[pachyderm]

I am listening to the State of the Union speech. Outstanding! He is one of the most mature, insightful, creative persons that I have ever heard. That's all I have to say.

[pachyderm]

I thought I would get a lot of comments on this one. Maybe it is too soon for that. No one telling me that Obama is only for big government? I dispute that. He is for us, for cooperation, not just government do it all. But that is not in fashion these days.

I am astonished at the difference in tone of Barack Obama, and the Republicans. Obama's message (to me) is one of inspiration, of hope, of optimism -- we can do this together. Doesn't mean I agree with everything he offers, but what has the opposition to offer that is positive?

I have been watching the Senate committee on the armed services, on the nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. The Republicans could be the party that offers a dose of realism to balance the soaring optimism of Obama, but they are, instead, the party of "NO, NO, NO, NO to EVERYTHING!". They are the party of mean-mindedness, of fear. Their ONE idea is to cut, cut, cut government -- especially the parts of government that help the least fortunate among us. It really is astonishing to me -- the party of envy, of blame for everyone except themselves. I am disheartened by it.

[pachyderm]

My niece created and has owned her small business in California for decades. Now she is talking moving to Texas, for one thing to avoid the California taxes. She makes decisions on impulse, but at least she is willing to take risks. She is a real entrepreneur. Maybe that would be a good alternative, or at least a complement, to the vision for America of Obama -- with its plusses and minuses. A lot more positive than the meanness, the cramped mindedness of most Republicans today, it seems to me. They have lost their way, have forgotten what their message ought to be (I think), and can only say NO.

OK, you can get rid of me now...

[Nihil]

Don't like him. And I'm not a conservative.

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by Nihil

Don't like him. And I'm not a conservative.

You might, if you wish, say in more detail what you don't like about him.

[Nihil]

Originally Posted by pachyderm

You might, if you wish, say in more detail what you don't like about him.

Use of drones. Has done nothing with regards to the Occupy Wallstreet protests (in terms of addressing their concerns). Did not close Gitmo. Continued the wars. Etc.

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by Nihil

Use of drones. Has done nothing with regards to the Occupy Wallstreet protests (in terms of addressing their concerns). Did not close Gitmo. Continued the wars. Etc.

Can't disagree with you entirely on these -- though he is not in control of everything.

[tokiwartooth]

I like him, although I don't approve of everything that's going on, such as drones and the war. But he is a million times better than Bush, to me anyhow.

[Hellion]

Originally Posted by tokiwartooth

I like him, although I don't approve of everything that's going on, such as drones and the war. But he is a million times better than Bush, to me anyhow.

I don't know I kind of have to think at least Bush wasn't using drones. I mean half the people in the places the drones are used are going to end up with PTSD and every time they hear something fly over they'll feel the need to take cover. Because that is what happens when you are living under the constant threat of being drone bombed out of nowhere.

I simply cannot like someone who condones that, though I didn't like bush either at least not as a president from what I gathered he didn't seem like a terrible person but he was a terrible president.

[KUREHA]

I don't like him either - behind the targetting of innocent Americans.

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by Hellion

I don't know I kind of have to think at least Bush wasn't using drones.

Actually the drone program started under Bush, I think. Obama has stepped it up quite a bit.

[Open Eyes]

I did listen to Obama speak, but I also kept in mind that his speach was "written for him" and it was designed to "comfort".

I also knew that the only way I was going to hear "criticisms" was to "ofcourse" turn on Fox news. Now, when you watch Fox News it is important to keep in mind that there is going to be "exaggerated negetivity" because after all, even though they claim to be "fair and balanced" it is obvious they learn very "conservative". And the conservatives are missing some important "needs" too.

I also watched Rubio's reaction to Obama's speach. I do agree with "some" of what he said too. He made it a point to talk about how the Republicans are not all about "protecting the rich" and I know that is what Obama and his party does keep saying. And I do know that the "rich" cannot pay the vig for our countrie's needs, the numbers simply do not add up.

In Obama's speech I did notice him say "broaden the base" and it was interesting because "that is what Romney talked about many times".

At one point Fox discussed the consistant "promises" that were made by Obama that he did "not" follow through with, and that he is still making the "same" promises. And it is important to remember what this administration "has been doing" which is "print more money" in hopes to get the economy going, however that can only do so much and it does create "inflation" and lowers the value of the dollar and power of money/value this country does have "world wide".

It is very easy to listen to Obama and "want to believe". Obama "is" a "motivational" speaker remember. And he "is" an idealist. But, you have to understand "human nature" and realize that "idealism can often fall very short" and though we can "all dream" we do have to see "reality too". I see how Obama has some good intentions and strong desires, but I am leary of how he will truely see his "idealism" come to fruition.

I know a lot of people "dislike Bush" and even blame him. However, Bush was also an "idealist" in his own way. He said alot the same things that Obama talked about, building the Middle Class and getting people into their own homes. But what Bush didn't figure into that scenario was "human nature that tends to "take" and "decieve" and be "greedy". If there is any way "fraud" can take place, it will happen and that is what is behind much of our economic strife. Unfortunately, in human nature, "dishonesty abounds". Idealism is always there, but history has shown, it often gets destroyed because of "dishonesty and greed".

