Tell me, please, Mr. President…

…at what point do we start saying no to you?

…at what point can we say we’ve had enough?

…at what point are you just lying to people’s faces?

…at what point do we start freaking out?


This entry was posted in faith, language, mission, politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Tell me, please, Mr. President…

  1. The Center Square says:

    People elected Obama because he convinced America that he had the ambition and ability to address a long list of very serious problems. Those problems, which drove voters to the polls in November, are still there. I understand that you don’t like how he is going about addressing them, but saying no is not an answer, and will not slow down him or the Democratic-controlled Congress.

    Those who do not share his political ideology need to come forward with answers that are better than his. So far, nothing. That’s why and how he will continue in the current vein.

  2. Some days, I’m just glad we live in a Democracy where no one side gets power for too long. No one can mess it up too badly in four or eight years…or so I used to think.

    Other days, I think a monarchy sound like a rather nice idea.

  3. Evenshine says:

    Center- If saying no to the President (who is, by all accounts, still the leader of this country) is not an option, then what? Change can only begin when enough of us say no. I don’t see any indications that the stimulus package is working. At all. Spending to get us afloat again is contrary to logic. At what point do we admit to ourselves that it is NOT working?

    Those who are not in agreement with Mr. Obama have frequently, and continue to, come forward with alternatives. But for all the bipartisan assurances President McDreamy has given us, his actions have proven a resolute determination to do things whether he gets support from the other side or not.

    Thanks for commenting.

  4. Evenshine says:

    2 Square Meals- How about the Kingdom of Tonga?

  5. Evenshine – I agree with you completely. There are plenty of alternatives if people want to listen and look for them. Spending when you are in debt flies in the face of reason. A stimulus, on paper, is not a bad idea to jump start things but it isn’t working. The economic problems we are facing have us treading in uncharted waters, and so I’m not here to say it’s an easy thing. But I violently disagree in policy and philosophy with the current administration’s plans to attempt to address these problems. I think long term they are extending and exacerbating them, not solving them.

  6. The Center Square says:

    I do agree there are many ideas floating around out there. The problem is that the Republican leadership is not effectively articulating or advancing any of them. Doesn’t matter what you or I might think is smart, if it’s not on the Congressional agenda, then it does no good.

    Where is their balanced budget? Where is their plan to address the recession? What are their ideas for

    There is, of course, one idea that Republicans repeatedly advance, including now, as a recession-fighting measure — income tax cuts. However, that plan suffers [x] weaknesses:

    One, tax cuts exacerbate the federal debt, itself a core fiscal problem. If we pay less taxes, then the government borrows more debt.

    The US government essentially was a pay-as-we-go proposition until the Reagan years. Reagan inherited federal debt of less than $1 trillion. Then we had 25 years of tax cutting without expense cutting, by both Democratic and Republican officials. This left the federal government $12 trillion in debt by the time Obama took office.

    If you had $30,000 on your credit cards, $120,000 in student loans, $32,000 on the BMW and a big mortgage, would your plan be: “Let’s see if I can manage a pay cut”?

    Two, the 2009 stimulus package already has pumped nearly $200 billion in tax cuts into the economy. In fact, that is the only part of the stimulus package to be largely implemented so far. The spending side of the equation is beginning now, and should fund extensively throughout the coming months.

    In other words, as far as the government taking action to ease the recession, we have shot the Republican bullets so far — to little effect, you say — and we are yet to shoot most of the Democratic bullets. Let’s see how the next six to twelve months go. But to the extent that recession-fighting has gone poorly so far, it is more of an indictment of the Republicans’ main ideas than the Democrats’.

    Listen, I share the concern of those who are worried about spending excesses. I liken our dilemma to this: The Democrats have slammed on the accelerator, and we have a grave risk they won’t know when or how to brake. The Republicans would rather we keep the foot on the brake, and risk that we cannot accelerate any recession recovery.

    Either way we go, there are huge risks and huge downsides of any action taken, or not taken.

  7. insider53 says:

    I have decided to give him a year in which I carefully watch everything he does and then decide. The country is not fixable in so short a time that he has been President, so I think a year will be a good barometer. He might fail or he might not and in the meantime if anyone else has any good ideas please send them to him.

