Seems more & more are getting the message that this street hustler is in 
way, way in over his head.
Reduced to pleading sound bites and going on the talk show circuit, and 
relying near complete on the advice of such murky characters as Rahm 
Emanuel, a creepy Chicago jew with strong ties to the jew state, David 
M. Axelrod, yet another "adviser" from the yiddish tribe, and any number 
of unelected, radical "czars".

If no blacks or jews were polled, his approval numbers would drop into 
the single digits.
So much for the great uniter.

````````````````````````````````````````````````


Barack Obama sees worst poll rating drop in 50 years

The decline in Barack Obama's popularity since July has been the 
steepest of any president at the same stage of his first term for more 
than 50 years.


By Toby Harnden in Washington
Published: 7:38PM BST 22 Oct 2009

Gallup recorded an average daily approval rating of 53 per cent for Mr 
Obama for the third quarter of the year, a sharp drop from the 62 per 
cent he recorded from April.

His current approval rating – hovering just above the level that would 
make re-election an uphill struggle – is close to the bottom for 
newly-elected president. Mr Obama entered the White House with a soaring 
78 per cent approval rating.


The bad polling news came as Mr Obama returned to the campaign trail to 
prevent his Democratic party losing two governorships next month in 
states in which he defeated Senator John McCain in last November's election.

Jeffrey Jones of Gallup explained: "The dominant political focus for 
Obama in the third quarter was the push for health care reform, 
including his nationally televised address to Congress in early September.

"Obama hoped that Congress would vote on health care legislation before 
its August recess, but that goal was missed, and some members of 
Congress faced angry constituents at town hall meetings to discuss 
health care reform. Meanwhile, unemployment continued to climb near 10 
per cent."

Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey is in severe danger of defeat while 
Democrats are fast losing hope that Creigh Deeds can beat his Republican 
opponent in Virginia. Twin Democratic losses would be a major blow to Mr 
Obama's prestige.

Campaigning for Mr Corzine in Hackensack on Wednesday night, Mr Obama 
delivered a plea that almost seemed as much for himself as the local 
candidate: "I'm here today to urge you to cast aside the cynics and the 
sceptics, and prove to all Americans that leaders who do what's right 
and who do what's hard will be rewarded and not rejected."

Mr Corzine, a former Goldman Sachs executive and multi-millionaire, is 
currently running even in New Jersey, which is normally comfortably 
Democratic, while Mr Deeds is trailing badly in Virginia, a swing state 
that was key to Mr Obama's 2008 victory.

Mr Obama is also facing widespread criticism for his drawn-out 
decision-making process over what to do next in Afghanistan.

Republicans sense Mr Obama is in a vulnerable position and this week saw 
the return to the public stage of his perhaps most vehement opponent – 
Vice-President Dick Cheney.

In a blistering speech on Wednesday night, he accused Mr Obama of 
failing to give Americans troops on the ground a clear mission or 
defined goals and of being seemingly "afraid to make a decision" about 
Afghanistan "The White House must stop dithering while America's armed 
forces are in danger," Cheney said at the Center for Security Policy in 
Washington.

"Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our 
allies and embolden our adversaries."

He hit out at Obama aides who suggested that the Bush administration had 
failed to weigh up conditions in Afghanistan properly before committing 
troops.

"Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure 
to implement the strategy they embraced. It's time for President Obama 
to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a 
war of necessity."

http://tinyurl.com/yznzgwc

Apart from the fact Jesus couldn't live up to the expectatons Obama was 
being built up for, Obama is fighting on too many fronts and prioritising 
his battles incorrectly.

The "Fox News" war (if you've heard about that) is also a bit creepy.  I 
agree that a lot of Fox is opinion, but that's what you're supposed to be 
swaying as a politician.  I've never heard of an elected government treating 
a news organisation like that before (Nixon was too early for me!).

I also think he's unwise to be throwing so much money around while the US is 
still recovering from the stock market collapse (et al) and is currently 
fighting a war.  You don't know what you might need that money for - what if 
the market dives again?  What if there's another attack agaisnt the US and 
America finds itself in a new conflict?  One of the main threats to 
America's power in the world is the threat to it's cash.  The more you have 
stashed the more insured you are against shit happening.  I would have 
thought that stood to reason.

