"No He [Obama] Can't" by Anne Wortham

[pattygreen 5]

Just because we had bad government in the past makes it okay to have horrible government in the present? We can't go back and change the past. OBAMA is the president NOW, and he is putting us in tremendous , outrageous debt. Now, you can rant all you want about Bush's past spending, but he's not the pres anymore. Let's rant about someone who promised he would do something about it but instead is leaps and bounds ahead of them all when it comes to spending. Who in their right mind SPENDS into oblivion to get themselves out of a financial crisis??!!

You have to admit that he has made many promises that he has failed to keep. Except for the killing of the unborn. He promised to allow that and by golly within his first week he kept that promise! (Rolling eyes)

[BJean 16]

I believe what was said was that changes can be made to fix programs that don't work. Throwing up our hands and saying that a program that isn't working can't be fixed and so we need to get rid of all government programs is flat out ridiculous.

Thank God that Obama changed the policy about late term abortion. How dare the government come between a woman and the best medical advice! Her situation is horrendous enough without having to deal with some outrageous government intervention telling her that no matter what her circumstances or her baby's circumstances, she and her baby must just allow nature to take its' unhealthy course. At that point nature has already gone wrong. Women don't just ask for late term abortions - they are advised to for medical reasons.

[BJean 16]

I don't blame you for wanting to ignore George W. Bush's policies that led us into the incredibly unhealthy state of the union. Within a month after Obama took office, Republicans were already blaming him for things that he had absolutely nothing to do with. It's so crazy in fact, the Republicans are looking like frightened mice scurrying around trying to find a hole to crawl in to. And yet they keep taunting the cat (us). It's very weird.

[pattygreen 5]

I believe what was said was that changes can be made to fix programs that don't work. Throwing up our hands and saying that a program that isn't working can't be fixed and so we need to get rid of all government programs is flat out ridiculous.

Thank God that Obama changed the policy about late term abortion. How dare the government come between a woman and the best medical advice! Her situation is horrendous enough without having to deal with some outrageous government intervention telling her that no matter what her circumstances or her baby's circumstances, she and her baby must just allow nature to take its' unhealthy course. At that point nature has already gone wrong. Women don't just ask for late term abortions - they are advised to for medical reasons.

I won't even go there with this one. The abortion issue has been ranted out as far as I'm concerned. We differ as far as the east is from the west on that issue. Abortion is akin to murder as far as I'm concerned. Prochoice people have no care for what prolife people feel is happening to millions of babies annually, nor do they care about the babies lives. It's all about them and what's best for them.

This is another reason why I say that most liberals just want to be able to do what they want to do. Sinful or not. They don't want any restrictions to their so called "freedoms". Their freedom to 'choose' to kill babies. Their 'freedom' to have sex with the same sex. We conservatives just want to 'ruin' all their fun!

Another topic:The reason I feel we should get rid of alot of the government programs isn't because they can't be fixed, but because there are toooooooo many of them and we can't afford them. Maybe if we cut out most of the government programs and government jobs with all their perks and bonuses, etc., we wouldn't have so many poor people who are in need of these things from the government. People are poor because the government TAKES so much from everyone. When the gov. raises the taxes on the wealthy and businesses, they only pass the expense onto the consumer by raising their prices for goods and services, which in turn requires the poor to pay out for those things that are needed. Rents, food, utilities. No wonder we have so many people struggling! The government is so HUGE, we have to all pay for it. Let's scratch it all and start over is my opinion. Adding MORE programs is just digging us deeper into the hole we are already in. Chopping programs and firing government people and ending their jobs would help the economy tremendously. Think about it. If all the billions of dollars that the gov. needs to run things around here were slashed, the American people would have it in their pockets. THAT"S how you help the economy.

[pattygreen 5]

I don't blame you for wanting to ignore George W. Bush's policies that led us into the incredibly unhealthy state of the union. Within a month after Obama took office, Republicans were already blaming him for things that he had absolutely nothing to do with. It's so crazy in fact, the Republicans are looking like frightened mice scurrying around trying to find a hole to crawl in to. And yet they keep taunting the cat (us). It's very weird.

Obama had 'nothing' to do with all his decisions thus far? Get real. He had everyhing to do with them. I don't want to 'ignore' anything from any past presidents. But what's been done in the past is not any excuse for what is done NOW. Dems love to blame Bush for the decisions Obama is making NOW. Was Clinton to blame for the things Bush did in office?

