Question of the Day (Politics)

(Q)  Is Obamamania over ? The Huffington Post seems to think so. Has the sheen gone off of the lilly ?

Comments

[Rain]

If it is over, good because unrealistic expectations, godlike faith in any leader, none of it helps anybody. Let's just hope it won't be replaced by some new hero who will fix everything-- of course, if it's Republican in the opposite direction. No leader can do it all. They can sign the final bill but if the American people give them a divided government, the bill never gets to them. Bush got that undivided government for a few years after 9/11 when he had absolute power and we have the physical evidence for what he did with it. Obama had what looked like it for two years although considering blue dog democrats are more republican in thinking than any democrat like say from Oregon, he didn't have the actual majority it looked like. A lot of those blue dogs lost their positions to Republicans which made the House look different but in actuality, it probably isn't so much except for who heads the Committees which can be a not insignificant power. If Obama had been the extremists that some claim even today, he'd have let those committees go after the Bush administration on war crimes. He blocked that. He didn't go for the health care most progressives wanted. He didn't close Gitmo. He kept the wars and added more. His stimulus bill returned 2/3 to the states or the people in more tax cuts. Yeah, he's a real leftie, that guy! If any of the righties who read you, have bothered to check left wing sites, you will see as much anger at Obama as from the right-- difference being they wanted more of what they thought they would get and he was always pretty middle of the road which ends up pleasing nobody totally. Yeah, some socialist!

[west_rhino]

Some of the sheen is gone, but I daresay "Huffpo" is premature in reporting the demise of Obamamania.

[Robert the Skeptic]

Oh my god yes. Events in the American consciousness last about two weeks. Didn't Obama's Seal team kill bin Laden? I have a vague memory or somethin'. As far back as I can think, Obama is responsible for our falling economy, sending jobs overseas, increasing the deficit all by himself, I think he is making the climate warmer to, am I correct?

We need "CHANGE" in leadership, new and innovative ideas: like tax cuts for the richest two percent who will then hire us all as maids and grounds keepers. Prosperity is just one election away. Yay!!

[Paul]

I read "Lefty" sites Rain. Obama is just another President who made some promises he couldn't keep and then started to play the game a la Washington as it has always been done . Is he a Socialist ? Would they claim him ?

[Rain]

See the weird thing is that I don't think he made those promises in many cases. My kids don't think he did either. Where it came to health care he never said single payer. It's what we wanted though. People read into what he said what they wanted to hear. Left and right tend to do that. He tried to close Gitmo and ran into the avalanche of Republican objection that we couldn't have trials in this country and he probably found how many of the verdicts would be ruined by torture and yet the people were guilty.

The level of socialism is might have is the level Europe has and a lot of our programs here like education, freeways, military, police, etc. that are paid for by the people through government agreements.

To me it always amazes me anyway when people act like government is some foreign being. It's just what the people voted for and when we don't like it, it seems alien. When we do, then it's the will of the folks! Most every program it does was originally decided by elected officials and can be changed if the people turn on it! Unless it's supposedly Constitutional which also gets changed.

[Paul]

I think a wise person is wary of Big Government. One has to be or else it will take the power from the people.

[Rain]

And yet Republicans didn't mind when Bush did the patriot act which took away our right to a trial and could imprison us simply on his word we were a terrorist with us having no rights. That was okay because it was a Republican evidently back then. It wasn't with me and it's no more okay today and yet who would block a change of ending the Patriot act... again what a name for something that was anything but patriotic. I said then that when you give up power, you rarely get it back and next time you won't like so much who has it next. When this happened in '03 a lot of Republicans were all for it to keep themselves save. Suddenly not so sweet when a Democrat has it, huh?

[Ingineer66]

Yes actually he did say that he was for single payer. I have heard the audio from the speech. I just think it is funny that he has kept or re-instituted so many of W's policies after he said so many horrible things about them during the campaign. But then again he was running against W in 2008, but W was not on the ballet in 08. He talked a big game and many of us knew it was all BS, but a lot of folks that voted for him and apparently a lot of folks that are in the media took it all in.

[Rain]

Or the alternative of voting for an old hothead in McCain who would pick someone as inept as Palin as his replacement was the decider. Despite how the right loves to imply all the people who supported Obama adored him, reality is many just saw an alternative that would be worse.

I'd love to hear the audio of that speech as what I heard him say many times is he would personally like it but didn't see it as a viable first step for Americans. If some went nuts at the very idea everybody would be covered at all, can you imagine if it was equal care to theirs?

And McCain ran on continuing Bush policies. That is the nature of what happens when you had a guy in there for 8 years-- the new policies are unknown.

