8 months after the election and 6 months after the Inauguration, how are you feeling about your vote?

--
The King's Throne

I'm feeling decent actually. Not extremely impressed, not disappointed, but pretty content overall.

--
Number of acts that reaffirm my faith in humanity: 66
What are these acts? [link]

Really? Because I think he's doing an abysmal job. I know, I know, it's only 6 months into the presidency, but he's not acting all that differently than Bush, especially with foreign policy. Yes, he's trying to ACT like he's being diplomatic, but he's upheld a lot of what Bush set in place. The only major difference is shutting down Guantanamo and pushing for socialized medicine (god help us). He's not really helping the economy any. With dumping so much money into the economy to try to save it, we should be seeing some sort of boost, yet we see very little inflation and unemployment continuing to grow. One could argue that we need to be spending more money, then. Sure, and eventually it would work, but then we'd have an even larger hole to climb out of, and our economy isn't that strong in this state, and even the world's strongest man has his limits of what he can do. We'd have to tax people to death, but if we want the economy to grow, we need money in the hands of the people. Of course, one solution is to heavily tax the rich in such a fashion that we'd all agree is incredibly unfair, but I suppose one could justify it as necessary. Though, is it truly American to rely on a small population for our preservation, or should it be an effort by all Americans'? Though, who gives a flying shit about American principles, anymore? We seem to have an overwhelmingly desire to move toward Socialism. Heh, that reminds me of Obama's victory speech and Obama's past words regarding the Constitution. Our founding fathers would be proud, even though Obama doesn't support half of the ideals they did, and he's even gone so far as to claim that the Constitution is severely flawed? Does he even listen to what he says? Apparently not, he thinks he's invincible, and a good example of that is what he said about a white cop that "acted stupidly". Whether or not that's true, Obama wasn't there, and he can only rely on the words of his friend (the arrested scholar) who, clearly, has a bias. Perhaps Obama should have been reading from a teleprompter, he wouldn't have been so clumsy with his words.

I fully understand that the economy is definitely the #1 priority for him, as it should be, and it would be for any other president who would have taken office be it Nader, Baldwin, Barr, McCain, etc... HOWEVER, I wouldn't mind it if Obama actually tried to push a social issue in here and there. It would definitely make my opinion of him higher.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

--
The King's Throne

Well I would like to see him acting even more different than Bush, but I disagree that he isn't different at all. On foreign policy- I think he is no different than he said he would be. I like that we're removing ourselves from Iraqi streets. I'm afraid that something is going to happen and we are going to be right back where we started, but at least it's a step. I don't like stepping it up in Afghanistan because I don't like sending more troops anywhere, but that's not an issue I'm very versed on. I know it seems a little shallow, but I think the diplomacy act is important. I think the fact that he doesn't sound like a blumbering idiot is important in the rest of the world's eyes and we definitely need the rest of the world's cooperation in the insanity that we're involved in in the middle east.

Speaking of Guantanamo, I'm actually annoyed at him for not going after Bush and company for authorizing 'enhanced interrogation techniques', although I never expected any differently. A little like Ford pardoning Nixon I guess. I'm glad for the other progress he's made in that area though.

Socialized health care I'm actually for. I think insurance companies are a very big problem because their purpose is to make money and they make more money not providing health care than they would if they provided it. My mother just lost her job a few months ago and she has a pacemaker. She needs regular appointments and can't be without insurance. Thankfully, her old jobs insurance will carry over for a few more months, but she will be in trouble when that runs out if she hasn't found a job, which doesn't seem to be happening. I knew a college-aged woman a while ago who was having heart palpitations but didn't see the doctor because she couldn't afford it. We are probably the wealthiest nation so I can't really understand why we aren't the healthiest. I know hearing 'gov't-run healthcare' is kindof cringe-inducing, but I look at the UK and Canada and I don't see catastrophe. I know my mom lived in London for a year when she was in college, and said going to the doctor was a million times easier. I know quite a few Canadians and have only heard them speak good of their health care.

The economy, I don't think the best president in the world could fix, because I think it's more of a consumer confidence problem. Presidents in general I think get too much blame when the economy's down (Bush included, even though I would hardly defend him usually) and too much credit when it's up. I think we do need more regulations in the financial industry because in the end, companies do what gets them money the fastest, like lending money to people who they know can't pay it back. That's more of a preventative measure than a solution to our current problem.

