An alternative to Obamacare, starting with advice from Whole Foods

Oh please earlpearl. I know its fun to butter things up a bit with political spin, but the differences between Bush and Obama are slight.

So you agree. Obama policy in Iraq = Bush policy in Iraq. Verbatim. They got Joe Biden on tape claiming Iraq may be one of the great successes of the Obama administration by following the Bush plan to the letter.

More political spin. Not only is Gitmo still there, we still have nearly the exact same policy of offshore incarceration sans waterboarding. Now we send them to one of a few prisons in Afghanistan. The closure is difficult because, while many American's may hate Gitmo, nobody has proposed a better solution to the handling of these people(If you don't count Bush's recommendation of Military trials which are starting to look like a possibility once again). And since we are on the topic, Extraordinary rendition is still a regular practice, we are busily sending MORE troops to Afghanistan, and Congress is once again passing the Patriot act. Difference between Bush and Obama?

Was there a legitimate fact anywhere in that tirade? What seems obvious is that the amount of money and troops being thrown at the problem(including Iraq) has continued the pace set by Bush. The shift from Iraq to Afghanistan was scheduled by Bush, as you admitted earlier in this post. Aside from your spin, Obama could be Bush Jr.

Right. That is why the TARP funds were spent half by Bush and half by Obama. In otherwords, the exact same action to rescue the crashing banks was taken with the two practically holding hands with each other. Now if you are referring to the "Stimulus" package that was spent nearly exclusively on public sector jobs, largely on school teachers unions, I can agree with you. There Obama has set himself apart from Bush. Of course I wasn't aware that keeping a unionized teacher who works for the government in their job is the same as creating a "shovel ready" job, but I guess it pays to keep the people who elected you happy. In the mean time, the unemployment rate in California is 12%, with real unemployment closer to 20%. Maybe if Obama had spent the 780BILLION (860 billion actual) dollars on something besides political favors to democrat special interests, your claim he is uniquely working towards resolving the problem would carry more weight. Perhaps you can explain how the 2 trillion dollars he wants to spend on insuring the uninsured in this country is going to create new jobs. Right now, he is working towards prolonging this depression, not resolving it. Just wait until inflation hits as he tries to monitize the debt that he and Bush created.

 

The reality is, its much easier to "BLAME BUSH".... I still remember all that "well if not for that 12 years of Reagan/Bush" stuff that the dems were spouting during the 90's recession and Clinton era.

Seems its much easier to bitch; even easier to blame. So much for Hope and Change. Many of us are still wondering just when and where we will begin to see that?

 

I think you've got the wrong administration. Go back to cause...

The scope of the problems left by the Carter Administration are so huge and difficult that, 25 years later, we still cannot undo them.

Jimmy Carter - the worst President, or the worst President ever?

 

Oh, you are seeing it, at least the "change" part, and it isn't good. Its like the man has all the worst fiscal qualities of both parties. He spends big on War AND on Entitlements. He thinks the middle of a recession/depression is the best time to kick off a massive new entitlement program.

The kind of change that brings hope usually entails going against the extremes within your own party. When Clinton cut welfare and entitlement spending in an effort to balance the budget, his own party was more than happy to burn him at the cross. The fact he cut military spending as well didn't matter to them in the slightest. Of course Clinton had a Republican congress to encourage his bi-partisan actions, but regardless of the motivation, results speak louder than words. Obama is cut much more from the Carter cloth than the Clinton. Perhaps if we provide him a Republican congress this year he will move to the center. I doubt it.

[Edit] Corwin--- JINX!

 

It kinda goes like this:

FDR ---> Johnson ---> Carter
See also CRA Fannie Freddie, etc.

It's kinda interesting to see what Johnson and Carter did to Social Security over that span of time.

Look at who he is. It was obvious he was going to be Mr. Entitlement from the very get go. He's been a recipient of the public dole his entire life.

" Of course Clinton had a Republican congress to encourage his bi-partisan actions "

That my friend was the key to all his motivation that was positive. That was the key to a balanced budget. That was the key to a "surplus deficit".

 

What exactly did Bush accomplish the last eight years the right wingers have to show for than their criticizing the liberal agenda of national health care....besides: unfunded wars, economic chaos and an imbecilic Supreme Court - At least with the present there is open discussion for pending legislation to better our own country through savings accomplished by rational regulations.



