not by the actions of one of Arizonia's deranged incoherent citizen's actions, but still feeling the hurt from that election that took down speaker Pelosi and now know that there will be a vote on National Healthcare. I don't expect Canadians to understand this because they operate different with National Canadian health care which is weighing hard on their economy, and the electorate in Canada have voted through Gay Marriage.
The people voted in America last November for a reversal in the direction Obama has taken the country. He unwisely gave up the leadership to Nancy Pellosi. He said, " Do something, then that's what Elections are for." Well Obama realizes this. In his speak last night he let the people know that Arizonia was not a political act. Note, a conservative Republican Federal judge was killed while a Democratic Congresswoman is clinging to life, and a nine year old girl was murdered by an apolitical deranged killer. Before the cause is even deciphered the head of the Congressional Black Caucus was blaming Palin for this deranged kid''s actions. Obama recognizes it but the local Sheriff Dupnik and the head of that Caucus were pointing to Palin, and Obama told the group they were wrong.
The USA is endanger of losing it's top bond rating or if they don't reverse their spending habits. the next two years will be contencious , not because of a deranged killer, but because of the reality that Obama has done to our economy. He knows that Jarrod Loughner is not who he will have to face but the American people. The original Teaparty was against the Brits, and it was a rough time, don't think the solution to the real problems today will be any less contensious. Obama himself has said at heated political moments, "if they bring a knife to the table, we'll bring a gun." He also at a less vulnerable time said tersely, "We won." Now he has lost the House, will he recognize the winners???? Or listen to the left whining about losing, at an opportunistic time.
Ole Abe, I can tell you see none of this from your perch, that is ok because it is not your fight to stop living above our means.
The Sheriff, rather than making political statements ought to be telling us how he and his officers missed this deranged killer and why the parent didn't have him committed when they lost control of him. That is a question for Washington if Tucson and the State of Arizonia don't answer. That is why the head of the FBI is down there, to get to the bottom of what Arizonians have failed at.
Last edited by bob_2 (01-13-11 4:43 pm)
Offline
Those following this thread, here are some words that indicate Obama at least gets it:
After offering personal accounts of every person who died, he challenged anyone listening to think of how to honor their memories, and he was not shy about offering direction. He admonished against any instinct to point blame or to drift into political pettiness or to latch onto simple explanations that may have no merit.
The president said it was OK, even essential, for the country to suddenly be debating gun control, mental health services and the motivations of the killer.
But then he added: "At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized — at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do — it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds," the president said.
Offline
Bob
The fimcial problems in the USA are the legacy of GWB who recklessly went to war and cut taxes for the wealthy.
He was not alone in this by any means here in Canada we had a more or less socialist government with a string of budget surpluses replaced by a right wing wingnut who has taken our deficit to record levels.
To be sure the USA is in bad bad shape but that is not the fault of Obama.It is too bad he didn't act quicker to overhaul things while he had control of Congress but he is the best hope that the USA has at this time.
Palin would destroy the USA for sure.
Offline
While writing my reply to your earlier posting your second one came up.
I think yopu may be justly proud of how Obama is handling this tragedy in Arizonia.He is showing himself to be a real statesman.
He makes the right wingers like Palin look like idiots.
Offline
Notice that George W Bush tried to tell a predominantly Democratic Congress, that Social Security was in trouble, but they would have none of it. Now the Democrats have been ousted and the Republican are try to get a BUDGET that makes sense. The Democrats have take the country to a dangerous level of debt, about four times where George Bush had it. Note this:
Social Security reform
The first month of Bush's second term was largely spent in debate over one of his stated goals, partial privatization of Social Security. The plan called to give younger workers the option of redirecting some payroll taxes into their own private account. Current retirees and those soon to retire would see little change, but opponents of Social Security reform contend that later retirees would receive lower benefits. Congress' budget analysts estimated that the program's trust funds would be depleted in 2052, and something had to be done to save the program. Republicans even argued that the trust fund had already been spent for other purposes with no plan to pay it back and that Social Security would run out of funds by 2018. Democrats, however, accused the President and other Republicans of creating a Social Security scare, and that the program was not in as much danger as the Republicans had claimed. Social Security plan remained a priority for Bush's national agenda for several months but it proved unpopular with the majority of the public and ultimately no reform came to pass.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_congresswoman_shot_obama
Ole Abe, you need to stick to something you know about like any politics from Canada. I lived there for the first 20 years of my life, and I know how isolated it can be when the USA politics gets little coverage.
The reality of the above statement about Social Security mentioned above, most in the States are starting to realize that most programs are going to have to be "means tested" in order to provide what is needed for an aging citizenry. With the baby boomers aging, about every 3 citizens paying taxes for 1 who is retiring will be needed to continue the current spending level.
Though Bush's privatisation of Social Security is based on a healthy economy, that is no excuse for the Democratic House for the last 4 years to "kick the can down the road" rather than owning up to their responsibility by not preparing a budget while they were in power up to early January of this year. Just tonight Harry Reid said on the TV, their is no problem with Social Security. He's got to be aweful isolated to have that viewpoint.
