Miss Me Yet ?

[Shady]

JUst who the HELL do you think allowed everything to get so bad in the USA?

Giving a free hand to the TYPE A, greedy, gimme gimme, Wall Street types has done wonders for your housing markets and economy as a whole hasn't it?

Wanna buy a house in Detroit? No? Didn't think so. How about Phoenix? You have entire portions of your biggest Cities that are becoming ghost towns, and you are missing the idiot who put you there!?!?

Forget "GOD BLESS", "GOD HELP THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."

Complete nonsense. It was liberal feel-good policies that directly led to the housing bubble which ultimately brought down the economy. The idea that pressuring banks and financial institutions into lending money to people who wouldn't otherwise qualifty. Giving money to people who can't pay it back isn't a Republican ideal. You can thank bleeding-heart liberals and the unintended consequences of so-called good intentions for this mess. You can thank Barney "There is no problem with Fannie and Freddie" Frank and similar minded Democrats for this mess.

And as for Wall Street. It's been run by Dems for many years. Barack Obama recieved more money from Wall Street than any Republican ever has. So to Chris Dodd, and Chuck Schumer, and Barney Frank. My God, the freaking treasury secretary Timmy G, who's freaking job it was to oversee Wall Street is Obama's right hand man. Same with Larry Summers, who fought to have Bill Clinton repeal the law seperating investment banks from normal banks. And you wanna lay this mess at the feet of George W Bush??? Puuuuuuuulease.

[Shady]

Wisconsin Billboard Calls for Obama's Ouster

"Impeach Obama."

The tagline says: "America's small businesses are failing; help us spread the message."

Link

Looks like more billboards are popping up. Hmm, maybe Obama is creating at least a little new economic activity!

[Shady]

"Miss Me Yet?" Bush Merchandise a Hit Online

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6216739.shtml

[Michael Hardner]

Complete nonsense. It was liberal feel-good policies that directly led to the housing bubble which ultimately brought down the economy. The idea that pressuring banks and financial institutions into lending money to people who wouldn't otherwise qualifty. Giving money to people who can't pay it back isn't a Republican ideal. You can thank bleeding-heart liberals and the unintended consequences of so-called good intentions for this mess. You can thank Barney "There is no problem with Fannie and Freddie" Frank and similar minded Democrats for this mess.

That is utter crap. Of course liberals would love to force businesses to hand money over to poor people until they're bankrupt but when in the past has this ever worked ? The businesses were set up for some people to game the system for personal gain. If they had done due diligence in investigating loans then they wouldn't have been in trouble.

It strikes me as a very liberal argument to blame everybody but the ones who made the decisions for their problem, i.e. "society made me do it".

And as for Wall Street. It's been run by Dems for many years. Barack Obama recieved more money from Wall Street than any Republican ever has. So to Chris Dodd, and Chuck Schumer, and Barney Frank. My God, the freaking treasury secretary Timmy G, who's freaking job it was to oversee Wall Street is Obama's right hand man. Same with Larry Summers, who fought to have Bill Clinton repeal the law seperating investment banks from normal banks. And you wanna lay this mess at the feet of George W Bush??? Puuuuuuuulease.

And Wall Street calls the shots for the Republicans too. You will see this come to pass whenever the Tea Party revolutionaries start to come up with ideas that actually threaten the status quo, such as pulling individual states out of international trade agreements.

It's fun, though, it's very fun to watch the Frankenstein monster of popular revolt rise from the table to go after its master.

[xul]

I expect we'll see "Hell, no!" spray painted on the billboard before long .....

You should expect to see a lot of "Yes!" signatures on the board before long if it was set up at the end of the mass production line of Lockheed Martin F-22 fighter.

[Shady]

New billboard in Minnesota! Features Ronald Reagan...

Remember real hope and change?

Link

[JerrySeinfeld]

Leaving out his competencies and incompetencies, Obama was born under a lucky star. From the looks of it, the economy will be clicking along again by the time he comes up for reelection.

I wouldn't bet on that. The US economy is in the midst of a massive deleveraging. Thingsa could easily be worse by then.

But betting your re-election hopes on the prospect of a stronger US economy in 2012 seems to be coming from a pretty weak place given the huge popularity the guy enjoy not even 12 months ago.