I was talking to someone who works in the health insurance field the other day. This person told me that the big problem with the "insurance" is "fraud" and it takes place constantly, and is practiced regularly by the physicians themselves. They do all kinds of things that take advantage of "insurance" like do procedures on people that do not need to be done, charge alot for these procedures, and they prescribe medications and get kickbacks from pharmacudical companies for disbursing medications. Oh there is a lot of "abuse" that takes place.

Entitlements, hmmm lets think about that, there is alot of "abuse" of that too. While there is a real need for certain people to receive "help", that gets hurt too because there are people who work it so that they "abuse that too".

I still see too much of a gap when I view our current political atmosphere. Too far left, and too far right, and I don't see either really "working" to actually "resolve". Now, yes, I did hear Obama talking about "not having big government", but we have to listen to all the other parts of what he says which means "a bigger government". Alot of what he wants to "impliment" will not happen without a large staff of individuals in government to oversee these goals. It is important to remember that with human beings, it is easy to get them used to being "serviced" and less apt to "take on "self responsibility" and we do see this with Greece.

When I think about "big government" I think about the era of "Big McMansions" and how they were not truely "sustainable" and now many of them are empty and bank owned. Actually they are out of style because their high ceilings and other spaceous qualities were too expensive to heat and keep.

Raise minimum wage?, what a nice idea, but, because the economy is really struggling, business will not be able to afford that and "will" lay off workers and the workers that are left will be like my friend, overloaded with too much work load.

I have yet to hear any politician talk about educating "parents" to better raise children. I have "yet" to hear any politician talk about really making efforts to restore the "family unit". We now really lack that because "both" parents have to work to make ends meet and children are shipped off to day cares and we are now seeing the affects of that kind of economy when we hear 18, 19, 20 year olds severely depressed and lost and even wonder "what is life really for".

But let's get 4 year olds out and into education so they can be "more productive someday?". What happens to the brain when it is constantly "overstimulated"? I talked to an esteemed child psychologist and I asked her why there is such an increase in depressed children and teens. Her reply was, we are overstimulating our children with too much technology. And I believe that. We are not born to be "machines" we are "human beings". Overstimulation can mean, "not knowing how to relax and stop taxing the brain".

I really worry, to be honest, because no one really talks about what human beings truely thrive on, "healthy family" that is actually there and understands what it means to "children".

It is fine to have "ideals" but it is important to remember what works and what falls apart if we try to get too big.

When I think about Obama, I can understand his "distaste for the rich" and even his desire to "spread more fairness". I have seen the greed and "selfishness" that can take place amongst the wealthy that I didn't like either.

As he discussed "gun control" he must also realize that Chicago, where there are the strictest gun laws continues to have "high crime" and a young girl that came to visit him, and had so much "promise" could not survive that high crime environment, inspite of the very strict gun laws. We have to take note of "who" is commiting these attrosities, what makes these kind of people, and to also realize that alot of them are mentally ill and very "angry" or are children growing up in high crime areas that have no real family life to speak of. Children that "lack" nurturing and end up finding a form of connection and power/safety/connection on the streets with gangs and criminals who are practicing "learning how to take".

He talked about what it means to be a "father" and not just be able to "make a child" but to provide for it responsibly. Ok, but where does that begin? How many men are educated and have jobs and own homes yet are "clueless" about what children really need from a parent? All I hear from "politicians" is "build better schools, Obama said it last night, but that is "not" going to solve our big problem of countless parents that do "not" provide for the needs of these children. Schools cannot control the home environments of the countless children that do not thrive because of how poorly they are parented.
And this "lack of knowledge" in parents doesn't have a class to it either. Children can grow up in wealth and not be productive, yet just be "entitled" and the kind of "entitled" that rubs Obama the wrong way, I can't blame him, it rubs me the wrong way too.

The young man that killed all those children in Newtown had a wealthy mother. He was basically locked away and he stewed with his issues until it got so bad that he took so many lives. Yet, we blame so much on a gun, a gun that has no brain of it's own. I am not a fan of guns myself, but I worry because things are so bad that "home invasions" are on the increase and I have been thinking about trying to learn about this thing I don't particularly like because I might have to use it to protect myself.

We want to teach our children about the "technology" we have in our world today. Alot talk about that goal, but no talk about finding ways to also teach "psychology" and "human nature' and "people skills" and respect for others, and why we should not bully in school, on the net and how it creates "losses/problems" that affect all of us. How much money do we have to keep spending because of what is constantly overlooked that is so "fundemantally" important.

Obama talked about women needing to get away from abusive spouces, well, how does that happen?
Where does that abuse begin? Domestic abuse, ok, yes it happens, but why, where does it come from?