I would have thought the smart thing to do would be deal with the existing 
problems first, and not create any new ones until you'd dealt with the old 
ones.  That doesn't seem to be happening, and I think people are losing 
confidence and perhaps even becoming a little suspicious.


TWP

In message <yAoEm.62976$Ku5.28906@newsfe04.iad>, Jesse 
writes
>Barack Obama sees worst poll rating drop in 50 years
>
>The decline in Barack Obama's popularity since July has been the
>steepest of any president at the same stage of his first term for more
>than 50 years.
>
>By Toby Harnden in Washington
>Published: 7:38PM BST 22 Oct 2009
>
>Gallup recorded an average daily approval rating of 53 per cent for Mr
>Obama for the third quarter of the year, a sharp drop from the 62 per
>cent he recorded from April.

So he still has the confidence of over half the population. Which is
what counts in a democracy

53%..... remind what was Bushes rating in the end?  Lowest in history of
US presidents?



-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , TWP
 writes
>Apart from the fact Jesus couldn't live up to the expectatons Obama was
>being built up for,

I  agree also it would take a God to recover from the mess Bush had
created.

>Obama is fighting on too many fronts

I agree... Bush left the country in an impossible position.

> and prioritising
>his battles incorrectly.

That we could argue over. :-)


>I also think he's unwise to be throwing so much money around while the US is
>still recovering from the stock market collapse (et al) and is currently
>fighting a war.

Well those were both situations he inherited. However the throwing money
around has brought Europe and Asia out of rescission.  I am told that
the US has turned the corner in some areas but as it is in such a mess
it will take a longer time to filter though to the population as a
whole, if ever as the game and world has changed.

> You don't know what you might need that money for - what if
>the market dives again?

That is a risk you will have to take but if you don't spend the money
you won't get out of the hole you are in now.

>  What if there's another attack agaisnt the US

That is likely.... Bush's 8 years gained the US many enemys and lost it
most if not all of it's friends.

>and
>America finds itself in a new conflict?

Then don't. All the conflicts in the last decade have been of it's own
making. Leave Iran and N.Korea (and Israel) alone.

> One of the main threats to
>America's power in the world is the threat to it's cash.  The more you have
>stashed the more insured you are against shit happening.  I would have
>thought that stood to reason.

The US is bankrupt. The Chinese own so much of the US and hold so many
bonds stocks and USD that they can bring the US to it's knees in about 2
hours simply by dumping dollars.   So can the Arabs if they are minded.

Also the US has a fuel crisis. It does not have enough refining capacity
and is importing refined oil.  It is literally over an economic barrel

The USD has value in the USA but it's value outside is on a knife edge.
SO using the cash, which could be come worthless at any second, to build
in recovery is a smart move.

As I said WW3 has been and gone and the US lost.

>I would have thought the smart thing to do would be deal with the existing
>problems first, and not create any new ones until you'd dealt with the old
>ones.

I agree and Obama appears to be doing that.

> That doesn't seem to be happening, and I think people are losing
>confidence and perhaps even becoming a little suspicious.

They are loosing confidence because they don't like reality... see my
posts from 2002-6  As the new world order bites and the US population
has to get used to a lower standard of living  they won't like it but it
is the only way to survive. It is that or become a 3rd world basket
case.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Chris H"  wrote in message 
news:T+PipSDLms4KFAjS@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message , TWP
>  writes
>>Apart from the fact Jesus couldn't live up to the expectatons Obama was
>>being built up for,
>
> I  agree also it would take a God to recover from the mess Bush had
> created.
>
>>Obama is fighting on too many fronts
>
> I agree... Bush left the country in an impossible position.
>
>> and prioritising
>>his battles incorrectly.
>
> That we could argue over. :-)
>
>
>>I also think he's unwise to be throwing so much money around while the US 
>>is
>>still recovering from the stock market collapse (et al) and is currently
>>fighting a war.
>
> Well those were both situations he inherited. However the throwing money
> around has brought Europe and Asia out of rescission.  I am told that
> the US has turned the corner in some areas but as it is in such a mess
> it will take a longer time to filter though to the population as a
> whole, if ever as the game and world has changed.
>
>> You don't know what you might need that money for - what if
>>the market dives again?