.

 

Freedom
Safety
Lower Taxes

How soon we seem to forget.

 

Boys (I scarcely have time fo this place anymore):

OTOH: you don't like it when someone blames Bush. Awwww (cry me a river)

didn't take but a second for one of the Pugs to blame current financial situation on Jimmy Carter.

Right....Carter left office in Jan, 1981. You boys are still blaming him. Mia likes to blame FDR. I think George the junior will be taking a lot of blame and hits for a long long long long long long (do you get the picture?) long long long time....and deservedly so.

Two wars...we are still fighting them. (the US has never had to do that...never)
Worst recession since the great depression. We are now on the uptick...all as a result of actions that Republicans consistently oppose.

Seriously can one party f*ck up so bad...and then all its mouthpieces go on and on and on....and want to continue the policies that f*ck everyone up?

As I said...its going to take a long time to clean up after George Bush and the Pugs

 

Freedom
Safety
Lower Taxes -

All well and good when the business of governance is properly administered. And do wonder again what the Pugs accomplished the first six years they held power / congress with George Bush at the helm.....

 

Well we can agree on that. The new VB scheme is ridiculous.

No. What I do not like is when someone uses that as an excuse for addressing reality.

Having lived through those "Carter" years, and seeing the result of his action. The creation of the CRA and what its done to housing and banking? Ah, yeah, you can pretty much bask in the reality that he was a big part of the problem.

No one's "blaming" him. What we are doing is explaining to you that the current situation did not occur overnight, and it certainly was not entirely to blame on Bush. It is a culmination of bad moves, entitlement programs, and a manipulation of the banking industry to accommodate a social climate conducive to equalizing everyone. I also do not blame FDR. But I do hold responsible the mistakes he made both prior to and during the depression that not only caused it, but made it WORSE.

Reality and History, not blame. That's what I am looking at.

The US has fought two wars before. What are you talking about? Are you honestly trying to blame the current economic state on two wars? The reality is the cost of both in terms of (monetary costs) is a fraction of, dare I say DROP in the bucket compared to the social spending that continues to escalate by the second.

The thing is, the fuck up's have been a long time in coming! All the way back to FDR. Worse yet by Carter, then perpetuated by Clinton. The only difference with Clinton and the reason it was not as bad as the former is because there was a Republican Congress to keep him in check for most of his presidency.

If that's the mess you are going after, nothing's ever going to get cleaned. The mess we've missed are right in front of us now.

 

Sorry I'm sitting here trying to put together how the fact that he smokes makes him a hypocrite for wanting all Americans to have health care.

He smokes so he can't want that? I dunno, I'm just brainstorming with you here.

 

No. I'm blaming the current situation in Iraq and Iran on Jimmy Carter.

I lived through it. I will always remember Jimmy Carter as the President of gas lines and burning helicopters. It's a classic lesson in the dangerous short-sightedness of inexperience.

Jimmy Carter started by calling Iran "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world". He then betrayed and deposed the Shah of Iran, which led to the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini (and the death of all of Iraq's countless political prisoners), who quickly began the Iran-Iraq war, and the rise of Saddam Hussein. I assume that everyone already knows about how Carter barricaded himself in the White House because 52 Americans were held hostage in Iran for 444 days. The Soviets, sensing Carter's weakness, invaded Afganistan, deliberately complicating and preventing a significant U.S. military invasion of Iran.

The Iran-Iraq war cost over half-a-million lives. Democrats and liberals like to forget about those hideous deaths because those people died due to the lack of experience of a Democratic President.

Jimmy Carter's inexperience paved the way for the horrible deaths of over half-a-million lives, Iran's present rule by Ayatollahs, the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm, the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the mass murder of Americans and the destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.

To this day, Jimmy Carter has never shown the slightest remorse, or even taken responsibility, for his incompetence. Instead, he spitefully criticizes both parties every chance he gets.

 

"Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?"

Corwin, there is so much you have left out.

"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs." - Madeleine K. Albright

That would be the Republican General Eisenhower - Supreme Commander of Allied forces during the European Campaign of the 2nd World War - hardly the icon of short sighted inexperience.

I suspect we could find many butterfly moments going all the way back to Cyrus and Alexander in that part of the World...

