Is Obama all you hoped for?
@TravellingHawaiian (30)
United States
September 7, 2009 1:07am CST
For all of us who voted for Obama, and even those that didn't, how do you feel about his time in office so far??? Has he lived up to all your expectations so far? Do you think he's doing a good job? I know the media has taken a crack at him, what do you think about that? Is he really the right man for the job?
Tell us what you think?
2 responses
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
7 Sep 09
All I hoped for? No, the guy who was all I hoped for didn't win. Obama was all I feared. Not only does he stand in oposition to most of the things this country was founded on, but he was also right in line with a number of things the previous administration stood for. Cripe, I thought we had an election, how did we wind up with Bush back in office again? "Change"? ROFL. Way to go America, we got duped again.
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
7 Sep 09
I think that the "media" have been standoffish, by and large. All but Fox (as far as cable news is concerned) have basically promoted his agenda, line for line, and failed to report on anything that may create waves, i.e. Van Jones most recently.
But that plays into my overall feelings on Obama and my expectations. After watching the media completely shift to Obama after he finally defeated Clinton, I, as well as many others, were intent that things were only starting. I was fully expecting a team effort.
As far as Obama, he has also been the type of President I expected: wholly liberal.
I admire his convictions when it comes to addressing other countries. I don't agree with the apologist rhetoric--I feel it plays into the apologetic liberal culture that demonizes America--but I applaud any efforts to win hearts and minds that doesn't involve bloodshed!!
I knew the massive spending was coming, but I had no clue it would be this much. The only saving grace, for me, is that all the money allocated to be spent isn't actually spent yet. Hopefully, in two years maybe, the unspent money can be given back to the taxpayer.
I had NO idea that President Obama would be unable to properly explain his healthcare vision. But I don't think that's a slight against his ability to speak. To the contrary. I think it's simply because he speaks too much! Every press conference he gives, he's highlighting entirely different aspects, and when you combine all the rhetoric, the sum is confusing and just reads as code language to many as a takeover.
For liberal agenda, I think he was batting 1000 before the healthcare debate. Now he's forced, yet again, to go back to his bread-and-butter structure in another nationally televised--they'll cut off my shows for it!--press conference.
Obama seems a bit redundant at this point.
Per my particular idea of how the country should be, with a strong free market, limited government interference, a STRONG emphasis on personal responsibility and no "nanny state" handouts, and a government that works to build and keep safe the private sector, I didn't think Obama was the right man then and I don't think he's the right man now.
@TravellingHawaiian (30)
• United States
7 Sep 09
I can understand what you are saying on this one...but do you think that McCain was the better man for the job, or was a choice of choosing the lesser of two evils. I am interested in what you said in the end....no "nanny state" handouts. As most democratic nations have some sort of state/government assistance, do you think there should be no help for those of the lesser class? I agree that we have so many that are dependant on the system and can see no other way out, but should it be abolished completely? Your ideas are interesting and I thank you for you input.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
7 Sep 09
I truly believe that the less fortunate in America should be taken care of to an extent, should they honestly be unable to care for themselves.
The problem I have with the "nanny state," personally, is that it's not only a gateway for gross system abuse, but also a platform to start claiming things that were once the fruit of hard work are now "entitlements."
If a person is unable to work; if a person is legitimately downtrodden, handicapped,etc, then society, as a whole, can pitch in to help out. But what we're seeing is healthcare being considered an entitlement. This could open the door. Next year, what if it's cars, houses, etc?
To be a capitalist society with a heart, much as America is now, is fine with me. But the "nanny state" is basically saying, "Throw your increased tax monies into a pot and we, the government, will divide it equally among who WE feel qualify as 'needy.'"
We have ample "handout" programs running now in America. If they were cleaned up and ran properly, the success rates would shoot through the roof. But a more progressive ideology suggests that we just double or triple down on our spending on existing programs while increasing government's size to add more programs. All this comes at taxpayer expense. To look around at uber-progressive cities and states in America will prove that this does not work. I just don't want it on a national level.
As far as McCain being a better choice -- I really don't know that he would be. But since he's a moderate Republican and not a conservative Republican, he may have been able to pass some type of healthcare. McCain would reach across the aisle to work with others. But who knows.