>
> That is a risk you will have to take but if you don't spend the money
> you won't get out of the hole you are in now.
>
>>  What if there's another attack agaisnt the US
>
> That is likely.... Bush's 8 years gained the US many enemys and lost it
> most if not all of it's friends.
>
>>and
>>America finds itself in a new conflict?
>
> Then don't. All the conflicts in the last decade have been of it's own
> making. Leave Iran and N.Korea (and Israel) alone.
>
>> One of the main threats to
>>America's power in the world is the threat to it's cash.  The more you 
>>have
>>stashed the more insured you are against shit happening.  I would have
>>thought that stood to reason.
>
> The US is bankrupt. The Chinese own so much of the US and hold so many
> bonds stocks and USD that they can bring the US to it's knees in about 2
> hours simply by dumping dollars.   So can the Arabs if they are minded.
>
> Also the US has a fuel crisis. It does not have enough refining capacity
> and is importing refined oil.  It is literally over an economic barrel
>
> The USD has value in the USA but it's value outside is on a knife edge.
> SO using the cash, which could be come worthless at any second, to build
> in recovery is a smart move.
>
> As I said WW3 has been and gone and the US lost.
>
>>I would have thought the smart thing to do would be deal with the existing
>>problems first, and not create any new ones until you'd dealt with the old
>>ones.
>
> I agree and Obama appears to be doing that.
>

What about this "public healthcare" thing?  That doesn't have to be done 
right now, but it's being pursued with the determination of the UK's ID card 
scheme.  If they're gong to spend into deficit on that, it's going to add at 
least anther trillion to the deficit.  I don't know how much of that will 
come from tax increases.  Probably not much to start with.  A big tax rise 
would see Obama right out on his ear.

I don't think Obama should have spent so much on bailing the US out of the 
collapse either.  I remember last year discussing with HH that you don't 
know what the money is doing once you put it into the system.  All you end 
up doing is artificially re-inflating and artificially inflated market. 
They should have just bought up pensions or maybe pensions and some bank 
assests and then just left the rest of the banks to die.  Someone else would 
have filled in the gaps.  Maybe foreign banks, but realistically foreign 
investment was probably always going to come in, either by investment, 
buy-outs or loans that they won't pay back in our lifetime.  I wonder if the 
bail-out scheme isn't just going to turn into a two-party pyramid scheme, 
where one party keeps putting in money so that others can come along and 
take money out.

I just saw something on Chinese News (I don't watch that very often - it 
depresses me! :-) ) but they seemed to be doing something interesting.  I 
don't know if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick, but they appeared to 
be seperating their stock market into graded share markets, with really 
stable companies (presumably ones not inclined or not able to take stupid 
risks) in one market and the rest in other lower tier ones.  Maybe the US 
could try that.  Split up their stock market a bit so that maybe nosedives 
could be isolated by firewalls between stock markets.  That way you might be 
able to avoid a big panic sell-off in the whole market.  Might help a bit. 
What would they have to lose?

I'm not an expert in this.  I've maybe said a few dumb things here.  It's 
just as I see it from what I understand of it.


TWP

"Chris H"  wrote in message 
news:2eerxyCNbs4KFAF4@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...


> 53%..... remind what was Bushes rating in the end?  Lowest in history of
> US presidents?
>

Obama could still get confidence back.  He's got to start actually walking 
on water instead of just talking about it! :-)


TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> Apart from the fact Jesus couldn't live up to the expectatons Obama was 
> being built up for, Obama is fighting on too many fronts and prioritising 
> his battles incorrectly.
>
> The "Fox News" war (if you've heard about that) is also a bit creepy.  I 
> agree that a lot of Fox is opinion, but that's what you're supposed to be 
> swaying as a politician.  I've never heard of an elected government 
> treating a news organisation like that before (Nixon was too early for 
> me!).
>
> I also think he's unwise to be throwing so much money around while the US 
> is still recovering from the stock market collapse (et al) and is 
> currently fighting a war.  You don't know what you might need that money 
> for - what if the market dives again?  What if there's another attack 
> agaisnt the US and America finds itself in a new conflict?  One of the 
> main threats to America's power in the world is the threat to it's cash. 
> The more you have stashed the more insured you are against shit happening. 
