ExRx.net

Is he living up to yours so far? He is mine.

What standards do you have set for him...?

I like the fact that , at least so far, he's actually doing a few things he said he'd do. I don't like all the pork in his stimulus package, but that's for congress to debate, or be idiots and point fingers at each other like they're currently doing, but at least he met with the Republican leaders and made an attempt to bring them together in a bi-o=partisan fashion. And his cabinet choices are all over the map, with conservative and liberal picks. I gotta commend him for that. We just have to sit back and see how it turns out.
Tim

I mostly like it so far. I'm not pleased about everything, but I understand why it is the best way. He is doing his best not cause a big split in government or the public. He is trying to get as much of his agenda done as possible without angering most of the republicans. There is nothing anyone can do about the right wing so he isn't going to bother. The left isn't happy about everything and they complain, but I think most of them understand why.

I wasn't crazy about all the religious stuff, but I understand why it had to be done. He did acknowledge though that there are many of us who do not believe and made clear we should be free from religious influence. Never before has a president acknowledged non-believers or implied we have the same rights as everyone else.

As for the package, it may appear to be full of pork at first glance. However the intention is to spend money on projects that will both improve the country and create jobs. So the money is being put into the economy to stimulate growth. Under normal circumstance that would be considered wasteful spending or pork. However in this situation the spending is needed to kick start the economy.

It is going to be like the projects of 30's and 40's but on a smaller scale. Of course world war 2 had a lot to do with getting us out of the depression too.

This thread isn't about me. I am not a supporter. I was curious to see if those who supported him are happy with his appointments, handling of foreign affairs and spending - er - economic recovery bill. I'll give him a pass on everything else because he is new. So far he is betting 1.000 on my expectations. However, I'm trying to be open minded and am curious if his supporters still, um, are so committed.

But since you asked, I had full expectation that he would steer us towards socialism, which I vehemently oppose. In all appearances, that is exactly what he is doing (sorry no debate will change my mind so don't bother).

And, as for bi-partanism, I hardly consider the democrats inviting republicans to "discuss" the bill the day before the vote as bi-partisan. And then when they propose changes or a differnent bill, they are called obstructionists.

But, I digress. I am not looking for a debate and I am sorry for interjecting my political bias. Seriously, I am interested in seeing if you guys who supported him still feel the same way about the guy. Me, I feel that all my worst fears are coming true.

On a side note, I didn't vote this year. I didn't vote for barak because he's a socialist. I didn't vote for McCain because he is a closet socialist. I didn't know which was worse - the devil in plain view or the devil in disguise.

I won't offer a debate. However I will ask you to look up the definition of socialism. Then perhaps read an encyclopedia entry about it. For an example, the former Soviet Union is a good example of socialism, all be it a totalitarian example.

Now it would be accurate to describe Obama and Democrats as being further to the left than you, and that you think their ideas are bad, and that you prefer right wing points of view. That they are just too far to the left for your liking.

However to call that socialist would be like me calling John McCain's ideas fascist. It would be like me holding up an apple and saying it's an aardvark. I think the problem is you have Rush Limbaugh confused with Miriam Webster. Or is it Sean Hanity and Britannica? Or Anne Coulter and a political science expert? one of those.......

I think he's doing good under the current conditions.

As to the bill itself, while it does increase spending for infrastructure work, i.e. roads, etc, there is a heck of a lot of proposed money going out for sex education, funding for the arts, buying new computers for the scientists (the weather types), and other social programs, and while that can be argued to be good or bad, those aren't going to help get jobs or credit flowing, and I can see the republican viewpoint on that. But in case you missed something, Obama is just as P.O.'d at Pelosi and Reid as he is towards Baynor and Mcconnelk, because to those idiots, it's business as usual.
Tim

Hmm. I thought I knew what socialism was. I turns out I still do. Yes, the campaign promises and the spending bill pass the sniff test on socialism.

McCains ideas were just as socialist as baraks.

FWIW, I said socialist, not communist:

Socialism is a formal economic system in which society exerts considerable control over the nation's wealth and property in the pursuit of social justice.

Communism is a formal economic system in which property, particularly capital property (e.g. factories, machines, tools, etc.), is commonly owned and scarce resources are allocated through planning as opposed to price signals in a free market.

I see where you went wrong. First, look at the word "considerable" in your definition. The US has a long way to go before it can be considered socialist.

Also the USSR was not communist. That is a common misconception. They were actually socialist. China would be an example of a communist country. However even China is not pure communism, but it more or less is.

Now if you mean there are one or more aspects of the US government that are socialized in part, then yes that is true. Some of those parts of government will be slightly more socialized than they were under Bush.

So if that is your definition of socialism, than everything that is not fascism qualifies as socialism.

So that means according to your definition we are socialist unless the following happen.

