Results 1 to 10 of 82
Thread: Obamas first bad decision.
Hybrid View
-
11-08-2008, 12:18 PM #1
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
- Newtown, CT
- Posts
- 2,153
Thanked: 586
-
11-08-2008, 01:34 PM #2
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Posts
- 448
Thanked: 50The quality of health care in this country is spotty at best. For many, it's unavailable unless they show up unannounced at an emergency room and wait for hours. For most of the rest of us, it's rationed. Don't believe it? Try getting an appointment with a specialist inside six months. It's further rationed by the prices we have to pay for prescription drugs-- prices that the rest of the world seems to be spared.
In my career, I've traveled very widely, including to countries with "socialized" medicine. The disaster claimed by the right wing simply does not exist. True, there are occasional adjustments, but for the most part, I'm simply not hearing complaints. Perhaps our Canadian brothers might comment on whether they'd trade their system for ours. Any Norwegians? When push gets to shove, would our British -- or Scottish or Welsh -- members really prefer to go on the "American System?"
The only difference I can see between right wingers facing an Obama administration now and us moderates faced with Bush eight years ago is that, while both of us expect imminent disaster, we moderates actually got a disaster, and you right wingers don't know yet. Bush has been even worse than we'd feared in our most terrifying nightmares. It's an achievement that Obama would be hard pressed to equal. That alone gives me hope.
Welcome to the club.
j
-
11-08-2008, 01:54 PM #3
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Bute, Scotland, UK
- Posts
- 1,526
Thanked: 131PLEASE tell me you dont think that the US went to Iraq to neutrazlize the threat posed by Bin Laden! No wonder you havent found him yet!
Jack Bauer is the most likely choice for Barrack Obama's National Security Advisor
-
11-08-2008, 02:21 PM #4
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
- Newtown, CT
- Posts
- 2,153
Thanked: 586
-
11-08-2008, 02:22 PM #5
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Posts
- 448
Thanked: 50I'd like to do an uncharacteristic thing, i.e., reply on-topic.
The original topic of this thread was the wisdom (or lack of it) of the appointment of Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm to Obama's council of economic advisors.
I really can't say how good a governor she's been. I do know that Michigan is one of our more economically-challenged states due to the implosion of the auto industry. While I've always blamed mismanagement by the companies themselves for that, the thread creator seems to place that firmly in Ms. Granholm's lap.
Probably unfair. The auto companies have been screwing up for a very long time. She's been in office for 22 months.
Beyond that, isn't it rather a smart idea to have the governor of such a challenged state represented? Even if she's the screwup you say, wouldn't it be useful to Obama and beneficial to Michigan to be represented by the governor with the full might of her state resources? Might that not bode well for Michigan's future?
Look at it another way: How would you feel if Michigan had been ignored in the composition of the panel?
j
-
11-08-2008, 11:06 PM #6
Try again, she's had a term and a half at her job now. In fact 6 years, or 72 months.
Though you are right she isn't responsible for the big threes problems, but she isn't responsible for anything to help them out either. The next positive thing she does for the economy of this state will be the first.
So yes I would have been quite pleased to see ALL of those associated with the mess around here left out of Obamas council. It would give me a faint ray of hope that he might get the wise council he needs to make an intelligent decision.
But as it is, Poop in, POOP out. That how it will go.
-
11-09-2008, 01:42 AM #7
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Posts
- 448
Thanked: 50