> I would have thought that stood to reason.
>
> I would have thought the smart thing to do would be deal with the existing 
> problems first, and not create any new ones until you'd dealt with the old 
> ones.  That doesn't seem to be happening, and I think people are losing 
> confidence and perhaps even becoming a little suspicious.

The thing is he stood on a platform of change and those who elected him 
expect to see him put promises into action.

He inherited a lot of problems from the previous Administration and has to 
fix those while pursuing his own and party goals. It's easy to say how he 
should do this or that, say what his priority should be, but we're not 
running his country, nor representing those who elected him.

On healthcare reform, he's probably surprised that there's so much 
resistance to guaranteed healtthcare for all which is a normal and expected 
thing elsewhere in the west.  That's no reason to abandon plans which he has 
a mandate for. Comparison with ID Cards in another post is wrong because New 
Labour has no mandate for them and the majority of the public are against 
them.

Building up further debt to get out of a hole is nothing new. To say one 
must fix existing problems before moving on to new issues would just cripple 
any government, cause stagnation. It neuters Presisential and all political 
power; they cannot do any 'good' until they've fixed the 'bad' of previous 
Administrations. It would be a tool to render subsequent Administrations 
ineffectual and unable to offer new mandates.

Obama may be facing a lot of fights but it doesn't mean they are not all 
justified or that he has to reel in ambitions. I'm quite sure those who 
elected him realised such fights would come and expect him to fight them. 
Obviously there will always be those who say he's doing it wrong, in whole 
or in part, but that would happen no matter what he did. He was voted in by 
an electorate who expect him to do what he promised; what more can anyone 
ask of a President ? Surely you don't expect him to listen to a minority 
that opposes him rather than a majority which supports him ?

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:UhDEm.1170$5w5.778@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> Apart from the fact Jesus couldn't live up to the expectatons Obama was 
>> being built up for, Obama is fighting on too many fronts and prioritising 
>> his battles incorrectly.
>>
>> The "Fox News" war (if you've heard about that) is also a bit creepy.  I 
>> agree that a lot of Fox is opinion, but that's what you're supposed to be 
>> swaying as a politician.  I've never heard of an elected government 
>> treating a news organisation like that before (Nixon was too early for 
>> me!).
>>
>> I also think he's unwise to be throwing so much money around while the US 
>> is still recovering from the stock market collapse (et al) and is 
>> currently fighting a war.  You don't know what you might need that money 
>> for - what if the market dives again?  What if there's another attack 
>> agaisnt the US and America finds itself in a new conflict?  One of the 
>> main threats to America's power in the world is the threat to it's cash. 
>> The more you have stashed the more insured you are against shit 
>> happening. I would have thought that stood to reason.
>>
>> I would have thought the smart thing to do would be deal with the 
>> existing problems first, and not create any new ones until you'd dealt 
>> with the old ones.  That doesn't seem to be happening, and I think people 
>> are losing confidence and perhaps even becoming a little suspicious.
>
> The thing is he stood on a platform of change and those who elected him 
> expect to see him put promises into action.
>

It's not realistic to expect him to work instant miracles.  If he presses 
the wrong buttons everything will come crashing down around him.


> Building up further debt to get out of a hole is nothing new. To say one 
> must fix existing problems before moving on to new issues would just 
> cripple any government, cause stagnation. It neuters Presisential and all 
> political power; they cannot do any 'good' until they've fixed the 'bad' 
> of previous Administrations. It would be a tool to render subsequent 
> Administrations ineffectual and unable to offer new mandates.
>

No it wouldn't.  He doesn't have to do anything immediately.  I'm sure his 
public would forgive him if he said they'd have to be patient because the 
health scheme would be expensive and the economy needed to recover a bit. 
We've been promised things in elections that have been delayed and delayed.



> Obama may be facing a lot of fights but it doesn't mean they are not all 
> justified or that he has to reel in ambitions. I'm quite sure those who 
> elected him realised such fights would come and expect him to fight them.


He doesn't need to pursue that ridiculous vendetta against Fox News that Fox 
keeps reminding us about.  I never (well, rarely!) saw anything so stupid. 
That wont make him more popular.  If that's an example of how he picks his 
battles and priorities the guy who gets in after him is going to be 
complaining even more loudly at the mess left behind.