 

Willy, you can try to make that claim about Eisenhower, but when it comes to Jimmy Carter there is a very clear and obvious chain of cause-and-effect to the present situation. If you can make the same chain-of-events connection about Eisenhower/Massadegh to the present day, I'd really like to see it, but I don't think you can.

Carter's responsibility is accepted, documented, and damning. This wasn't about butterfly wings - this was a bull in a china shop.

Absolutely nobody doubts Carter's responsibility for the present crisis - historians and foreign policy experts en masse have declared it so. Jon Stewart has blamed Carter - even MSNBC! The Democrats themselves have relegated Jimmy Carter to the attic - nobody wants his endorsement, and at Democratic Conventions his picture is smaller and off to the side - if you can even find it.

Jimmy Carter is a textbook example of how an inexperienced President can create such an awful chain of blunders that his ineptitude was clear in his pattern of behavior. I'm confident you will find no such pattern with Eisenhower. In any case, Eisenhower was the 3rd inning - Jimmy Carter struck us out in the 8th.

 

I was not defending Carter, who will certainly rank right up there with Bush as one of the worst Presidents we have had in our history.

I was pointing out that your chain of causation is weak at best. That area of the world has been like the La Bra tarpits since before Babylon. You can't single out an event or person and as a cause of the mess we see today. It's been a mess for a millenia or two or three. You can as easily blame it on the Turks or the Brits or American colonialism, or...

Shucks, if this guy is right, the problems go all the way back to a certain apple!

 

Apparently 44% of Americans said yes to question posed by this sign. Of course that was back in December when Obama's approval was soaring in the low 50s. Carter, on the other hand, still looks like crap through the rose colored glasses of history. Should Bush thank Obama?

 

Actually Corwin, I'd have no problems if the Iran-Iraq war were still going on. If it were, Iraq would never have invaded Kuwait, Iran wouldn't be closing in on Atomic weapons, we never would have bothered invading Iraq....both of those nations would have been so devastated that the closest either would have gotten to weapons of mass destruction would have been endless farting from eating non-stop Texas Chili for 3 weeks straight. (pretty offensive weapon, IMO)

 

I would. I would have a problem if hundreds of thousands of innocent people were being slaughtered. And I have a problem with politicians that ignore mass slaughters like this, and like Rwanda, because they can't politically benefit from stopping these deaths.

 

Does this mean that you agree with the support, direct and indirect, that the US gave Saddam during the Iran/Iraq conflict? You know, the support that led directly to Saddam's hubris, invasion of Kuwait, the 1st gulf war, etc., etc. - and then the current conquest and domination of Iraq by the "Coalition of the Willing"? The loss of 5000 service men and women and the 100,000+ confirmed civilian deaths since the Iraqi invasion?

Just want to be clear what you support and what you don't...

 

Willie: I can speak for myself on that question....and already have. I had no problem w/ the Iraq/Iran war. Far as I know, the US had nothing to do w/ inciting it. Once it happened the US provided arms and assistance to Iraq. That probably assisted in prolonging that war. After it ended it had unforseen consequences, one of which was Saddam invading Kuwait. OTOH had Saddam not attacked Iran....maybe he would have gotten around to invading Kuwait anyway. Who knows. That guy was nuts and a loose cannon besides being a vicious murder of his own people.

As to being a vicious murderer of his own people there have been people of that ilk thorughout history. During the period of history while the US has been strong and has on occaision addressed some of those tyrants in some of those lands...we seem to do it because of some bigger political issue. (I'm convinced we ultimately went after Iraq because much of the Bush administration had been calling for just that during the 1990's while they were members of the PNAC & maybe Bush 11 wanted to spank Saddam for targeting his father). When we engage in these follies the people in political power and their supporters scream about what a murderous dangerous SOB the tyrant in target is (a la Saddam).

Meanwhile there are plenty of murderous tyrants across the world, in their nations and fiefdoms, absolutely destroying and wantonly killing their populations. We don't go after every one of them. (and btw, neither does any other strong nation). Central Africa is a killing ground for millions and has been for decades. Nobody is stepping to stop it and hasn't for a couple of decades.
As far as unintended consequences of every action taken by every decision maker in the history of the world...if we all made perfect decisions...we wouldn't be the human beings we are (and I wouldn't have married my first wife)