I like the stimulus money because it has been getting things done around town that give people jobs- taking down an old water tower, fixing roads- things that have been put aside for years since the local gov't has no money. I think the bailout money was crap. I think at the very least there should have been tons of rules that the company receiving our money had to follow. I would've liked to see some executives replaced, but I didn't expect them to be. If I failed at my job, I would get fired, but apparently it's different for them.

Socialism- no, I don't agree that there is a push toward socialism. I think there is a shift towards socialized health care, but the idea of a fixed income society is very scary. I would never, and I don't think the vast majority of the US would ever support socialism.

If I thought people would spend it in the right places, I would agree, the best way to get out of this recession (or whatever we're calling it now) would be to get money into the hands of the people, but I don't think the average American would. I think people who are scared would stuff money in their bank account, because that would be the responsible thing for a family to do: save in case of an emergency. But that doesn't help the economy get back on its feet.

Oh that "acted stupidly" comment was such a stupid thing for him to say. I heard him say it and I knew he would regret it. He should have said "I don't know enough about the situation to pass judgment," but I think he acted impulsively upon hearing the news. I will afford him a few stupid comments because I think he makes less than many people, but that was not an issue he should have tried to tackle sans teleprompter.

I agree completely with your last paragraph. I think his number one priority should be the economy, and I understand that because of this he's treading lightly. He's a politician and he doesn't want to risk losing public approval by doing something risky- like freezing the investigation of gay service members until DADT is removed (a very personal battle for me). I would have heaps of respect for him if he took on something that could get him in trouble, but I don't really expect him to. I support Obama but I'm not so naive as to say he's anything less (or more I should say) than a politician.

All in all, I am happy with the president. Could he be better? Certainly. Could he be worse? Certainly.

XD Sorry my reply's so long-winded. I didn't plan on writing so much but it's late and my head's a bit foggy.

--
Number of acts that reaffirm my faith in humanity: 66
What are these acts? [link]

What has he done differently than Bush? Let's not forget that Bush pushed for the federal bailout. Obama has only stepped up that spending. Obama upheld the idea that foreign citizens aren't American citizens, so they have no right to trial by jury. He is sending more troops to Afghanistan. Sounds a lot like the old boss.

As for socialized medicine, sure it's beneficial to most people. Like, for instance, myself. I have had no serious medical issues *knocks on wood* that would require any immediate attention. I could go 6 months to a year for a check-up. Hell, the only reason why I went in for a physical in January was for my job. Before that, it had been YEARS since I last saw a doctor. However, socialized medicine doesn't allow for technological leaps and bounds as we've been seeing in our healthcare. Sure, prices are rising as fast as technology, if not faster, but we provide better care. Healthcare for profit (I know, the idea sounds horrible) is the only way we can continue these strides in technology. It's the only way we can make doctors be the best they can be. Competition for profit is what drives innovation. Some doctors are better than others. There are health systems better than others. You have to be able to reward those that succeed. Otherwise you get our public school system. Do you know how hard it is to fire bad teachers? Do you know that good teachers have no incentive to be good because they can't get bonuses? Again, socialized medicine is fine if all you need is basic care. Unfortunately, there is greatly varying severity, and socalized medicine is not the answer because of that.

Oh, and did you know that Obama and Congress would be EXEMPT from socialized medicine? Hmm...

Besides, let's not forget who actually has to PAY for all of this, then. The taxpayers, and that's a whole other argument. I should not have to pay for the care of others simply because I *may* need the care eventually. I have no moral responsibility to pay for the care of others, why should it be my legal responsibility? This argument goes for any welfare programs, too. People have an easy time spending others' money, but they fail to realize they're taking the money from the general population. I'm sorry, but fuck spreading the wealth. I work for my money, it should be my right to hoard it, if I so choose.

Oh, and as far as Americans being unhealthy. It's not because we don't have good enough medicine or too few people with insurance. It's because we have too much food and too many luxuries. We're not exercising the way we need to, and we're taking in calories that rivals some Olympic athletes. Socialized medicine wouldn't be a mainstream idea if we took care of our bodies. Healthier lifestyles would lead to a healthier nation. Socialized medicine is an easy fix for that, though. Let people get fat, and then give them cheap healthcare to fix the health issues they (majorly) create themselves.

How does lending money to people who can't pay back a way for a bank to make money? That's how banks LOSE money, and lots of it. That's why we needed the bailouts in the first place because banks were going bankrupt because of that. It's not a way to screw the people. However, thanks to government incentives, banks took the risks, and not only did they pay for it, but the American taxpayers have, as well.