> Obviously there will always be those who say he's doing it wrong, in whole 
> or in part, but that would happen no matter what he did. He was voted in 
> by an electorate who expect him to do what he promised; what more can 
> anyone ask of a President ? Surely you don't expect him to listen to a 
> minority that opposes him rather than a majority which supports him ?
>

I'm not expecting him to listen to anyone.  He's a politician! :-)

I do think it's a good idea to stop digging while you're in the hole. 
Obviously nation states can play the game in a different way to everyone 
else who owes money, but I still think they need to be careful.  The world 
now might not be the same one as the world next week.

Obama still stands in between greatness and disaster.  Nothing has tipped 
either way yet.


TWP

This might be of interest.

Graph of US deficit spending as % of GDP.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Look at that... we have a graph too! :-)

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1945_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2009&chart=G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=UK%20National%20Debt%20As%20Pct%20GDP

TWP wrote:
> Apart from the fact Jesus couldn't live up to the expectatons Obama was 
> being built up for, Obama is fighting on too many fronts and prioritising 
> his battles incorrectly.
> 
> The "Fox News" war (if you've heard about that) is also a bit creepy.  I 
> agree that a lot of Fox is opinion, but that's what you're supposed to be 
> swaying as a politician.  I've never heard of an elected government treating 
> a news organisation like that before (Nixon was too early for me!).
> 
> I also think he's unwise to be throwing so much money around while the US is 
> still recovering from the stock market collapse (et al) and is currently 
> fighting a war.  You don't know what you might need that money for - what if 
> the market dives again?  What if there's another attack agaisnt the US and 
> America finds itself in a new conflict?  One of the main threats to 
> America's power in the world is the threat to it's cash.  The more you have 
> stashed the more insured you are against shit happening.  I would have 
> thought that stood to reason.
> 
> I would have thought the smart thing to do would be deal with the existing 
> problems first, and not create any new ones until you'd dealt with the old 
> ones.  That doesn't seem to be happening, and I think people are losing 
> confidence and perhaps even becoming a little suspicious.
> 
> 
> TWP

Many here have commented on the fact that Obongo still seems to be in 
campaign mode, and cannot break free from the cycle of attacking his 
perceived enemies, such as typically happens in campaigns.

Fox is just the tip of the iceberg, early on his minions attacked Rush 
Limbaugh in the same fashion.
Big mistake to take on media titans like that, even the Mafia shies away 
from attacking news reporters.

The main defense, and mode of attack, of any public black person here 
embroiled in controversy is to play the race card - It has got to be 
highly galling to Obama that he has so far been unable to do this.
He has his minions do this to a certain extent, dropping broad hints 
that some people don't like him because "hes not like us" or something 
like that, but you know that hes just itching to blurt out "they hate me 
because I'm a nigger!".
Aware of the explosive controversy this would cause, he has so far not 
done it, but I think its a matter of time.
Hes still a small time Chicago politician & street hustler at heart, and 
these tactics of demonizing those who don't whole heartedly fall in line 
with his mantra can only lead in one direction.

I'm tempted to say "give him a little time".
He did inherit a mess - Every president in history, I believe, has 
blamed shortcomings of the previous administration ,,, And with some 
degree of validity.
Hes been in over half a year though, has astronomically increased our 
debt, unemployment has skyrocketed in the months he has been in power, 
has sent untold $billions& into a black hole, and no signs of things 
getting much better on the horizon.
Its time to stop looking for excuses, and start making proposals and 
taking actions that have genuine bi-partisan support, not just his pet 
social engineering schemes that he is trying to foist on an unwilling 
public.

I'll say again, my main concern about this guy is the creepy yids around 
him talking in his ear.
A man as drastically unprepared for leadership as Obama relies heavily 
on advisers, and I sure as hell don't like what I see in that regards.

TWP wrote:
> "Chris H"  wrote in message 
> news:2eerxyCNbs4KFAF4@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> 
> 
>> 53%..... remind what was Bushes rating in the end?  Lowest in history of
>> US presidents?
>>
> 
> Obama could still get confidence back.  He's got to start actually walking 
> on water instead of just talking about it! :-)
> 
> 
> TWP

The article clearly stated, in semi bold letters, at the very beginning 
on the article:

"The decline in Barack Obama's popularity since July has been the 
steepest of any president at the same stage of his first term for more 
than 50 years."

