Conquer Club

Phatscotty wrote:

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

I don't think we can judge President Obama with respect to economics yet (except for a few things I've already identified - namely the cost-benefit of the job creation act and the wanton spending of money that we don't have).

I don't know. He told us what the problem with the economy was, and then said he had the answers. His answers were not correct. He can not now go back and say he did not understand the economy before. He should never have pretended that he could do anything about it in the first place..

Well the economy is on the up so maybe he did have the answers....

what aspects of the "economy is on the up" are you using?

stahrgazer wrote:I can agree with greekdog's rankings. Bush Senior knew better than to muck with things that were okay.
I can agree with his assessment on Clinton, as well; some of that is personal prejudice against a man who lied under oath and led our country on a legal merry-go-round (although I did NOT agree that a sitting president should have been questioned under oath because it would lead to what it led to, once the Supreme Court had ruled he would be, he should've answered the questions or simply refused to do so under 5th Amendment rights, rather than be coy about, "that depends on what the definition of is, is;" and "oral isn't sex." The other reason is, Clinton's idea to spur the economy (housing programs) without appropriate oversight, is what enabled the housing finance companies to come up with the CDO swaps that ultimately brought the houses down. Because Bush Jr. was instrumental in taking away the watchdogs (among other things) I can agree with that "d" assessment for him; but I'd rank him an F when adding in his totally f*d "war on drugs," "war with the country where the terrorists weren't," and his admin's FEMA fiascos with Florida, and more notoriously, Lousiana hurricane disasters.

I can also agree with greek's assessment of Obama. Now, for those who're giving Obama the credit for our sick economy, you're sadly mistaken. Bush's policies led us to decline. Bush's stimulus wasn't regulated enough to go where it was intended to go. So, Obama had to "spend more" to get it there to spur things along. For those who think the government shouldn't spur things along, well, that's exactly what the changes in interest rate and value on the dollar are designed to do. But since interest rates had already plummeted because no one was spending, and the value of the dollar was so low because large financial institutions were about to collapse, those tools were unavailable as a solution. So, Obama spent more. It's not a new concept to overspend for a certain aim. Reagan did it to knock down the Berlin wall...took us nearly to economic collapse in a hope to bankrupt the Soviet Union into letting its people go. Why a "C" for Obama at this point? Maybe even a C+? The economy is starting to lift. It's not a quick process, there is no magic mushroom Obama can feed everyone to make the problem that occurred over an 8 year period, suddenly lift. He said he'd require Congress to tackle health insurance as a primary issue. There's a bill about it now. It's not a good bill, everyone agrees, but now, instead of just saying, "take it back," suddenly, people are screaming, "take it back and do it RIGHT." i.e. Obama's push has gotten people to realize that with over a third of our gross national product in health care, we should be covering more people with better care, while ensuring doctors and nurses get paid for their services. Iraq? He's making a slow move out of there, just as he'd said he would, rather than a helter skelter flee that would not help our country. Pakistan? He said all along the Taliban would be getting stronger in Pakistan because they were allowed to run there from Bush's too-few in Afghanistan, where the Taliban was located. Afghanistan? Again, Obama had said all along that that was the real warzone because that's where they were... there, ready to flee into Pakistan (which they have obviously done, based on recent events). Increase relations with Moslem countries by giving them some respect (like bowing)? Simple ethics and practical diplomacy at work. The economy? He wants to make employers understand their rights and obligations as far as employee health insurance, since far too many companies are laying off workers because benefits cost too much. He wants to spend now to stimulate our economy into providing a better tax structure by employing Americans at evil things like high-speed railways, replenishable energy sources, and more efficient cars, which have a dual purpose of reducing our reliance on foreign oil so we can stop mucking about in oily deserts. But a "C" or "C+" only... so far, we haven't seen enough results. Just enough to make me think he really will work his plans in the order he said he would.