Any way you look at it, Bush Cheney's assessmenet - that Obama has suffered the fastest drop in approval of any president in history - is a correct one.

No question he still has time to pull things out of the fire. Will he? Tough to say. But the american people have fairly convincingly communicated to the Democrats that they don't like this health care bill and don't want it, especially that the timing couldn't be worse given the state of the economy.

Regardsless of what political stripe the pundits are, they seem to universally agree that the democrats will pay dearly at the polls in November, possibly losing the majority in both the house and Senate. It's gotten so bad that some Democrats have even given up the idea of running again this fall.

Meantime since inauguration day, Iran has increased the number of centrifuges enriching uranium fro 400 to 8,000 and bumbped up the level of enriuchment from 5% to 20% - and the economy is hardly in a healthy state.

So, going into year 2, we have a weakened President who lost his majority, making it even more difficult to govern, an Iranian policy that has by all measures, failed, and an electorate pissed of that his position oin health care polling is that "you people are too dumb to know what's good for you - so we're ramming the bill through anyway."

Sounds like a recipe for a Carter style implosion to me.

I guess there really is more to life than being able to deliver a knock out speech. Heck, everytime he gives yet another one on Health care, the approval numbers drop anothe couple of points.

[Shady]

Sounds like a recipe for a Carter style implosion to me.

I agree. I think after this past electoral experiment, a boring white guy who actually knows what he's doing, will look very attractive to the average American voter. Hello Mitt Romney. Or should I say President Romney! *fingers crossed*

[xul]

Any way you look at it, Bush Cheney's assessmenet - that Obama has suffered the fastest drop in approval of any president in history - is a correct one.

It is correct because they knew what American wanted -- American just wanted to put a black-faced and broad-smiled Bush in the White House, without any reform, any compromise, and essentially any pain, wishing other nations in the world would be infatuated by such kind of charisma like American themselves and then everything would be fixed and run smoothly.....

[Guest American Woman]

It is correct because they knew what American wanted -- American just wanted to put a black-faced and broad-smiled Bush in the White House, without any reform, any compromise, and essentially any pain, wishing other nations in the world would be infatuated by such kind of charisma like American themselves and then everything would be fixed and run smoothly.....

I think Americans voted for him because they wanted change, but it seems he's unaware of what Americans really want. I think his health care reform is a big factor in the dropping numbers. I don't understand how it's a great thing to force people to buy what most could have already purchased had that been their desire, and getting this 'reform' through seems to be his highest priority.

I don't think most Americans put what other nations think as a high priority when going to the polls. It's mostly all about us, and isn't that the way it is in every other nation too?

[xul]

I think Americans voted for him because they wanted change, but it seems he's unaware of what Americans really want.

I agree American did want change --- they just didn't want to pay the bill for the change whatever changes they want, rather like my brethren bjre -- he likes "Chinese traditional medicine" but doesn't like pay tax for it I suppose.

I don't think most Americans put what other nations think as a high priority when going to the polls. It's mostly all about us, and isn't that the way it is in every other nation too?

Of course Americans don't care what other nations think about their president. But as the president of the only superpower in the world, American president does need other nations cooperating to deal with international and even domestic affairs, doesn't he?

Unfortunately Obama needs to get success over these international and domestic issue to show his ability to his voters to win a poll, but so far it seems like he will not make it, because his voters don't want to pay the bill he needs to achieve his goal....

Edited March 15, 2010 by xul

[JerrySeinfeld]

Of course Americans don't care what other nations think about their president. But as the president of the only superpower in the world, American president does need other nations cooperating to deal with international and even domestic affairs, doesn't he?

Bush was smart enough to realize that waiting for agreement and "multilateralism" from the likes of France, China or Russia is a fool's game. Likewise he recognized long before the rest of the planet did that the UN is a collection of thugs, dictators and bureaucrats - hardly the kind of people you want on your team if you're really in favor of getting things done as opposed to talking it to death. See: Banda Aceh tsunami.

Americans were there in a mattter of days while the UN was still talking it over.