So why Chris is talking about "the end" is anyones guess.

On 2009-10-24 23:06:37 +0200, Jesse  said:

> TWP wrote:
>> "Chris H"  wrote in message 
>> news:2eerxyCNbs4KFAF4@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> 
>> 
>>> 53%..... remind what was Bushes rating in the end?  Lowest in history of
>>> US presidents?
>>> 
>> 
>> Obama could still get confidence back.  He's got to start actually 
>> walking on water instead of just talking about it! :-)
>> 
>> 
>> TWP
> 
> The article clearly stated, in semi bold letters, at the very beginning 
> on the article:
> 
> "The decline in Barack Obama's popularity since July has been the 
> steepest of any president at the same stage of his first term for more 
> than 50 years."
> 
> So why Chris is talking about "the end" is anyones guess.


So tell me, was he put in power as a result of opinion polls or was 
there an actual election or something?

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:BXJEm.288078$cf6.43586@newsfe16.iad...
> TWP wrote:
>> Apart from the fact Jesus couldn't live up to the expectatons Obama was 
>> being built up for, Obama is fighting on too many fronts and prioritising 
>> his battles incorrectly.
>>
>> The "Fox News" war (if you've heard about that) is also a bit creepy.  I 
>> agree that a lot of Fox is opinion, but that's what you're supposed to be 
>> swaying as a politician.  I've never heard of an elected government 
>> treating a news organisation like that before (Nixon was too early for 
>> me!).
>>
>> I also think he's unwise to be throwing so much money around while the US 
>> is still recovering from the stock market collapse (et al) and is 
>> currently fighting a war.  You don't know what you might need that money 
>> for - what if the market dives again?  What if there's another attack 
>> agaisnt the US and America finds itself in a new conflict?  One of the 
>> main threats to America's power in the world is the threat to it's cash. 
>> The more you have stashed the more insured you are against shit 
>> happening.  I would have thought that stood to reason.
>>
>> I would have thought the smart thing to do would be deal with the 
>> existing problems first, and not create any new ones until you'd dealt 
>> with the old ones.  That doesn't seem to be happening, and I think people 
>> are losing confidence and perhaps even becoming a little suspicious.
>>
>>
>> TWP
>
> Many here have commented on the fact that Obongo still seems to be in 
> campaign mode, and cannot break free from the cycle of attacking his 
> perceived enemies, such as typically happens in campaigns.
>
> Fox is just the tip of the iceberg, early on his minions attacked Rush 
> Limbaugh in the same fashion.
> Big mistake to take on media titans like that, even the Mafia shies away 
> from attacking news reporters.
>
> The main defense, and mode of attack, of any public black person here 
> embroiled in controversy is to play the race card - It has got to be 
> highly galling to Obama that he has so far been unable to do this.
> He has his minions do this to a certain extent, dropping broad hints that 
> some people don't like him because "hes not like us" or something like 
> that, but you know that hes just itching to blurt out "they hate me 
> because I'm a nigger!".
> Aware of the explosive controversy this would cause, he has so far not 
> done it, but I think its a matter of time.
> Hes still a small time Chicago politician & street hustler at heart, and 
> these tactics of demonizing those who don't whole heartedly fall in line 
> with his mantra can only lead in one direction.
>
> I'm tempted to say "give him a little time".
> He did inherit a mess - Every president in history, I believe, has blamed 
> shortcomings of the previous administration ,,, And with some degree of 
> validity.
> Hes been in over half a year though, has astronomically increased our 
> debt, unemployment has skyrocketed in the months he has been in power, has 
> sent untold $billions& into a black hole, and no signs of things getting 
> much better on the horizon.
> Its time to stop looking for excuses, and start making proposals and 
> taking actions that have genuine bi-partisan support, not just his pet 
> social engineering schemes that he is trying to foist on an unwilling 
> public.
>
> I'll say again, my main concern about this guy is the creepy yids around 
> him talking in his ear.
> A man as drastically unprepared for leadership as Obama relies heavily on 
> advisers, and I sure as hell don't like what I see in that regards.