So, health care as Congress voted it in is going to get repealed. It will also be replaced with something that works better, --------rather than shelved for another 2 decades while our country's health spending escalates and our people continue to choke on "no healthcare" sputum.

Phatscotty wrote:This discussion has prompted me to create a new poll

MeDeFe wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:This discussion has prompted me to create a new poll

No! Really? Where?

MeDeFe wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:This discussion has prompted me to create a new poll

No! Really? Where?

Phatscotty wrote:57% of Americans for repealing socialized healthcare..... Everything the democrats do from now until november is going to hurt them even more, and hopefully the Tea Party will be right there as an alternative to republicans. Then we have a shot at getting the government the HELL OUT OF OUR BUSINESS!

rockfist wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:57% of Americans for repealing socialized healthcare..... Everything the democrats do from now until november is going to hurt them even more, and hopefully the Tea Party will be right there as an alternative to republicans. Then we have a shot at getting the government the HELL OUT OF OUR BUSINESS!

You are wrong, Scotty. Its 63% according to Rassmusen Reports today

I hope this country wises up and never elects another Democrat. We'd be just fine with Republicans and Libertarians.

Titanic wrote:

rockfist wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:57% of Americans for repealing socialized healthcare..... Everything the democrats do from now until november is going to hurt them even more, and hopefully the Tea Party will be right there as an alternative to republicans. Then we have a shot at getting the government the HELL OUT OF OUR BUSINESS!

You are wrong, Scotty. Its 63% according to Rassmusen Reports today

I hope this country wises up and never elects another Democrat. We'd be just fine with Republicans and Libertarians.

Yer I mean the 8 years under Bush were terrific!!!

jbrettlip wrote:

Titanic wrote:

rockfist wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:57% of Americans for repealing socialized healthcare..... Everything the democrats do from now until november is going to hurt them even more, and hopefully the Tea Party will be right there as an alternative to republicans. Then we have a shot at getting the government the HELL OUT OF OUR BUSINESS!

You are wrong, Scotty. Its 63% according to Rassmusen Reports today

I hope this country wises up and never elects another Democrat. We'd be just fine with Republicans and Libertarians.

Yer I mean the 8 years under Bush were terrific!!!

With the exception of some crazy fucks murdering 3000 US citizens for no reason, I agree.

bedub1 wrote:Looks like socialized healthcare isn't working so well for Canada...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37451253

Phatscotty wrote:does Americahs doctors and politicians still come to India for health-care?

bedub1 wrote:Looks like socialized healthcare isn't working so well for Canada...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37451253

Titanic wrote:Looks like its working fine. The problem is that everyone wants to use it.

Scotty, it does not matter if rich people want to get healthcare in the USA. How many middle class or working class (you know, 95% of the population) go to the USA for healthcare, and how many middle/working class Americans go elsewhere for healthcare. You lose on this count, and this matters more then rich people travelling for healthcare.

john9blue wrote:

Titanic wrote:Looks like its working fine. The problem is that everyone wants to use it.

Scotty, it does not matter if rich people want to get healthcare in the USA. How many middle class or working class (you know, 95% of the population) go to the USA for healthcare, and how many middle/working class Americans go elsewhere for healthcare. You lose on this count, and this matters more then rich people travelling for healthcare.

Today's cutting-edge heath care is tomorrow's standard health care.

PopeBenXVI wrote:When the Gov takes over all health care and runs all the private companies out of business then we can say goodbye to many advances in procedures.

PopeBenXVI wrote:When the Gov takes over all health care and runs all the private companies out of business then we can say goodbye to many advances in procedures. The competition we have between companies fuels a lot of innovation right now. No real reason for Governments to put all that money into new research when you can't go anywhere else.

Snorri1234 wrote:

PopeBenXVI wrote:When the Gov takes over all health care and runs all the private companies out of business then we can say goodbye to many advances in procedures.

Word.


Have you actually read this thread?

john9blue wrote:Who needs to waste time "reading" when the guy on TV tells you what to think in only an hour?