What I thought and a lot I know who were also Obama voters was he was a combination of the lesser of evils and possibly someone who would move the policies we believe forward- like bank regulation. Although that's another of those things that Clinton and a Republican controlled Congress did which allowed the failures of financial institutes during the Bush years and that's not to say Bush didn't contribute but the earlier repeal of regulations allowed it. There is enough blame to go around but does anybody think the latest bunch to go into Congress, who seem fine with reneging on our debt, not paying our bills, can't come up with a realistic plan that will accomplish that and our promises, anybody really believe these guys understand long-range economics. The party of no might have an agenda but it is that government is bad, can't do anything right, and we will do what we can to prove it. It would be interesting to see, other than my fear for the weakest in our country, what they would do if they got that power and could really destroy all the programs they hate so much. Isn't it interesting that among those programs they hate isn't oil subsidies to oil companies already raking in record profits...

[Paul]

Question Rain : Would McCain have been any worse that Obama? Just a thought. One thing that I do note is that politicians of all stripes tend to do the same old things-they just package them differently to fool the citizens. Again, we have too much governmental regulation and duplication of effort. Bureaucracy is killing our country.

[Rain]

Well given my left wing issues, naturally you cannot expect me to say that Obama has been worse. McCain stood for a lot of things I don't agree with. Now if he had gotten the nomination back in 2000, I might have answered that differently. He had to cant right to even get his senate position again.

A lot of what Obama has done is what the left wanted done but just he didn't go far enough.

And do you really know we have too much government regulation in a experiential sense? Where it comes to financial institutes,you want less regulation? Or environmentally with air quality? Where exactly do you see too much government regulation? This is not rhetorical but a real question of what exactly would you on the right want to eliminate in the way of regulations? I know what ingineer has said about highways-- no concern for historic, water drainage, usage, or animal habitats. It is how the country once operated, when we had more land to do it to, is that good now?

[Paul]

Rain you admit that you are a Leftist. Thank you. Of course I want less government regulation. Some is needed but you cannot make a rule or a law to govern every situation. Why do you think American companies are heading overseas? And even if they want to come back they have to pay a 35% tax to do so.

[Rain]

I always admit I am a leftist as in left leaning. There are those issues like border control, death penalty, or right to have guns where I tend to sound rightie but overall I support the liberal values that I always have. I don't consider it anything to be ashamed of and don't regard it as communist or anymore socialist than someone who supports a public school system.

I think companies are headed overseas because they can pay low wages. If you ever dealt with a start up, the first main question is should they go to China and it's not because no environmental regs but because of the wages they can pay. It takes a lot to keep them here and competitive. Another advantage over there is the government helps them out to get them to come. They very much have a government that has a lot of regs but not over clean air. That might change though as they are ending up with cities where they cannot breathe the air healthily. Remember the problems they had to get it clean enough for the Olympics.

And I hear this talk on why they would go there from those who are involved with the actual decisions, not hearing about it in an article. It takes a real battle to make it stay here and still be profitable but it's cost of living more than anything else. Would you really want people here to have to work for those wages? Possibly you would but would you like to have to live under those conditions if you were just starting out?

[Rain]

Incidentally by the time they get through with this or that write-off, many like the big oil companies and more recently GE don't pay any taxes or very little. What the rate is isn't what the rich pay as you probably know. There are so many ways around it that the more you make, the less likely you are to pay the so-called percentage listed. I saw an article recently on the actual rates the richest pay in taxes-- it's more like 16%. Buffett, not long ago, said his secretary paid more than he did as a percent...

[Paul]

How many jobs has Buffet's secretary created ? Buffet deserves his success, because he worked for it.

[Rain]

It was Buffett who didn't like how it had worked out for taxation. His statement, not mine. Evidently he felt he wasn't worth more as a human being or a citizen just because he was wealthy. Maybe he understood that the people at the bottom of a company like his are part of its success. I don't know his reasoning but the argument that the rich deserve their money and don't have an obligation to pay their share, that's one not even all the rich make. For some people there is never enough. For others they can look at the overall picture and evaluate what is best for the majority not just themselves. A lot of rich people made their fortunes on the backs of others. A lot of them have contributed to the health of the economy in general. They are not all the same just for being rich.

Frankly I am not gaining anything for discussing this here. You have a viewpoint that is your right to have. We just argue and gain nothing as we aren't going to convince each other. We are basically going in circles. I hope if your side wins the next election that you are right. I fear that you are not. Neither of us may be living when the end results show up.

[Paul]

Not all rich people are bad or have evil intentions. Some do, I agree. The rich should pay their fair share of taxes. The question is what is their fair share ? I want the people to win in the next election whether I agree with them or not Rain. People at the bottom of a company ARE part of the success of a successful company I agree, but the person who created the company has a right to expect to be rewarded for HIS pr HER conception's success.

[Rain]

but in this case, the president of the company found the system unfair.