I hope Obama has what it takes to lead this country in a direction that benefits most Americans.
I didn't buy into the change he offered during the campaign.

After he won, I hoped that maybe this newcomer would deliver on exactly what he promised; new ideas and change.
Maybe I assumed that he would surround himself with newcomers that would challenge the status quo and change the way politicians operate. And that change would make all old school politicians obsolete on both sides of the aisle.

I personally consider it a change. It is changing from the George W. Bush administration. I think that choosing people who were part of the Clinton administration is a very good thing. During the Clinton administration we had a terrific economy. An enormous number of jobs were created. They finally got rid of the deficit after decades. The top tax rate went up but the rich got richer.
In addition the Clinton administration used the combination of carrying the stick and diplomacy. Hillary was right when she voted to give Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq. The vote helped. Saddam finally got scared and said that we could send anyone we want and they could go anywhere to look for wmds and so there was no rush to go to war. Bush was wrong to do so. I think that Hillary understands that you have to carry a stick and many times it prevents having to go to war. JFK understood that too. Not carrying the stick could cause us a bigger disaster in the future. Also we were liked and respected by most people around the world during the Clinton administration. I think that Hillary Clinton would make a very good Secretary of State.

quote:

I didn't call you stupid or insult you.
If you don't agree with me, leave it at that.
There are other opinions other than yours.

quote:

Bush is gone...get over it!

Obama is using the same gene pool that has been in charge before. How is that change? Just more of the same if you ask me. The rosters may change but players are all familar.

I would have to be stupid if as you suggest, I believed the definition of the word change used in the campaign means only what you say it means. My opinion matters too, just because you want all of us to agree with your definition of the word change doesn't mean we have to.

And Bush is not gone Floyd. He's busy sitting on his hiney doing nothing. You guys seem stuck on sour grapes, and McCain lost, get over it Floyd.

The campaign was about 8 years of misdirection, that's about to "change". You guys can keep sucking on those sour grapes for the next four years if you want, meanwhile, Obama is going to use those with experience to help erase 8 years of one of the worst Presidents we've ever had.

That's the change.

Ismile:

Your side won. So now all the negativity and bitterness you are spewing looks kind of... strange.

Nothing sadder than a sore winner!

quote:

Originally posted by ismileutoo:

quote:

I didn't call you stupid or insult you.
If you don't agree with me, leave it at that.
There are other opinions other than yours.

quote:

Bush is gone...get over it!

Obama is using the same gene pool that has been in charge before. How is that change? Just more of the same if you ask me. The rosters may change but players are all familar.

I would have to be stupid if as you suggest, I believed the definition of the word change used in the campaign means only what you say it means. My opinion matters too, just because you want all of us to agree with your definition of the word change doesn't mean we have to.

And Bush is not gone Floyd. He's busy sitting on his hiney doing nothing. You guys seem stuck on sour grapes, and McCain lost, get over it Floyd.

The campaign was about 8 years of misdirection, that's about to "change". You guys can keep sucking on those sour grapes for the next four years if you want, meanwhile, Obama is going to use those with experience to help erase 8 years of one of the worst Presidents we've ever had.

That's the change.

You use Bush as a scapegoat for everything that goes wrong. I'm way over that man, apparently you are not. Obama preaches change, by definition means something new. No new faces so far. His choices are all familar players in the DC circles. Hillary lost by popular vote and Obama is merely going back to the Clinton team for many of his choices. SSDD.

Successive speakers at the Democratic National Convention poured scorn on President Bush's economic record. The clear aim was to justify the party's call for "change," and to undermine support for Republican presidential nominee John McCain. His election would mean a "third Bush term," delegates groaned. Yet Democrats cited no good evidence for their claims that the administration has produced a stagnant economy, widening disparities of income and wealth, high unemployment, and a heavy burden of government debt (supposedly resulting from an unwise military intervention in Iraq).

How does the performance of the U.S. economy really compare with other advanced economies over the eight years of George Bush's presidency? Data published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, the International Comparison Program (ICP) (a cooperative venture coordinated by the World Bank) and the U.S. Census Bureau allow a nonpartisan, factual assessment. Here are some of the findings:

- Economic growth. U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000. The IMF reports that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period. The latest ICP findings, published by the World Bank in its World Development Indicators 2008, also show that GDP per capita in the U.S. reached $41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. This was a third higher than the United Kingdom's, 37% above Germany's and 38% more than Japan's.

- Household consumption. The ICP study found that the average per-capita consumption of the U.S. population (citizens and illegal immigrants combined) was second only to Luxembourg's, out of 146 countries covered in 2005. The U.S. average was $32,045. This was well above the levels in the UK ($25,155), Canada ($23,526), France ($23,027) and Germany ($21,742). China stood at $1,751.

- Health services. The U.S. spends easily the highest amount per capita ($6,657 in 2005) on health, more than double that in Britain. But because of private funding (55% of the total) the burden on the U.S. taxpayer (9.1% of GDP) is kept to similar levels as France and Germany. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 84.7% of the U.S. population was covered by health insurance in 2007, an increase of 3.6 million people over 2006. The uninsured can receive treatment in hospitals at the expense of private insurance holders. While life expectancy is influenced by lifestyles and not just access to health services, the World Bank nevertheless reports that average life expectancy in the U.S. rose to 78 years in 2006 (the same as Germany's), from 77 in 2000.

- Income and wealth distribution. The latest World Bank estimates show that the richest 20% of U.S. households had a 45.8% share of total income in 2000, similar to the levels in the U.K. (44.0%) and Israel (44.9%). In 65 other countries the richest quintile had a larger share than in the U.S....