[Guest American Woman]

I agree American did want change --- they just didn't want to pay the bill for the change whatever changes they want, rather like my brethren bjre -- he likes "Chinese traditional medicine" but doesn't like pay tax for it I suppose.

I think Americans are willing to pay the bill for change if it's change that they approve of. As I pointed out, Obama's health care reform doesn't have a lot of support from the people, as far as I can see. So it's not "change" that the people support/want, which is a different issue from 'not wanting to pay the tax' for change.

Of course Americans don't care what other nations think about their president. But as the president of the only superpower in the world, American president does need other nations cooperating to deal with international and even domestic affairs, doesn't he?

Sure he does. My comment was just in response to yours-- wishing other nations in the world would be infatuated by such kind of charisma-- because I disagree with that observation; I don't think that was a big factor in the way Americans voted. That doesn't mean Americans don't care what others think of our President, but I don't think it was a high priority reason to vote for him.

[xul]

I think his health care reform is a big factor in the dropping numbers. I don't understand how it's a great thing to force people to buy what most could have already purchased had that been their desire, and getting this 'reform' through seems to be his highest priority.

On this matter, I think Obama has few choice. I remember the issue of health care reform weighted a lot of his promise when he ran for the election. He can not just shrug to his voters and says, "Well, let's forget it. It's just a mistake..."

If American didn't like the reform, why did they elect him? So I suppose they liked his policy but just didn't realize what kind of the price they would pay for the policy.

[Guest American Woman]

On this matter, I think Obama has few choice. I remember the issue of health care reform weighted a lot of his promise when he ran for the election. He can not just shrug to his voters and says, "Well, let's forget it. It's just a mistake..."

He can come up with a health care reform that the people like and support. He's already caved in to parts of his original plan, including a public option for health insurance, abortions, and, I believe, eligibiiity for medicare at an earlier age.

If American didn't like the reform, why did they elect him? So I suppose they liked his policy but just didn't realize what kind of the price they would pay for the policy.

His policy doesn't offer most Americans anything that they didn't already have access to, so if they wanted it, they'd already have it. I suppose Americans didn't know what his reform ultimately would be, and I suppose some, like me, didn't think he'd be able to get it through. I suppose, also, they didn't like the other president/vice president ticket enough not to vote for him.

I think people had high hopes for Obama, so they're disappointed in him and what he's done and what he hasn't done. I have to wonder if he is even interested in what the American public thinks/wants. To me, it doesn't appear as if he is even listening/attempting to find out what it is they want.

If the Republicans don't have a far Right ticket, if it's moderate, I'll consider voting Republican in the next election.

And it has nothing to do with 'not wanting to pay for change.'

[bush_cheney2004]

....I think people had high hopes for Obama, so they're disappointed in him and what he's done and what he hasn't done. I have to wonder if he is even interested in what the American public thinks/wants. To me, it doesn't appear as if he is even listening/attempting to find out what it is they want.

..and so it has come to this. Obama needs to deliver on his vision of "hope and change" or be relegated to a lame duck role after only one year in office. This is why Reagan matters, regardless of one's view of his politics.

I was fully prepared for an expansion of Medicare and other meaningful reforms, but it has gone horribly wrong on all sides for this president. Campaign season was over long ago.

Edited March 16, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

I agree. I think after this past electoral experiment, a boring white guy who actually knows what he's doing, will look very attractive to the average American voter. Hello Mitt Romney. Or should I say President Romney! *fingers crossed*

It's unfortunate he is a Mormon. Otherwise he might be a good candidate.

[Pliny]

30 million more Americans will have to buy health care under Obamacare.

His slogan is sounding more like it should have been, "Hype and Chains".

[xul]

I think Americans are willing to pay the bill for change if it's change that they approve of. As I pointed out, Obama's health care reform doesn't have a lot of support from the people, as far as I can see. So it's not "change" that the people support/want, which is a different issue from 'not wanting to pay the tax' for change.

Maybe I should change my statement as this: If some Arabian king willingly pay the bill for "Obamacare" -- maybe just for he is the first American president bowed to him, then Americans need not to pay for it at all, will they still disapprove it?

If the answer is No, I may conclude that they just disapprove the bill not "Obamacare" itself.