Comfort speaches and ideals do not make any difference, unless you have a population that really understands what this means in society overall. Comfort and ideals have to begin in the home, a child has to get it at home in order for the rest of these ideals to truely happen in "society" anywhere where there are human beings.

Sometimes I think about all the costs that result from not taking care of what happens in the home, in the family unit, educating that first and foremost in every way we can "first". How many people end up on some drug program to make up for what they never got and deserved to have as a child? How many people grow up and become "criminals" because of lack of proper nurturing? How many physicians treat illnesses resulting from "suffering due to lack of comfort and nurturing in the home"? I see an endless list of expenses that cost society because we don't take care of the most "important" fundamental.

Open Eyes

[Open Eyes]

You know pachyderm, when I talk to my daughter and listen to how she is working and involved with life and very "goal oriented", I can see where the hard work I put in, made a difference. And I did have some challenges while I raised her, but I kept to task on alot of things that made a big difference in "her" sense of stability as a person.

My daughter had dislexia so that was a challenge for me too, I took the steps to make sure I stayed on top of it and met with her teachers to make sure they knew her challenges. My daughter never lacked for love, comfort and a mommy that "listened" and while she did go to nursery school, it was to socialize and she was more than ready to come home by noon time. I am glad I didn't have all the technology that is out now, I honestly think it would have been "too much" stimulation for her young brain.

By the time my daughter went to middle school, grade 6, through 8, it was quite a shock to see the young girls dressed like high school girls with way too much emphasis on "sexuality" and "exposure" and "makeup". This was a big clue on how parents are not recognizing the dangers of children being allowed to be exposed to this at such a young age. A principal should not have to spend so much time on proper dress code.

Television is horrible these days, way too much sex and crime related programs. I had to make sure I really monitored what my daughter was allowed to watch. I made sure that friends came to my house verses her going to other homes because the one time I felt it was safe, the parents (socialites) felt it was ok for their daughter to sleep with her older brother, and my daughter came home crying because these children were showing her playboy magazines they took from dad in hid in their closet. This little girl was only six years old. And she was often left alone after school with her 9 year old brother to watch her. Ugh. And I can clearly remember the mother talking about how "close" her son and daughter were, how nice it was. Ugh

Why are we trying to encourage children to be out of the home earlier? While I do think it is good to teach children at age 4, it is important to make sure that this doesn't become part of a big plan to get children into long school days at earlier ages, they are not ready for that IMO.

There is so much talk about "equal rights" for women in careers. But, being a mother is also a significant "career choice" that should also be considered and also women should get an education to do that too. Or, if a woman is the bread winner and the husband choses to be the main caregiver, that too, should be considered a "valuable" career choice and require an education as well.

"No child left behind" has to begin in the "home".

I have been learning all about the subconscious mind in addressing and working through my PTSD. I never dreamed my childhood challenges had such a profound affect on me. I can see the difference between me and my own child, because I made sure she didn't have to address the things I had to address.

I have lost count of how many young people I have met on PC that struggle because of "neglect". These children could have the most modern school we can make, but it will not help them. And they will probably end up needing some kind of entitlement program from the government, or be on a drug program that will never really resolve their problems.

I have not seen a president that I can truely say is "intelligent" yet. There are so many "well written speeches" we can talk about, but not the one I want to really hear to be honest.

Obama talked about our most "valuable" of all, our children, but he still missed the "mark".

[shortandcute]

Originally Posted by pachyderm

My niece created and has owned her small business in California for decades. Now she is talking moving to Texas, for one thing to avoid the California taxes. She makes decisions on impulse, but at least she is willing to take risks. She is a real entrepreneur. Maybe that would be a good alternative, or at least a complement, to the vision for America of Obama -- with its plusses and minuses. A lot more positive than the meanness, the cramped mindedness of most Republicans today, it seems to me. They have lost their way, have forgotten what their message ought to be (I think), and can only say NO.

OK, you can get rid of me now...

Wow! SERIOUSLY!!!!!???? Are you trying to start an argument? The only meanness I see here is coming from you. Besides, Barack Obama has WON the election, so what is the point of coming on here and being all nasty and defensive!? For now, this IS still a free country, and people here still have a right to agree or disagree with the President without being accused of slandering, or being called names (like mean, and cramped minded).

[Open Eyes]

" A lot more positive than the meanness, the cramped mindedness of most Republicans today, it seems to me. They have lost their way, have forgotten what their message ought to be (I think), and can only say NO." quote pachyderm

Ok, shortandcute, I see why you are angry. But, it isn't "way off the mark", as "some" republicans "are" somewhat cramped. But the problem is the space, the devide because there is so much far left and far right. And let's be honest, some of the republicans have made some "stupid statements" and unfortunately it got blamed on the whole party which was wrong.

When I watched the way our election process went, including the debates, I didn't see adults, I didn't see something I think our children should learn from. We are "not" showing our youth how to behave well you know, we just are "not". We are "promoting" bullying and guess what, we still are.