[pattygreen 5]

This country should do all it can to keep people from welfare and bring them to the dignity of self-sufficiency. We are in a recession, and the politicians are reacting by attempting to increase federal spending on aid programs. Obama's large share of the budget will go to programs for the poor. These policies represent an enormous expansion of the welfare state. Foodstamps, Medicaid, Cash assistance, and the Earned income credit, are just a few examples of programs that will receive billions more in funding and will add thousands more to the welfare rolls. What's their goal? Do we want a simple handout for recipients? Or should they be trying to help the people move toward self sufficiency and personal renewal? A recent poll by Wilson Research Strategies shows that Americans have little support for increasing the aid that low income families receive. Only 18% said that current spending on programs for the poor were not enough. Congress and Obama, despite what the people want, moved to spend more while also expanding eligibility for them. Within a year, the # of families receiving assistance could grow enormously. That would have long lasting consequences.They only prolong peoples dependence on these programs. They are bandaids to the problem and ignore what put a family in the position of need in the first place. Back in 1996, we had some welfare reform. I know we did in CT, anyway. Where once people were on welfare for an average of 13 years, with the reform, welfare offices became job placement offices and social workers found effective approaches to put people to work. Families learned how to provide for themselves. Our welfare system should be reformed to require work and emphasize marriage. After all, children raised by never married mothers are 7 times more likely to be poor when compared with children raised in intact families. Also, the impact of having to provide for your family with a job instead of a federal handout is immeasurable. This Obama administration is not what the people wanted or expected. The money he is spending faster than the road runner is outrageous. What's his goal? To bankrupt us? Oh yeah, he did that already. We're in debt to everyone and their brother now.

[BJean 16]

I agree with your first sentence. Then you rant on with a bunch of drivel that negates any good intent that you had in making your post. It's filled with a very narrow, biased and a single-minded approach to what President Obama is trying to do.

Furthermore I take issue with your statement that President Obama is not what the people wanted or expected. You have no right to speak for all the people who voted for him. And btw, did you vote for him? If you did and you are surprised at what Obama is working for, then you're free to tell us how misled you believe you were. But as for me and every other individual who voted for Obama, you cannot speak for us.

[BJean 16]

patty's: " Get real. He had everyhing to do with them. I don't want to 'ignore' anything from any past presidents. But what's been done in the past is not any excuse for what is done NOW. Dems love to blame Bush for the decisions Obama is making NOW. Was Clinton to blame for the things Bush did in office?"

Oh but you obviously DO want to ignore what's been done in the past. Democrats and other mainstream Americans do not blame Bush for anything but what he is guilty of. And if his rotten legacy didn't live on through the results of his administration's deeds, we wouldn't still be carping about him.

And Republicans have blamed Clinton for everything from 9/11 to Cuban cigar making. Puuuuleeese~

[KartMan 58]

I agree with your first sentence. Then you rant on with a bunch of drivel that negates any good intent that you had in making your post. It's filled with a very narrow, biased and a single-minded approach to what President Obama is trying to do.

Furthermore I take issue with your statement that President Obama is not what the people wanted or expected. You have no right to speak for all the people who voted for him. And btw, did you vote for him? If you did and you are surprised at what Obama is working for, then you're free to tell us how misled you believe you were. But as for me and every other individual who voted for Obama, you cannot speak for us.

BJean, I couldn’t agree more. For me, Obama IS what I wanted and expected. Do I like every single thing he has done (or not done)? No, of course not. Because I like him, but I am not a disciple of his. He is a politician, and to some extent he has to operate within the framework of being a politician, which always involves give and take. He had the mandate (and now has the power in Congress) to ram his issues thru, but I see him taking a more careful and measured approach and at least attempting to be bipartisan, which is a very welcome change after the last 8 years. Sometimes he goes a little slower than I would like (Don’t ask Don’t tell) and sometimes a little faster than I would like (the Stimulus Plan) but overall I think he is doing a stellar job.

[BJean 16]

Yup, I couldn't agree more, Kartman, on every count you mention.

At first I was a little put off by his measured moves to be bipartisan and moderate. My heart was wanting him to come in and kick some serious behind. But intellectually, I think he is what this country needs and I hope he can be a sterling example of how our country can be run so that neither extreme is running rough shod over everyone else.

His openness and his willingness to expose himself to criticism - while leading this country through these bad times - is just what we need. No more manipulating everything behind the scenes and having a president who is, for all intents and purposes, out of the public eye every day except for very orchestrated and scripted events.

[pattygreen 5]

Yup, I couldn't agree more, Kartman, on every count you mention.