My comment was just in response to yours-- wishing other nations in the world would be infatuated by such kind of charisma-- because I disagree with that observation; I don't think that was a big factor in the way Americans voted. That doesn't mean Americans don't care what others think of our President, but I don't think it was a high priority reason to vote for him.

I agree with you on this. So you have finally acknowledged that BC2004 is a typecal American and you are not....sorry for my joke if it is offensive. But I did have the feeling of this when I read the post you told Canadian that you were a typecal American and he wasn't two years ago.

Anyway, do you think it is good for America?

Edited March 17, 2010 by xul

[xul]

Bush was smart enough to realize that waiting for agreement and "multilateralism" from the likes of France, China or Russia is a fool's game.

Obama is just as smart as Bush was. Bush also went to Bejing for "Olympics", smirking on the stand when Russian launched a aggression on Georgia, and gave two NATO high command posts to French to trade France returning NATO and sent some troops to Afghanistan, and I'm sure he was doing the right thing.

Of course, Bush looked "smarter" in 2000 than in 2008, but I wage if Obama was elected in 2000, that means he had what Clinton left Bush -- financial surplus, strong economy, low oil price, seemingly invincible military force and weakened rivals...., he would also be "smarter" than today...

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course, Bush looked "smarter" in 2000 than in 2008, but I wage if Obama was elected in 2000, that means he had what Clinton left Bush -- financial surplus, strong economy, low oil price, seemingly invincible military force and weakened rivals...., he would also be "smarter" than today...

Bush wasn't inaugurated until Jan 2001....the US was already headed for a recession and the .com bust was well underway. Terrorist attacks against US interests, including the USS Cole, were already in the books.

[Shady]

It's unfortunate he is a Mormon. Otherwise he might be a good candidate.

He's a great candidate, whether he's mormon, muslim, christian, jewish, athiest or agnostic.

[Guest American Woman]

Maybe I should change my statement as this: If some Arabian king willingly pay the bill for "Obamacare" -- maybe just for he is the first American president bowed to him, then Americans need not to pay for it at all, will they still disapprove it?

If the answer is No, I may conclude that they just disapprove the bill not "Obamacare" itself.

That doesn't even make sense. I honestly wonder if you understand what it involves.

"Obamacare" offers nothing to most Americans without insurance/covered health care, other than a fine if we don't purchase what we would already be purchasing if we could afford it/if it were to our benefit. How will forcing us to buy insurance we can't afford, or that will provide no benefits to us, from private insurance companies, or being made to pay a fine, supposed to help us? Seriously.

Try to understand. Forcing people who can't afford to buy insurance/who would get no benefit from having the level of insurance they can afford, or fining them if they don't buy it, as they still have to pay for their medical bills .... helps them, how? All it does is put yet another financial burden on them.

[Oleg Bach]

NEVER trust a man who smiles 24 7 .

[xul]

That doesn't even make sense. I honestly wonder if you understand what it involves.

Borrowing Pliny's words with a bit modification: 300 million Americans will have to buy health care for 30 million their contrymen under Obamacare. This is why it is unpopular.

"Obamacare" offers nothing to most Americans without insurance/covered health care, other than a fine if we don't purchase what we would already be purchasing if we could afford it/if it were to our benefit. How will forcing us to buy insurance we can't afford, or that will provide no benefits to us, from private insurance companies, or being made to pay a fine, supposed to help us? Seriously.

Try to understand. Forcing people who can't afford to buy insurance/who would get no benefit from having the level of insurance they can afford, or fining them if they don't buy it, as they still have to pay for their medical bills .... helps them, how? All it does is put yet another financial burden on them.

I remeber Obama is not the first American president who promised a medicare reform, so I suppose the system does have some problem. Obama's problem is he is the first one trying to practice his promise not merely talk.

Obama was elected by American voters for his promise of "Change". But which kind changes you suppose he could make without asking Americans to pay for it? Could he sell Israel to Arabian Kings to trade them cancelling all American debts? Or get some Pakistan soldier wearing American uniform to battle Taliban for American interests and honour? Or depend on Dalai Lama's Buddhistic lecture to make all bankers, CEOs and unions giving up their easy-good salary to make American companies more competitive?