Our politicians, from both parties go down to Washington, the new boom town and guess what, many of their family members are "lobbyists", it is becoming a family business down there in our state capital. Yeah business is booming in Washington, but even there is a quiet corner of "poverty" where people are living, even children are living the way "no one should have to live", go figure.

Oh and how about this one, "As long as these politicians do their job their private life shouldn't matter". I remember hearing that line with the Wheiner issue that came up.
Oh yeah, it is ok for Clinton to cheat on his wife with a young intern in the oval office and lie to Americans, and still have a strong respected voice in politics. Who did Clinton admire as a role model, ummmm wasn't it Kennedy?

What is private life? Often it has "children" that have to deal with whatever it is.

When are we really going to "mind the store" in society? I am not seeing any "real" improvements there and it isn't like we don't know how children are affected by the kind of parents and home life they have. Where we need "real education" is not even thought about or at least discussed in our leadership. I have yet to hear it and I know we all pay for "not paying attention to it".

There is nothing wrong with "having a vision" for America, but, there has to be a way it can actually "work". If someone has a vision that is "their own vision" then it can be dangerous because they are going from their own "capacities" and may not be seeing the things that are "missing and problematic" that can prevent that vision from taking place. This has happened with "both" party ideals.

The infrastructure that I see as "important" is missed by both parties and unless something is done about the "human family infrastructure" I see continuing problems no matter what the "vision is".

When both parties discussed the trajedy of Newtown, there was some reference to "mental illness" but, it was clear that there is a nievety about the "cause" of some of the mental illness we are addressing in our society. If close to 50% of the population is "on the entiltlement list" why?

In my honest opinion we need to look at "where children are" in our society now. How many people are having children and have "too many" and cannot truely "afford them", who is raising our children?, how many children are having children and why?, How many drug addicted women are having children, and why are these women "drug addicted to begin with, who parented them? Why is marijuana legal in some states and how many of these people that use it are also "parents"?

I lived in yuppie neighborhood (a nice new middle class neighborhood and college grads) where the parents like to party, drink, smoke pot, get drunk and the whole time their children were home in bed alone in the homes. I was not "with this crowd", I didn't want to associate with these kind of parents, and guess what, glad I didn't because their children all became "drug users too" and I didn't want my daughter around that crap. Yes, they were "popular kids too" in school.

The relationship forum is the busiest forum next to the depression forum here at PC, hmmmmm, wonder why.

The citizens that call themselves "repulican conservatives" are not big business mogels or wealthy CEO's.
They are people that do believe in education, the right to build a business and have freedom and not have to be responsible for all the other people that "abuse the system". And the state of Texas where your niece wants to go and try to thrive in her "entrepenureship" is a Republican state. What went wrong with California? Why is it that people can no longer thrive there? I live in a very "blue" state and over 50% are moving out because they can no longer afford to live here.

There was talk about building a brand new High School in my town and taxes were going to go up so we could do that. My child went to that high school, I didn't get the new school, so why should I and others pay for it? And why have it if the families that live in my town can bearly afford what they have, what is going to happen, parents work more hours and kids don't have parents around to help them, and I already know what happens, so how is a new school going to change the quality of the children? IDK.

I am not "Obama bashing here either" I find fault with all our politicians tbh.

[shortandcute]

Originally Posted by Open Eyes

" A lot more positive than the meanness, the cramped mindedness of most Republicans today, it seems to me. They have lost their way, have forgotten what their message ought to be (I think), and can only say NO." quote pachyderm

Ok, shortandcute, I see why you are angry. But, it isn't "way off the mark", as "some" republicans "are" somewhat cramped. But the problem is the space, the devide because there is so much far left and far right. And let's be honest, some of the republicans have made some "stupid statements" and unfortunately it got blamed on the whole party which was wrong.

When I watched the way our election process went, including the debates, I didn't see adults, I didn't see something I think our children should learn from. We are "not" showing our youth how to behave well you know, we just are "not". We are "promoting" bullying and guess what, we still are.

Our politicians, from both parties go down to Washington, the new boom town and guess what, many of their family members are "lobbyists", it is becoming a family business down there in our state capital. Yeah business is booming in Washington, but even there is a quiet corner of "poverty" where people are living, even children are living the way "no one should have to live", go figure.

Oh and how about this one, "As long as these politicians do their job their private life shouldn't matter". I remember hearing that line with the Wheiner issue that came up.
Oh yeah, it is ok for Clinton to cheat on his wife with a young intern in the oval office and lie to Americans, and still have a strong respected voice in politics. Who did Clinton admire as a role model, ummmm wasn't it Kennedy?

What is private life? Often it has "children" that have to deal with whatever it is.

When are we really going to "mind the store" in society? I am not seeing any "real" improvements there and it isn't like we don't know how children are affected by the kind of parents and home life they have. Where we need "real education" is not even thought about or at least discussed in our leadership. I have yet to hear it and I know we all pay for "not paying attention to it".