At first I was a little put off by his measured moves to be bipartisan and moderate. My heart was wanting him to come in and kick some serious behind. But intellectually, I think he is what this country needs and I hope he can be a sterling example of how our country can be run so that neither extreme is running rough shod over everyone else.

His openness and his willingness to expose himself to criticism - while leading this country through these bad times - is just what we need. No more manipulating everything behind the scenes and having a president who is, for all intents and purposes, out of the public eye every day except for very orchestrated and scripted events.

So, you're okay with his spending spree to the tune of trillions? As charismatic and charming and outgoing that he is surly is wonderful, but what about his bankrupting this country? That seems to be shoved under the rug in favor of his wonderfulness.

[BJean 16]

Who said anything about his charisma? We were so beaten down by the horrible Bush policies, we wouldn't have cared if a man with better policies had two heads and spoke with a lisp.

Why didn't we hear you complain about Bush's policies that helped to create this mess? The same mess that had made Obama's actions (and Bush's initially) necessary? I don't recall you ever criticizing Bush for spending BILLIONS every week in Iraq. Don't you think that went a heckofa long way toward bankrupting our budget? Does it mean a thing to you that under your man, government grew even though the man said he was against big government? And what about that dirty, senseless war? How long have we been in Iraq? Was that what the nation bargained for when we elected the likes of George W. Bush and that stinker Dick cheney?

Bush was given his turn. It didn't work. Now give Obama a turn. If and when we go belly up, you can be the first to say "I told you so, suckers!" Until then you're just blowing a bunch of hot air.

Btw, I'll be all ears (or eyes as the case may be) when you have a well thought-out plan for revitalizing our economy and helping to repair the global economy from the far west to the far east.

[BJean 16]

It is a mystery to me why some people think that because Obama is a good speaker and not bad to look at, that it in some way affects what we think of his leadership abilities.

We like his policies. We like them. We really like them. Why do you think we voted for him? You seem to think it's because it has something to do with his looks, his charisma, his skin color, his wife, what else am I missing? Get over it. We are in suppot of Obama's handling of foreign countries, we like his stance on global warming and education... and I could go on but you get the point... I think.

[plain 12]

I get the vague impression that you would have been 100% behind anybody not Bush....

[pattygreen 5]

Who said anything about his charisma? We were so beaten down by the horrible Bush policies, we wouldn't have cared if a man with better policies had two heads and spoke with a lisp.

Even if he had no experience at all!

Why didn't we hear you complain about Bush's policies that helped to create this mess? The same mess that had made Obama's actions (and Bush's initially) necessary? I don't recall you ever criticizing Bush for spending BILLIONS every week in Iraq.

I am not against the war. And, money spent there was needed. Money spent foolishly and frivilously isn't. And Bush's billions is just a small fraction of Obama's TRILLIONS!!!!!!

Don't you think that went a heckofa long way toward bankrupting our budget?

At least we may have had a chance to pay it off some day. Now with Obama's trillions, we will forever be in debt. Just because past presidents have spent foolishly doesn't give the A-okay for the present one to spend tremendously and exhorbitantly foolishly!

Does it mean a thing to you that under your man, government grew even though the man said he was against big government?

Even so, your man Obama has quadrupled the BIGGNESS of government with his programs.

And what about that dirty, senseless war? How long have we been in Iraq? Was that what the nation bargained for when we elected the likes of George W. Bush and that stinker Dick cheney?

The war was Okay to everyone when 9/11 happened. There wasn't anybody crying at that time to not seek revenge or restitution. The Dems supported our going to war as well. Once you begin a dispute, it's not so easy to step aside. Your man Obama sees that now. When he was campaigning he promised to end the war ASAP. Now he knows better and sees how that would ruin things we started. It's okay for him to continue fighting over there though, huh?

Bush was given his turn. It didn't work. Now give Obama a turn. If and when we go belly up, you can be the first to say "I told you so, suckers!" Until then you're just blowing a bunch of hot air.

Where were you? We have gone belly up. Unemployment is nearing the big 10%. We're in debt to China, Russia, and everyone else for TRILLIONS.

Btw, I'll be all ears (or eyes as the case may be) when you have a well thought-out plan for revitalizing our economy and helping to repair the global economy from the far west to the far east.

I don't need to have a plan. He's the one with the smarts.:smile2: Yeah right!

But I know how to run a household. If you don't have the money for it, you say NO! And if your bills are more than your income, you get rid of some expenses to balance it out. Any moron can finance!!! You DON'T spend MORE!!!!!!

...................................................................