I don't know how you guys will get on with universal healthcare.  It would 
probably be something you became accustomed to having eventually and 
wouldn't want to do without, but you'd have to get used to a lot more 
taxes - I would expect fuel tax would be one way to start.  It would have 
plausible deniability.  You were promised no increase in personal taxation, 
and it would be true!

Our NHS does offer security knowing that if you're ill you'll be treated 
regardless of how rich you are.  The trouble is it does cost a lot of money 
in other ways.  Anyone who calls it "free healthcare" should be locked up 
and whipped.  It most definately isn't.  Our NHS never seems to have enough 
money.  I once had to have my eyes tested at hospital and overheard one 
specialist talking to another about how he'd repeatedly had to fire a laser 
at his patient's eye instead of just once because their laser equipment was 
wearing out.  When family members have had to go to hospital for injuries 
they've often struggled because the foreign doctors there spoke terrible 
English - to the point that it was difficult to describe what you were 
attending for.  I always thought that was dangerous.  The NHS has nearly 
always given me the impression of a very low-budget operaton.  Then of 
course a few people don't get treatment at all because their life-extending 
treatment is uneconomical, or for some other reason.  In that respect it's 
not actually universal.  For the great majority it'll be much better than 
nothing though.

I suppose there's an inflation going on with healthcare.  As you get more 
people who live longer you get (people x life expectancy) years to insure 
against risk of injury along with (people x 1 / risk of having an expensive 
disease).  The more successful the system, the more it costs!

It's not a bad idea in itself, but it needs doing right.  Voting on 1,500 
page laws that no-one can be given time to read and can't be published on 
the internet for review, and news organisations who point out the flaws in 
the plan being kicked out of future interviews doesn't sound like doing it 
right to me.  I think it's crap like that that's really taking out Obama. 
It betrays trust - and he's doing it to himself.


TWP

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>Our NHS does offer security knowing that if you're ill you'll be treated
>regardless of how rich you are.  The trouble is it does cost a lot of money
>in other ways.

Interestingly the US system costs more than the NHS but the US system
only treats 80% of the country.  So the US systems is expensive and
leaves at least 20% of the people in the US without healthcare. Much
like any other 3rd world country.

The US is the only industrialised country without universal healthcare.
So it fails the criteria for "civilised" though I expect the US
republicans will redfine civilised... a common trait. When the US fails
to meet international expectations they redefine the worlds and wonder
whey the loose all credibility with the rest of the world. Of course as
the majority of Americans have no concept of the rest of the world it
does not bother them.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On 2009-10-25 09:52:30 +0100, Chris H  said:

> In message , TWP
>  writes
>> 
>> Our NHS does offer security knowing that if you're ill you'll be treated
>> regardless of how rich you are.  The trouble is it does cost a lot of money
>> in other ways.
> 
> Interestingly the US system costs more than the NHS but the US system
> only treats 80% of the country.  So the US systems is expensive and
> leaves at least 20% of the people in the US without healthcare. Much
> like any other 3rd world country.
> 
> The US is the only industrialised country without universal healthcare.
> So it fails the criteria for "civilised" though I expect the US
> republicans will redfine civilised... a common trait. When the US fails
> to meet international expectations they redefine the worlds and wonder
> whey the loose all credibility with the rest of the world. Of course as
> the majority of Americans have no concept of the rest of the world it
> does not bother them.


This is the good old capitalist system in full swing. The US health 
system applies itself to the patients that can afford to be treated. 
The rest, the 20% or so who have no money, are not worth handling. They 
are in general less fit (poor people do not have such good health) and 
thus require more treatment but have less money. Capitalism is not 
interested in this sector.

And now they are looking at being forced to include these people they 
are kicking and spitting like a bunch of ferrets in a corn sack.

"Krak"  wrote ...

> On 2009-10-25 09:52:30 +0100, Chris H  said:
>
>> In message , TWP
>>  writes
>>>
>>> Our NHS does offer security knowing that if you're ill you'll be treated
>>> regardless of how rich you are.  The trouble is it does cost a lot of 
>>> money
>>> in other ways.
>>
>> Interestingly the US system costs more than the NHS but the US system
>> only treats 80% of the country.  So the US systems is expensive and
>> leaves at least 20% of the people in the US without healthcare. Much
>> like any other 3rd world country.
>>
>> The US is the only industrialised country without universal healthcare.