There is nothing wrong with "having a vision" for America, but, there has to be a way it can actually "work". If someone has a vision that is "their own vision" then it can be dangerous because they are going from their own "capacities" and may not be seeing the things that are "missing and problematic" that can prevent that vision from taking place. This has happened with "both" party ideals.

The infrastructure that I see as "important" is missed by both parties and unless something is done about the "human family infrastructure" I see continuing problems no matter what the "vision is".

When both parties discussed the trajedy of Newtown, there was some reference to "mental illness" but, it was clear that there is a nievety about the "cause" of some of the mental illness we are addressing in our society. If close to 50% of the population is "on the entiltlement list" why?

In my honest opinion we need to look at "where children are" in our society now. How many people are having children and have "too many" and cannot truely "afford them", who is raising our children?, how many children are having children and why?, How many drug addicted women are having children, and why are these women "drug addicted to begin with, who parented them? Why is marijuana legal in some states and how many of these people that use it are also "parents"?

I lived in yuppie neighborhood (a nice new middle class neighborhood and college grads) where the parents like to party, drink, smoke pot, get drunk and the whole time their children were home in bed alone in the homes. I was not "with this crowd", I didn't want to associate with these kind of parents, and guess what, glad I didn't because their children all became "drug users too" and I didn't want my daughter around that crap. Yes, they were "popular kids too" in school.

The relationship forum is the busiest forum next to the depression forum here at PC, hmmmmm, wonder why.

The citizens that call themselves "repulican conservatives" are not big business mogels or wealthy CEO's.
They are people that do believe in education, the right to build a business and have freedom and not have to be responsible for all the other people that "abuse the system". And the state of Texas where your niece wants to go and try to thrive in her "entrepenureship" is a Republican state. What went wrong with California? Why is it that people can no longer thrive there? I live in a very "blue" state and over 50% are moving out because they can no longer afford to live here.

There was talk about building a brand new High School in my town and taxes were going to go up so we could do that. My child went to that high school, I didn't get the new school, so why should I and others pay for it? And why have it if the families that live in my town can bearly afford what they have, what is going to happen, parents work more hours and kids don't have parents around to help them, and I already know what happens, so how is a new school going to change the quality of the children? IDK.

I am not "Obama bashing here either" I find fault with all our politicians tbh.

Oh, I agree with you as far as many Republicans. But the issue here is that it appeared (to me) that Pachyderm started this thread only to start an argument, and was already on the defensive before anyone responded to the first post. I don't think all Republicans are wonderful people, just as I don't think all Democrats are horrible, either. I DO have an issue with people name-calling simply on the basis of whether someone voted for Obama or not; I feel the same way about people who go around bashing people simply for voting FOR Obama, when they are good decent people. My point was, a person is not mean and cramped minded soley because they voted one way or the other. As I said, this is a free country, and people should be judged on their character and behavior, not just on who they voted for.

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by shortandcute

the issue here is that it appeared (to me) that Pachyderm started this thread only to start an argument, and was already on the defensive before anyone responded to the first post.

I make you uncomfortable, don't I -- the expression of my own fears about these people gets transmitted to you, and you think I must have "started this thread only to start an argument". You are right about me being "already on the defensive before anyone responded to the first post" -- I thought that was pretty clear. But what is the meaning of this? My own fears of the people that do not simply disagree with me, but how they disagree. The form in which these people express their ideas expresses their own fears, but fears whose sources they do not recognize -- and their fear gets transmitted to me. And it is hard for me, when made afraid, to cope with, to recognize the sources of their and my own fears, and manage them in any healing way.

I think I at least recognize some of what is happening; I do not think the people I am talking about are nearly as close to being consciously aware of the sources and meanings of their fears as I am. If I may express some praise of myself!

[Timgt5]

I did not find anything new or innovative in anything Mr. Obama proposed.

What I heard was a weak attempt to repackage the same old Keynesean Snake oil that has never actually worked. The idea of deficit spending to bring about prosperity has had a few tries in the real world with not so good results.

Looking through the history of recessions in the US the two longest periods of slow to no growth, have occured when government has most tried to interject itself into the economy, that being the 1930s and our current period. Aside from those two periods of time, all other economic recoveries have followed a V curve, the deeper the recession, the faster the bounce coming back out. It is not just here but in Japan, we are watching the failure of a keynesean experiment that has gone on now for 30 years and the Japanese still have not returned to the level of prosperity they enjoyed in the late 1980s. Yet Mr. Obama is essentially proposing the same solutions, an average growth rate of 2% or less is not acceptable.

You say Obama is not a "Big Government" politician, yet the pace of regulations has been higher under his first term in office than his last three predessors, the federal budget consumes more of the GDP than ever, as does the federal spending per person. Washington DC is booming because of the expansion of the federal government. Sorry Pachy, the evidence clearly points toward wanting a more aggressive and powerful Federal Government.

