Your lips are moving, I think. I look in vain for actual verifiable information. Instead I see you backpedaling from offering any. You see my request for you to supply facts and not to obscure them as a "tactic."
How am I supposed to see your refusal to stand behind your assertions then?
Yes, Bob, they had hoped he would clean up the mess on the floor and are beginning to realize that he is not, thus the dropping of his popularity and belief of him and his programs in the polls. He offered change...and Americans are not liking the change he is making.
And that would be which[/] Americans and [i]when, Mike? And about which changes would we be speaking?
If you aren't specific about these things, you could be talking about any American President at any time in their administration. And that would make your statement about Obama just about meaningless, wouldn't it? Which, as you've expressed it, it pretty much is.
In order to make the statement meaningful, you'd have to be specific enough for folks to actually talk with out about it, check out the facts behind your assertions, and talk with you about them.
His vows to clean up Washington and no more politics as usual have also been forgotten.
You sound like that line from Bill Clinton Republicans keep liking to quote about what the meaning of "is" is.
Apparently addressing the recession that got its start under the last administration is "politics as usual." That's good to know. I thought that creating it was pretty much Republican banking and financial policy, their changes in rules about separation of banking and insurance, and their deregulation of the banking industry in general. I thought that attempting to correct that wasn't politics as usual, but there you have it. My mistake.
I thought that trying to get health insurance reform and trying to expand health insurance, especially to children, was not business as usual. Health insurance reform and the health insurance crisis — which I do believe is a crisis, silly me — hasn't been given much Republican push in Congress since it was buried by the Republicans and the more conservative Democrats in the early 90's. Apparently, the time between has been very busy for the Republicans and their Conservative Democratic allies, since they haven't come up with much by the way of an attempt at a national solution since. Apparently, doing so now counts as your notion of business as usual.
I am afraid that you may be right about the Obama failure to push on civil liberties, drawing clear and meaningful lines forbidding any use of torture as an instrument of policy (or anything else, for that matter), and regaining some of the incursions the PATRIOT Act has made possible. I don't like agreeing with you about this, but about this I think the facts are on your side.
If only you'd mentioned some of these things, I'd feel even better about giving you credit here.
As it is, mostly I simply dislike that President Obama hasn't acted on these issues, and shows no signs that he's about to.
Do you, however, care about any of those issues, or are they only mine?
Your anger about the ecological issues and what you believe the Democrats are doing or are about to do or may do, suggests that you certainly believe that Obama is serious about action in this area, and, furthermore, you don't like it. I may have misread you on this, though, and perhaps you feel that what the President is doing and plans to do in this area falls into "Business as Usual" as well. Please feel free to let me know.
Stop him? You mean stop his incredible appetite for spending money we don't have? You betcha..
I'm sorry, I thought for a moment that you were talking about President Bush.
President Obama was clear that we'd have to spend money to get out of the hole we were in. He supported the Bail-out bill that was unpopular with other Democrats, if you remember, and even went back in the middle of the campaign to vote for it, even though it was going to increase the deficit. I knew that, perhaps you didn't or perhaps it slipped your mind. I knew that he was going to increase taxes, though not on the middle classes, those who earn less than $250,000 per year.
I can't remember when I wrote that I hoped that he wouldn't raise taxes on those under $250,000 if he was elected, but I thought it was possible he might. If you remember it, let me know. If not, I suspect the only person it's important to is me.
My Point is that there are two different economic philosophies at work here, and that they seem to be in flux at the moment. The traditional Republican economic view has been presented by Freedman (recently, at least); and over the past eighty years or so, the Democratic viewpoint has tended toward the Keynesian.
The Republican spending over the past eight years has been a break with their usual market philosophy, and a bit of a freak with the Freedman style economics, as I understand it, which is not very well. The way that the Republican spending over the past eight years was structured was to provide a large deficit at home, and it did so.
The Keynesian economics that the Democrats have usually followed does permit deficit spending in times of fiscal emergency. I understand Keynes only slightly better than I misunderstand Freedman, you understand, but I believe this is the case.
I leave the field for better understanding of economics than I have to take the matter further. The amount of research I'd have to do to get up to speed would take a lot of time away from my writing just now.
Since you criticize me for writing answers that are too long or perhaps too detailed or perhaps merely incoherent, I think it best that I stop here.