Again, with what I said above, all of this spending would be by the taxpayer. I should not be paying for road repairs or new water towers in a city that I don't reside in. It's not my responsibility. My community is my responsibility. Sure, I will agree that's the type of things the money SHOULD be going toward if it's going to be spent. However, I don't support that money being spent. It needs to be in the hands of people.

When the economy is bad, people don't shove their money in banks. Do you not remember the Great Depression? Banks didn't bankrupt because people saved too much. They went bankrupt because people took out all of their money. This is why banks got bailout money, and it's why the federal backing of savings account went up from $100k to $250k. They wanted to restore faith in banks, so people WOULD put money in banks. If people naturally saved in banks during a crisis, it wouldn't have been necessary.

How can people spend money in the wrong places? We're a services-based economy, and any money spent on services are going to directly help our economy. If where we spend our money is service providers, we're boosting our economy. We wouldn't be promoting a goods-based economy, but that doesn't matter since we're not one, anyway.

Other than that, I think we agree on social issues, and, as we both agree, Obama hasn't done anything for social issues, so there's not a lot to discuss there.

--
The King's Throne

Well I will agree that Obama on foreign policy is not that much different than Bush beyond the words and the face he shows to the rest of the world.

And as for socialized medicine, the idea is that it is of benefit to most people. And there is no way politically that a single-payer health system would happen in this country and maybe you're right, maybe it is better for insurance companies to battle it out. But adding in a government option and adding in more government standards to health care does not get rid of other companies. In fact it would increase competition because companies would have to be better than the government's plan in order to make money. Where I live, we have one health insurance company to choose from so it can charge whatever it likes. There is no competition at all.

And even if it was a single payer health system, that's not getting rid of the drug companies and equipment companies who would still have to compete to research new medicines and new methods to sell to hospitals.

The way teachers can cling to their jobs is bad. And I plan on being a teacher. But I blame that more on tenure than on the fact that they can't get bonuses, especially since I know that there is a lot of competition to even get a spot as a teacher. I know a band teacher that retired this year and he said that there were 500 applications for his job. I think the idea that you need to be better than the rest of the herd to get and to keep your job would be incentive enough. But again, that's teaching. For doctors, they wouldn't be only being payed by the government. Other insurance companies would still be operating. And doctors, I assume, would not have tenure.

And yes, the obesity and the lack of exercise in general is probably responsible for most of the health problems, but maybe better education by the health care industry would help. Going on as we are will not change anything, though.

And I'm not looking to spread the wealth. I think if you work for your money, then you should gain money, but in a country that has so much wealth I think it is a responsibility of those who can to take care of the very basic needs people have.

And as for the stimulus money I understand that it's not your responsibility to pay for my water tower being built, but it's not like I'm not paying for it at all. I am, and everyone else in my community is. Any projects in your town that have used stimulus money have come out of your pocket and my pocket and anyone else's. And you gain the benefit of bringing more money into the economy by giving people jobs and hopefully helping the economy up a little bit.

Banks don't need to get the money back from the people they lent it to to get a quick profit. They can sell the loan to another bank for the amount that they lent and maybe the next bank isn't aware that the people who took out the money shouldn't have been given the loan or maybe they don't care. But the first bank gets a quick profit and it's no longer their problem.

Banks collapsed in the Great Depression because people were taking money out, correct, but it wasn't because people were going out and spending that money. They still saved it. That's why you hear all of those stories of Depression-era people dieing and their relatives finding secret stashes of money in the basement. Because the banks had been so invested in the stock market when it crashed, some banks began to fail, so, fearing their own banks would fail, everyone ran to withdraw their money, and even more failed. When FDR did his radio chats after the bank holidays, he had to reassure people that the irresponsible or irreparable banks weren't reopening. Only the safe banks were, which was a way of telling people they could trust the banks with their money. I wasn't saying specifically people stuff money in banks. I should've said they save money. The point is that they don't spend it, and that doesn't get us out of this recession.

And in a services-based economy, spending money at the Walmarts and the big corporations that aren't really in trouble is the 'wrong' place to spend it. It's just another drop in the bucket for them. Spending money in the little stores and the family-owned stores is the better way to reinvigorate the economy because it really makes a difference. It means that that store doesn't have to close its doors. That family has a little more money in the long run. The problem is, as is with the big stores in the first place, that smaller stores can't lower their prices like Walmart can. They don't have that kind of money.

--
Number of acts that reaffirm my faith in humanity: 66
What are these acts? [link]