The Nine Dollar an hour minimum wage is yet another demonstration of lack of real world economic experiance. Artificially driven raises in wages will cause a Newtonian reaction in prices. Which means the poorest may have more paper in the wallet, but it will buy less goods and services than it did before, so in the long run you do more harm than good. Also no business is going to maintain an employee whose output is less than he or she costs to have him or her on staff, as such they will be let go. Furthermore such artificial increases also have a chain effect on wages across the board, as they will go up, so will prices, in the end then more inflation. Lastly going to nine dollar an hour minimum wage will effectively price teenagers out of the part time job market, sorry nobody is going to pay a teen 9 bucks an hour to flip burgers or bag groceries in most places. This also will harm the poor because many of those families rely on their kids income to help with family expenses.

As for education, lets acknowledge the problem is not actually funding. On a per pupil basis the US spends more than any other nation on education while returning mid grade results at best compared to the rest of the world. Until we acknowledge that we have a system that is 75 years out of date and need of a ground up redesign we can never hope to improve the economic competativeness of our children. It is good the President paid lip service to German apprentiship programs, but failed to mention that most countries in Europe have had school choice for decades now and are spending less money per child to get higher performance.

As for immigration, it needs to be reformed. I have been privy to several anecdotes regarding how poorly the system works for legitimately skilled persons wishing to live here legally. We really need such folk if hope to maintain our welfare state in the long run. Mr. Obama wants to initiate reform, that is good, but he failed to mention imporving and expanding the guest worker program, a key component of immigration reform. Business are starving for high skilled labor, and guest worker program expansion would help fill those needs.

Mr. Obama also talked about more subsidies for college. Anyone want to guess why higher education cost have risen far faster than the rate of inflation? In our attempt to turn our 4 year universities into "Degree Mills" we have caused an education bubble, which we want to then continue to inflate with more student loans, for ever more costly colleges. As a result millions of Americans are burdened with debt they cannot hope to repay in their lifetimes. When we start getting a trillion dollars or more in student loan defaults, who do you think is going to have to pick up the tab?

Mr. Obama talked about housing, did we not learn anything from the economic mess we are trying dig our way out of now? Every administration since Carter has had this misguided idea that everyone needs to be a home owner. Sorry folks there are some people who lack the intelligence to understand and maintain a home loan. There is simply a large swath of our population better off as renters.

Mr. Obama touched on guaranteed retirement. Our Social Security system is not sustainable into the future without either massive tax increases, or some form of means testing at the very least, which the President did not mention. For anyone who wants to argue with me, it is not a matter of politics, it is a matter of math, the ratio of people paying in versus those who collect is declining, less players means more has to be extracted from each, or you find a way to create less receipients one or the other. It is ironic that the Scandanavian countries which have a reputation for being the most "socialist" all have privatized their equivilants to our Social Security system. I am all for having a basic safety net, but it needs to have some qualifiers. Does anyone think that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet merrit a social security check or should be eligible for medicare?

The bottom line is that we have a President, who speaks beautifully about the future, yet seems to want to apply solutions from the 1930s to our 21st century problems.

[pachyderm]

Barack Obama = Bad, eh? Give the guy some slack. He did not get us into all this mess by himself. He does not have all the answers, as I am sure he would tell you. At least he is trying, which is a lot more than I can say for most of his naysayers.

As for the specific economic theories and arguments that you espouse, I think they are a lot more debatable than you present them as -- but they could be debated if the atmosphere were not so poisonous. I think Obama has contributed to that poison a lot less than just about anyone else in politics that I can think of.

[Hellion]

Originally Posted by pachyderm

Actually the drone program started under Bush, I think. Obama has stepped it up quite a bit.

Oh I didn't know they had drones back then, but yeah I don't see Obama as much improvement from Bush considering he's stepped up the drones and the endless 'War on terrorism' or whatever they refer to it as now days....and I don't get the impression he's all that naive or mislead which is the impression I had of Bush but who knows what all goes on behind the scenes. Also, the new healthcare system I thought it was going to be somethinng more like universal healthcare I guess it is more or less a start. I just really hope they don't cut down on medicaid and there are still options for people who can't afford insurance other than paying a fine.

Essentially all those changes he promised haven't happened and its understandable he can't live up to everything he'd want to do but the complete lack of any positive change is what bothers me since he was so adamant about that before getting elected.

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by Hellion

Oh I didn't know they had drones back then, but yeah I don't see Obama as much improvement from Bush considering he's stepped up the drones and the endless 'War on terrorism' or whatever they refer to it as now days....

There are quite a few, including Democrats, and the editorial staff of the New York Times, that are expressing unease at Obama's drone policies -- especially the secrecy of policies supposed to justify it. These objections may have effects on policy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/op...ml?ref=opinion

[Open Eyes]

Originally Posted by pachyderm

I make you uncomfortable, don't I -- the expression of my own fears about these people gets transmitted to you, and you think I must have "started this thread only to start an argument". You are right about me being "already on the defensive before anyone responded to the first post" -- I thought that was pretty clear. But what is the meaning of this? My own fears of the people that do not simply disagree with me, but how they disagree. The form in which these people express their ideas expresses their own fears, but fears whose sources they do not recognize -- and their fear gets transmitted to me. And it is hard for me, when made afraid, to cope with, to recognize the sources of their and my own fears, and manage them in any healing way.