>> So it fails the criteria for "civilised" though I expect the US
>> republicans will redfine civilised... a common trait. When the US fails
>> to meet international expectations they redefine the worlds and wonder
>> whey the loose all credibility with the rest of the world. Of course as
>> the majority of Americans have no concept of the rest of the world it
>> does not bother them.
>
>
> This is the good old capitalist system in full swing. The US health system 
> applies itself to the patients that can afford to be treated. The rest, 
> the 20% or so who have no money, are not worth handling. They are in 
> general less fit (poor people do not have such good health) and thus 
> require more treatment but have less money. Capitalism is not interested 
> in this sector.
>
> And now they are looking at being forced to include these people they are 
> kicking and spitting like a bunch of ferrets in a corn sack.

In the west and elsewhere - even where capitalism an the free market has a 
stronghold - it's generally considered morally wrong not to help one's 
fellow man who cannot help themselves, in the US it often seems that those 
who cannot help themselves are seen as deserving of all the consequences 
from that.

I've never understood how a country built upon a bedrock of Christianity can 
ignore the lessons of the Good Samaritan, that true richness lies in putting 
others above yourself, and warnings that the love of money is the root of 
all evil, and the knowledge of eyes of needles. I sometimes think that these 
'Christians' have a different Bible to what others have, the 'socialism' and 
the love for fellow man that Jesus had is simply pushed aside.

In message <hc18o0$9rr$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Krak 
writes
>On 2009-10-25 09:52:30 +0100, Chris H  said:
>
>> In message , TWP
>>  writes
>>>  Our NHS does offer security knowing that if you're ill you'll be
>>>treated
>>> regardless of how rich you are.  The trouble is it does cost a lot of money
>>> in other ways.
>>  Interestingly the US system costs more than the NHS but the US
>>system
>> only treats 80% of the country.  So the US systems is expensive and
>> leaves at least 20% of the people in the US without healthcare. Much
>> like any other 3rd world country.
>>  The US is the only industrialised country without universal
>>healthcare.
>> So it fails the criteria for "civilised" though I expect the US
>> republicans will redfine civilised... a common trait. When the US fails
>> to meet international expectations they redefine the worlds and wonder
>> whey the loose all credibility with the rest of the world. Of course as
>> the majority of Americans have no concept of the rest of the world it
>> does not bother them.
>
>
>This is the good old capitalist system in full swing. The US health
>system applies itself to the patients that can afford to be treated.

Also because it is treatment by insurance the costs are jacked up and
more expensive than anywhere else in the world.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Chris H"  wrote in message 
news:5Dv4m+DOHB5KFAck@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message , TWP
>  writes
>>
>>Our NHS does offer security knowing that if you're ill you'll be treated
>>regardless of how rich you are.  The trouble is it does cost a lot of 
>>money
>>in other ways.
>
> Interestingly the US system costs more than the NHS but the US system
> only treats 80% of the country.  So the US systems is expensive and
> leaves at least 20% of the people in the US without healthcare. Much
> like any other 3rd world country.



I'll bet you most of their eye hospitals have a laser that works though!
There's obviously a problem with so many people that aren't covered.  Does 
that mean they get no healthcare at all though?

I haven't followed the debate from beginning to end, but it appears the 
objections are more about how the scheme would be implemented than the 
principle of covering everyone.  There seem to be various laws in place to 
create captive insurance markets and other measures to artificially keep 
costs high and it doesn't appear that any of these measures are being 
repealed.  On top of that there's the obviously dodgy nature of the way it's 
being put through, such as trying to force votes on unread bills with John 
Conyers ridiculing the idea of actually reading a bill before voting on it 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7mOaPnYYA.  He's obviously a very trusting 
man.  Then of course there are the secret meetings and punishments to 
critical media also make this look like something that is not the good thing 
for all that it seems.  I would say no to this bill and wait for it to be 
done honestly and in the open.  'Universal healthcare' probably is something 
the US could do really with, but not if it's just a scheme to screw them out 
of a bit more money.

I have to say as an outsider, the way this is being done would make my 
spider senses tingle if I were in the US.  There's something wrong going on. 
You can tell by the way people are acting.  People who are changing the 
world for the better don't need to punish media and meet behind closed 
doors.


TWP