No public schools, no welfare, social security, medicare, no disability pay, no unemployment insurance, no regulation of the markets of any kind, no assistance for any needy, elderly or disabled people of kind. No money for churches or hospitals, all roads are toll roads because there is no program for that. Possibly no police or military other than private security. If you have a medical problem and no insurance, too bad you die. If you are disabled and can't work anymore, you die unless your family can pay for you. No minimum wage, people can be payed slave wages if the job market is bad enough.

Does all that sound good to you. Or do you perhaps like to have a few parts of government that are partially socialized?

Do you have insurance of any kind? Insurance is socialism + company profit. Everyone pays in and you get money if you need it. Insurance is socialism. Do want to you cancel your policy and be rid of that nasty little socialized part of your life?

Here is what socialism actually is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

If you will notice a key aspect is either total nationalization or just state control.

In nationalization, the government controls all assets. In a state control system, the government is in control of all the capitol, but only the capitol and not all assets.

Communism differs from nationalism only in that resources and assets are distributed rather than staying in government control.

So if we go with reality, instead of whatever universe you are from, this country is nowhere near socialism.

It isn't even really liberalism. An example of a liberal government would that of many European countries.

Our country is, in reality, going from a semi-authoritarian right wing representative democracy to a moderate centrist representative democracy.

You can be right wing and hate center and left politics. That's fine. But try using the correct terminology. The problem is the right calls the left socialists in hyperbole. However you take it literally. I may refer to right wingers as totalitarian and/or fascist, but only as part of an obvious hyperbole meant to make a point through that exaggeration.

So try thinking for a change and learning the difference between rhetorical hyperbole and literal truth. Notice I don't disparage your politics. But you can't be taken seriously when you throw around words like socialism without knowing what they mean. Other than the Fox news truthiness definition of course.

C'mon Ironman. Don't get your feathers ruffled because I disagree with you. I respect you way too much. This isn't a thread about what is socialism and we can talk extremes all day. And yes, I believe we are headed to, at bare minimum, a lot more socialist goverment exactly by your wikipedia definitions - notice I'm not all saying communist.

Truthfully, I'm not interested in debating what socialism is with you nor if it is a good or bad idea, though I guarantee it would be fun over a cold beer. (sure call me stupid and ignorant because I'm too lazy to research the semantics)

I'm just curious as to how everyone feels about him so far. Are they happy with his cabinet choices and are people happy with the spending bill are they liking his approach to foreign affairs? Isn't that all we can ask now?

Perhaps I should start over. In reference to the earlier thread "Can barak live up to expectations," I was curious as to whether or not his supporters on the web site feel like they are getting what they expected.

Maiden asked a questions in which I shouldn't have responded, referencing my expectations which lead to all this other stuff.

So, if allowed to get back to the original question, so far, has he lived up to your expectations?

It seems as though his administration so far has done well to distance themselves from Bush. He seems to be less of "More of the same" type politics. So far he hasn't done anything that would make me question my vote for him.

Ill withhold further judgement until after his first 100 days. We should have a much clearer picture then, or so I hope.

During Bush's first term, the buzz word amongst Republican supporters were to stand behind the Commander-in-Chief (even no matter how wrong he is). Yes, that came about after his four reasons for invading Iraq were successively proven wrong.

In every aspect, foreign, domestic, economical, scientific research, social, military Bush has failed. The only possible exception is Africa but that came with ideological strings attached.

Now with a replacement, all one has to expect is better performance from all these aspects if the new President were a Republican. But the new President is a Democrat so naturally, some critics are already moving the bar unreasonably high. I'm reading in some other discussion forums where Obama is already to blame for events in the war in Afghanistan. It won't take long for these same critics to blame Obama on the recession and the deficit.

All feathers completely unruffled.

I don't even think one could say we are headed towards socialism. Even the most liberal democrats are miles away from seizing control of all capital. There isn't anyone from the Socialist party, or even the Green party in office. There is an independent from Vermont who is very Green party like, but that's it. Most of the Democrats are center left.



To be honest it is probably hard for me to Judge Obama right now. I'm still too giddy from Bush being gone. It's like when you wake and take leak and you're there going for 5 minutes draining out nearly a full quart. Then you just have this incredible feeling of relief. It's like when someone finally stops hitting you on the head with a hammer and suddenly shoots you up with a big dose of morphine.

So after someone stopped hitting me on the head with a hammer after 8 years, and I'm full of morphine, It's hard to say if someone just shot me in the back of the head with a rubber band.

If I felt like learning another language I'd probably move to Norway or Sweden or other similar country. Of course I'm not big on the cold either. What a standard of living though......

I read this somewhere (meaning that I don't know if it's true or not, or understand it, or even care), that Reagan was the biggest socialist of them all, by "redistributing the wealth" (in this case, five trillion dollars) to the wealthiest one percent of all Americans.

The new book "The Man Who Sold the World" should clear things up on Reagan.

I'm still rooting for Obama. Give the man time . . . and I agree with the "hammer" theory above.

I mean, Bush's first 100 days, about 98 of them were spent on his stupid ranch.