I think I at least recognize some of what is happening; I do not think the people I am talking about are nearly as close to being consciously aware of the sources and meanings of their fears as I am. If I may express some praise of myself!

(((Patchyderm))),

I understand "why" you had a certain tone in your original post. It isn't just "you" either, I have noticed it in "many". And this is what our politicians have set up to happen. I noticed it in the way they campaigned and how Americans grew more and more confused and devided.

It is normal for "any" president to make an effort to bring a sense of calm to a country that is struggling. A speech has to bring on a sense of direction, some kind of unitedness, and motivation. Their speeches are professionally written and mulled over so that a sense of confidence can be directed toward a nation. Yes, there is always a vision that is conveyed, a vision that sounds hopeful and inspiring. It is also one of the highest levels of salesmanship there is.

When Romney got caught saying the 47% of the population on entitlements would not vote for him, I knew he was doomed. And I was right because of the percentage of votes he did get in this election. And that gave Obama a tremendous advantage and a new ground work plan was put into motion to pursue those that "want or need" assistance or at least feel that there is something there "just in case".

Once you give "anyone" a safety net or a provision of somekind or even a right, if anyone tries to "change" that right/plan/safety net, they are going to be considered a "threat" and will be "disliked".

Actually, the number of "dependants" now have increased "above" that origninal 47%. Our economy is really bad right now, and even if Romney did win, the path to any real kind of recovery is still going to be a huge challenge.

The reality is that Obama was elected to try to find a way to repair a country that has a lot of "deterioration" that isn't just Bush's fault, but more like a house that could not afford to be kept up so it almost needs to be torn down and completely "rebuilt". But the other problem with this is that there is already a lot of debt owed on this tear down.

I understand what Tim is saying here about the 1930's solutions that did seem to work, however our population has increased so much that that way of addressing our current economic situation is not sustainable. Hey, I sit here and I am in no way an economics major, not even close, but, I can see a boat where more than half the population is not rowing and the other half can't keep up with that problem. However, there seems to be a smoke screen between the two groups and the side that isn't rowing isn't recognizing that the part that is rowing is growing tired and thinking about how they too can get to "non rowing side" of the boat, or at least would like to know that they "can" get to the nonrowing part if they get to a point where they simply cannot row anymore.

Personally, I see our government sitting in the middle of the boat and I don't see how adding more to that government is going to increase the number on the rowing side of the boat. And the part of the boat that isn't rowing is making the boat lean alot. It "is" a tough situation and honestly "most people are really concerned" and because our political leaders are so far apart on how they look at the solutions, there is a lot of ways "fear mongering and resentments can take shape".

I personally pointed to one of the big reasons why so many end up on that nonrowing side that is never discussed by our politicians. I have spent years working amongst children and familes in different scenarios where I have been seeing some big problems for a long time. What I also see is that the way our technology has changed and the lack of the kind of jobs that can accomodate the social problems that I have been seeing has been on the decrease. The factory jobs that used to be there are almost gone and many of the jobs that used to provide for some of these people are now done by machines. Yes, we do have a big problem, because alot of these jobs are now overseas too.

I see Obama as a "humanitarian" and for " social justice" and for that he will be "popular". Yes, that speech did it's job at trying to provide comfort and alot of people are going to "want to hang onto that" and even defend it and "not want to hear anything to take away from that".

I also noticed that the devide is also very strong, the people that "are" rowing are going to view things differently from those that are not. However, the people that "are" rowing are getting tired and stressed and also want to see some kind of safety net there as well.

In my opinion, that speech had to bring some kind of calm to that very big issue. Sigh....I don't know how we are going to "maintain" that calm though if some calm was achieved. I can understand how you feel pachyderm, alot of people are feeling it and you are right, it is not about "disagreeing" it is about how that is taking place, and it has been troubled for quite some time now, I hear you.

[shortandcute]

Originally Posted by pachyderm

I make you uncomfortable, don't I -- the expression of my own fears about these people gets transmitted to you, and you think I must have "started this thread only to start an argument". You are right about me being "already on the defensive before anyone responded to the first post" -- I thought that was pretty clear. But what is the meaning of this? My own fears of the people that do not simply disagree with me, but how they disagree. The form in which these people express their ideas expresses their own fears, but fears whose sources they do not recognize -- and their fear gets transmitted to me. And it is hard for me, when made afraid, to cope with, to recognize the sources of their and my own fears, and manage them in any healing way.

I think I at least recognize some of what is happening; I do not think the people I am talking about are nearly as close to being consciously aware of the sources and meanings of their fears as I am. If I may express some praise of myself!

yeah, whatever! dont flatter yourself. just look at your first two posts and think REAL HARD -- then you might be able to figure out what i mean. you might make things a lot easier for yourself if you practise some acceptance in knowing that are gonna be people out there who disagree with you; and no amount of provoking and instigating is gonna change that.