Last edited by bob_2 (01-13-11 10:19 pm)
Offline
OldAbe, you have a pretty good handle on the basics of the situation here in the States.
George W. Bush's completely optional war in Iraq added more to the defiicit in 6 years than social security would add in 70. his tax cuts for the wealthy added more to the deficit than social security would add in 20. And he advocated completely negligent spending in the form of no child left behind and in the form of the medicare part d measure, which is essentially a large handout to pharmaceutical companies. And his proposed 'reforms' of social security would have done little to effect the deficit, merely transferring wealth from retirees to financial service companies.
The democrats lost the election in 2010 in large part because of the economy. The republicans have proved to be complete hypocrites about the deficit. They opposed even minor cost-cutting measures in medicare, which focused on eliminating fraud, claiming that it was "rationing health care." And now they are bent on repealing the health care bill, even though the health care bill, according to the non-partisan congressional budget office, will REDUCE the deficit. now that they have taken office, they have backed off of even the minor spending cuts they campaigned about
IN recent history, deficits have risen dramatically under republicans (especially Reagan and W) and fallen under Clinton. We will see what it looks like by the end of Obama's term, but he will be hard pressed to do worse than Bush did.
you're also very similar to most Americans in your reaction to the speech by Obama (and the comparison with Palin, for that matter). Obama's approval ratings are around 48%, numbers Reagan would have killed for at this time his presidency, and higher than they have been in a while. And now that the republicans are in office, he'll benefit from the inevitable comparison between their behavior and policies and his own.
I know far less about Canadian politics and history than you do, but your impression of it mirrors my own. I will point out that Harper would not survive in the American Republican party, as he would be seen as far too moderate.
Last edited by Yitzak (01-13-11 5:18 pm)
Offline
Yitzak
I really do not understand why the citizens of the USA so oppose medicare. While our system is not perfect as a Christian I think it a good thing to have everyone chip in to a pool of money so everyone can have health care when they need it.
It appears to me in reading about the USA that the main opposition to medicare comes from the insurance companies who profit greatly from your present system.
From where I sut and observe it appears over the years that by and large the Democrats have provided a better governance than the Republicans.
Here in Canada the Liberals are much more responsible and skillful than the Conservatives as a rule but the current guy we have for prime minister takes ability and ethics to a new low.
Offline
Old Abe. medicare is very very popular in the US. So, for that matter, is social security, which is why Bush's attempts to gut it went no where. Any attempt to jigger with either one are very dangerous for American politicians.
What Americans can't countenance is welfare, or any program that is seen as benefiting the poor. The average voter, especially true of the right wing, lies awake at night worrying, not that billions are being wasted on already outdated planes or that multinational corporations that call themselves "farmers" are getting billions in subsidies to let their fields grow fallow, or that hedge fund managers have exactly half the tax rate of the typical janitory- no, they lie awake worrying that somewhere, somehow, some poor person is getting something for free. God forbid that a poor family has the money to buy a turkey on thanksgiving or take their kids ice skating or whathaveyou.
But i think you mean that they oppose an expansion of medicare beyond its current beneficiaries. And that's true. Government funded health care is all fine and dandy for the elderly, who now comprise the core of the republican party. but, again, god forbid that it be expanded to benefit people who actually can't afford it on their own. Several of the politicans who campaigned against health care reform were upset when they foudn out that their own government funded health care didn't kick in until they were sworn into office.
I am not sure where the deep hatred of the poor comes from, or how they can reconcile it with their claims of Christianity. There's a theory that they do so because they imagine the poor to be primary Black or at least not white. I don't know. Certainly the current crop have very odd fixations on race and identity.
Race comes up in the oddest places in conversations, as do things like being jewish. not sure I buy it as the complete explanation, but it's an odd fixation.
My own suspicion is that its the logical extension of the perversion known as prosperity gospel. the notion that if people are poor it's because they are morally deficient and god is punishing them in some way. I know Job is in the old testament and all, but it wouildn't be such a bad thing for people to read and take to heart. At the very least, a little humility and gratitude for good fortune would be in order, instead of the assumption that wealth is the reward for the good they've done.
it's a mystery.
Offline
Yitzak, I believe most taxpayers her in the USA would be willing to means test the benefits issued by the USA government. Up to now they haven't had a stomach for it. One Congressman not to long ago bragged that he was looking forward to his Social Security Check even though he had plenty coming in from personal wealth to make a go of it. Until that hard nut is cracked the budget will remain in deficit territory. A battle of the Haves and Have-nots. You are overally sensitive about the word Jew or Jewish. Why is that, your name looks Jewish, but no offense has been leveled at you. In fact when SDAs claim the final test will be a Sunday law, I point to the best Sabbathkeepers, the Jews, and how unlikely a Sunday Law would be the Final Test.
Offline