- Employment. The U.S. employment rate, measured by the percentage of people of working age (16-65 years) in jobs, has remained high by international standards. The latest OECD figures show a rate of 71.7% in 2006. This was more than five percentage points above the average for the euro area. The U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007. This compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton's term of office, and is well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000.

The evidence shows that much of the Democratic Party's criticism of President Bush's economic record is wide of the mark. True, the economic slowdown now affecting most advanced countries will likely result in rising unemployment over the coming months. But thanks to sensible policies pursued by the Bush administration (not always with adequate support from a Democratic-controlled Congress), the U.S. economy is sufficiently flexible to keep unemployment below the 7.7% peak reached in the last postrecession year of 1992.

The main risk is that, if elected, Barack Obama will pursue a "social justice" strategy. This would encompass higher taxes on entrepreneurs, savers and investors, more direct government intervention in the economy, and protectionist policies (including revoking existing trade agreements) aimed at safeguarding the jobs of his union backers in "old" industries and public services. If so, the pain is likely to be more widespread and prolonged

quote:

You use Bush as a scapegoat for everything that goes wrong. I'm way over that man, apparently you are not.

Bush is still President. Obama hasn't even taken office and you guys aren't wasting any time whining about it. You want me to stop bringing up Bush, then get over your sour grapes. You sound like sore loosers.

Bush lost this election for you. He helped drive moderates from the gop to vote for Obama. We appreciate that. Keep spouting sour grapes, keep telling us what a guy who hasn't even taken office is doing wrong, and if after doing that, when we respond and point out that Bush spent 8 years of dragging this country down, you can whine about that too.

If you're going to complain about a guy who isn't even in office yet, you should be willing to take what's dished out without whining.

Yep, that's the point. Obama hasn't even taken the oath and is going back on promises of change. Political rhetoric and promises broken already. More "changes" are sure to follow.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you guys are spending your time complaining about who Obama appoints and what he should or should not be doing before he is even in office. It's a wonder you guys have any time left over to whine.

Bush spent 8 years driving this country into the ground, we understand that no matter what changes are implemented during obama's term, you guys will continue to spout your sour grapes, get over it. The Democrats are in for four years. If you guys want to win in 2012, you better convince your party to get back to it's original beliefs, that fiscal responsibility is your trademark. You better convince your party that leaning further right isn't going to win it. Move to the center more.

and for God's sakes stop whining.

quote:

Originally posted by Floyd Boy:
Yep, that's the point. Obama hasn't even taken the oath and is going back on promises of change. Political rhetoric and promises broken already. More "changes" are sure to follow.

For Ismile and other Obama supporters below is a web site I put together on Obama you may enjoy.

Obama Slide Show

If you would like a computer program on your PC with many pictures of locals , and other great photos I have accumulated you can download. It is great presentation to have on your PC for historic value. The URL to download this program is below.....

Barack Obama 2008

When dialog box appears......Click save and save it to your desktop. If you have any trouble let me know......

As for you Floyd Boy and others, get it over it. You lost, and Obama is our President. His choices will be excellent before he takes office. Give the man a chance. GET OVER IT.

Ray

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Beau1943,

I'm sorry, I forgot the golden rule. "Don't be critical of Obama" . Our economy was great until a year ago, not long after the Dems took control of congress. Then the two darlings of the Dems, Fannie and Freddie come crashing down due to failed policies. Surely you jest?

Floyd, over 20 million private sector jobs were created during the Clinton administration. When the economy was supposedly great during George W. Bush's administration, the monthly jobs created were a fraction of the monthly jobs created during the Clinton administration. That is interesting considering the fact that George W. Bush cut taxes for the wealthy and we have been involved in 2 wars. Even though we don't currently have a draft, so many people in the National Guard and the Reserves are constantly being called to action and someone would have to be hired to fill their regular jobs. Also the government has to buy more arms, etc. and so the companies that produce these items would usually hire more people during wartime. Despite this, the jobs created did not come close to the number of jobs created under the Clinton administration.
Here is an interesting website and it concerns facts back in 2004.
http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/print.cfm?contentid=252964

quote:

Originally posted by Floyd Boy:
I'm sorry, I forgot the golden rule. "Don't be critical of Obama" . Our economy was great until a year ago, not long after the Dems took control of congress. Then the two darlings of the Dems, Fannie and Freddie come crashing down due to failed policies. Surely you jest?

Floyd Boy....you know better than this. The nothing to gain War in Iraq, deregulation, trickle down doesn't work, and other Bush agendas put us in this terrible economic crisis.

Use some common sense man. I know your very bright.

I'm not a scholar in economics, but I disagree with FloydBoy. I think the economy was slowly falling apart bit by bit, then when Freddie and Fannie failed, the wheels fell off of the cart. The economic downfall has been a long time coming. It seems like we have antiquated systems and policies that needed updating a decade ago.

I agree hoosiermom, this has been a long time coming. Yet everyone wants to blame President Bush with everything from 9/11, Katrina and everything else that has happened in the last 8 years. Personally, I do not think Obama is the great one a lot of people believe he is. But I must give him the benefit of a doubt, due to his winning the election and I have no other choice, I just hope he can carry through with his ideal vision he has created. No one person can make such a mess of this country in so short a time, this dates back years, and yes some of it is called trickle down effect. Take the auto industries for example. They are the ones who made a mess out of their companies, yet they want bailed out or loaned, what ever, I say let them sink or swim. For example quit giving the Chrysler workers 95 percent of their pay for 2 years if they are laid off. Make them work for it like Toyota does, instead of laying off they retrain or do community service, how about having them clean up some parks etc. What the hell's the point of laying them off to save money or what ever if your still getting paid, I would call that a vacation.