[Open Eyes]

(((pachyderm))),

You are my friend and I have gotten to know you a little better recently. I can relate to you much better now because of that. In light of that, I certainly do not want to "hit you over the head", I know that feeling and it isn't pleasant. And honestly in light of the fact that this site is meant to help us and find support, I want to help you with being "supportive" if I can.

What "I" have had to learn myself is that because of how I struggle and my own history of "abuse", I tend to "project" that if I voice my opinion, that I will face some kind of disagreement that can "hurt me" and trigger me. I especially have to work on this problem with my attorney because he is a very disrespectful and condescending man.

I have learned that if I make a statement on the "defensive" though, I will always get a bad reaction. This thread is a good example of that. However, it isn't just you or me, it is the way our entire political environment is right now. And I was triggered alot by this election and I even asked my T if it was me or is it as bad as I see it. His reply was, no, it isn't you, this has been a very troubling disruptive, negetive election, one of the worst he could remember.

I was surprised you got the reaction you did though because in my opinion, from what I have noticed in the political talks on this site, many of the threads were "pro Obama" and there was a constant flow of negetivity towards the "republican party". I have to admit it did bother me because I do know there are members that "are" conservatives or repulicans and I noticed they felt somewhat "uncomfortable" however they chose to "refrain" from interacting. I do however see that alot of republicans were not necessarily very fond of Romney and have even been somewhat taken back by some of the possible "distructive" comments made by some of the Repulican politicians. And none of the republicans that I know are rich, selfish Ceo's or what has been portrayed as selfish "rich people". And none of them are backwoods, gun toting toothless degenerates either. And, I don't know of any that agree with these new efforts being made to force rape victims to stay pregnant or face criminal charges of somekind.

So the defensive stance you took, that's caused by the "politicians", all of them!!!! And, it has been also fueled by the "media" as well, all of them are doing it!!!! The American public are victims of this and personally, I don't like it, it is very "disfunctional".

Honestly, I saw it more and more and I was really triggered by it and in a mental health site, it is not good for people that can be struggling already from "disfunction".

I know what you want (((pachyderm))) you want it to stop, me too. And I could see that was why you started on the defensive. But, it isn't going to work, because all it really does is "fuel it even more". That is what I have been working on myself too pachyderm.

That speech was also designed to help with that as well. Infact, the majority of the speeches that are given after an election is won are designed to find a way to bring some kind of calm after the heated combativeness of an election. And that is what you felt was "intelligent" and something you wanted to "hang onto" and even "defend".

I saw a small segmant where John McCain was talking and he gave some interesting "insite" to the inner workings of the political arena that we often don't see. He talked about the men themselves and how they are nice guys "away from the politics" and when they interact they "debate in a heated way" and have a certain amount of not making the discussion/debate a "personal attack". They will go back and forth looking like they really dislike each other, then, walk out of site and shake hands and say, "that was a good one" in a sense of "pleasure and respect". John McCain is more of a progressive Repulican, he is not particularly fond of the "tea party republicans". Also, while he appeared to be "hard on Hilary" he also has alot of "respect for her" too and she knows it. There is a lot of "showmanship" that takes place in the political arena, and relationships behind the scenes that we don't truely see as the general public that can be "quite different" than we think.

Personally I get the feeling that Obama is disconnected from "all of them". That is my own "gut" feeling right now though. I think it will be interesting to learn after Obama leaves office down the road to see what is said of him. Ofcourse, as always, the general public doesnt' really get to know "all of it" , it has always been that way too. By the way, that was the case with Regan as well, he actually had very few, if any "real friends" other than his wife. He was respected by many "politically" but it didn't get further than that.

But getting back to what I was trying to point out in my post here, in general, I have learned that whenever a question begins with "a defensive tone", generally that sets the tone in the wrong way. I have to learn how to overcome this myself pachyderm. I have to make sure I get pretty good at it too because it really does me no good when I do it with my attorney. It's hard too because I can often easily anticipate him being "negetive" and "dismissive" and with the PTSD, I tend to "react" and get "angry". So, I still might slip and unknowingly get "defensive" hopefully I will get support with that so I can think about it and improve on it, as I know I still have to work on it too.

It is my hope that this country can get away from the disfuntion and back into just "discussion" again. I think that is going to take time though, in general no matter what party someone supports, there is a certain amount of doubt and lack of overall trust, some are rowing, some aren't but we are all in the same boat after all.

Open Eyes

[sabby]

See folks, here's the thing, this is exactly why we have the Community Guideline that state the following:

Limit your direct discussion of politics and religion, as people usually hold pretty strong opinions about these topics

If you wish to discuss this subject further, either discuss it in a social group that's already created, or you can create one or post in the Current Events and News forum with a link to a valid online article and please, follow the specific guidelines for that forum. It must be kept civil and supportive or your post will be removed.

That said, I am now closing this thread. Thank you for your understanding.