  8. Unfortunately, Obama’s not the only nut ruining our country. And still, so many people can’t see what’s happening. For the rest of us that are worried, what can we do? We vote, but the media has the majority brainwashed. The education system has been poisoning our kids’ minds for a while now, turning them against the foundations of this country. I wish I had some solutions, Evenshine.

  9. KathyB! says:

    I wish I had a snappy little retort for this one. I feel as though Obama is leading us down the wrong path for sure, but I agree with center square’s point that the republican leadership has failed to set forth an alternate agenda, clearly articulated, that gives people an option to rally behind. We seem to have Obama’s leadership… and a void.

  10. Jen says:

    I appreciate Center’s second, outlined comment. Some really good points are brought up. I especially like: “The Democrats have slammed on the accelerator, and we have a grave risk they won’t know when or how to brake. The Republicans would rather we keep the foot on the brake, and risk that we cannot accelerate any recession recovery”

    However, on the point:
    “If you had $30,000 on your credit cards, $120,000 in student loans, $32,000 on the BMW and a big mortgage, would your plan be: “Let’s see if I can manage a pay cut”?”

    While the government can’t “afford” a pay cut (ie, our taxes being cut), this analogy doesn’t quite handle the influx in spending that the government is doing at the same time. It’s like saying, “I’ve got $180,000 in debt, but I think I can afford that $250,000 home.”

    Thinking like that on an individual level is one of the reasons the economy is suffering….now we’re doing it at a National level, too?

  11. The Center Square says:

    I’m with you on that, Jen. The problem is now, and has been for decades, a spending problem.

    Politicians are a devilishly clever species, and the Republicans have been particularly devilish in getting us to think that the issue is taxes, and isn’t spending. In fact, I believe that the Republican approach has contributed greatly to the explosion of spending. They don’t ask us to fund our government with commensurate levels of taxation, so why NOT allow them to spend like crazy? Or, putting it the other way, if we HAD had to pay for the huge expansion of government in the past 25 years through taxation, I don’t believe it would have happened. We would have drawn the line a long time ago.

  12. The Center Square says:

    P.S.: There is one exception to the rule that government cannot afford more spending, and that is if private sector obligations decrease by an equal or greater amount. If, for example, the federal government has to spend an additional $1 trillion over ten years for a healthcare program — BUT, the existence of that program were to eliminate $1 trillion+ in obligations that otherwise would be borne by the private sector, then that would be worth considering.

    There is a basic argument that is not being made well, and that is that we taxpayers ALREADY are paying for the healthcare of uninsured Americans.

  13. evenshine says:

    CSqare- Good point re: the exception. But considerations should include what we’re signing up for. I don’t think anyone really knows what we’re headed for with Obama, as he has repeatedly shown his true colors. And since when has government ever worked that efficiently?

  14. The Center Square says:

    One example of government efficiency is… healthcare! Medicare operates at less cost than private health insurance.

  15. Evenshine says:

    Debatable. Efficiency doesn’t = quality. Quantity always does away with quality. And how many Medicare recipients can’t afford their medicines? Moving towards socialized medicine may be laudable in some circles, but I find it troubling, and antithetical to a capitalist, free-market system.

  16. The Center Square says:

    Ahh, but you said, “efficiently”!

    As for quality, if that is the purpose of these reforms (I would argue that it isn’t), then we should pursue something along the European model, where outcomes are better than the US.

    I’m not really advocating that, of course. I am making the point that this is a complex situation in which the tradeoffs are severe.

    Fundamentally, I think the beltway debate has lost sight of the real imperative: to provide a stable means of access to decent health care for the tens of millions who lack it. Whether because they lack insurance, or make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford insurance, or are being stuck with sky high COBRA premiums, or are falling through the cracks of pre-existing conditions and job changes and whatnot.

    We have a pathetic and costly hodgepodge of solutions now, ranging from emergency room treatment of routine medical conditions to deferring medications and treatments to prevent worsening of health.

    Fixing that is the imperative we face. Unfortunately, the Democrats have lost sight of the cost containment aspects of the need. For example, they lost sight of the value of having people directly bear a larger portion of their medical expenses (to curb excess demand) and tort reform. Republicans have lost sight of the moral imperative to provide access to the system for all Americans. Instead they have focused on providing tax benefits to people for acquiring insurance, ignoring that if you can’t afford it now, you still cannot afford it after gaining a 15% tax deduction — that still leaves the poor carrying 85% of the cost.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s