By: Laura Baumgardner
I made a comment to Thad regarding a blog that Natasha Donghia had posted. She is an Obama supporter and decided to speak up in defense of him. That is her right to do so, as it is everyone’s right to have an opinion. She wanted me to explain why I disagreed with some of her statements. I did, and what I thought would be a quick response turned out to be quite long. I didn’t mean to write so much, but once I got going it was hard to stop. Anyway, my blog is actually my response to her….
Natasha, you wrote a great blog and I applaud you for doing so when the views you expressed aren’t shared by many people “in these parts.” I do agree with you on a few things. I guess that’s where our conservative values meet. Like you, I disagree with his health care policy. I think it is greatly flawed too. Unlike you, however, I don’t think Obama’s plan will benefit the private health insurance companies themselves as much as it will diminish the quality and the amount of care that we will be allowed to receive if the government has control of it. Both Canada and Great Britain are prime examples of the diminished health care one receives when it is government regulated. In Great Britain, if you are diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, no treatment will be made available to you. You are past the point in which they think you are “curable.” I want to know there are cures available and have every opportunity to find it. I’m also glad that Obama lifted the ban on federal funding of stem cell research, but I still believe that we should only use adult stem cells in the research and not embryonic stem cells.
I agree with you that our country is great. I love my country and the freedoms which it offers. Are we fat and lazy like we are portrayed in the rest of the world? Absolutely. Why? I believe it’s because the government has made us this way. The social program we know as Welfare is the biggest reason that we’ve become a lazy society. Sure, there are times when we need to help those less privileged and less fortunate. However, when you have families that become “welfare dependent” generation after generation it proves the system has failed and needs to be changed. Will the government do that? No. Instead Obama wants to do a little thing called redistribution of wealth. Seven years ago Obama said in a radio interview, “the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.” I’m sorry but in my opinion, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the Declaration of Independence speaks of has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth. I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of footing the bill for the people who are able to work but are unwilling to do so because it’s easier for them to draw a paycheck from the government. It’s time for a “change” alright, but I’m sure his slogan didn’t mean in it that respect. It’s my sincere belief the he wants to grow a much larger welfare dependent society because that will allow the government to have the power over the people. (Government health care plan included).
As for your comment that his administration inherited the problems for the former administration, it’s the same statement uttered by every new president that has taken office. I doubt that will ever change. I agree that a few of the problems can be blamed on the Bush Administration, but some of the problems can also be placed squarely in the laps of his own Democratic party who were in control during the Bush years. That being said, Obama has taken office during one of the most difficult times our nation has ever faced. I don’t disagree with that. However, I don’t think that some of Obama’s actions and plans have been in best interest of our country. It is not the government’s place to fire a CEO of a public owned company. It is not the government’s place to say that a bank can receive a bailout will not have a chance to repay that money. Yes, the TARP fund was started by the Bush administration, but it is the Obama administration who is saying that the banks aren’t going to be allowed to pay it back. That is a HUGE conflict of interest when the government controls the largest and most powerful banks in America.
You asked what administration WANTS industry to be nationalized by government. Are you kidding me? It doesn’t matter who is in control, Democrats or Republicans. The government will seize any opportunity it has to grow larger and more powerful. Once it grows in size, you can be assured that it will never shrink. That’s why we need to be careful and pay attention to what’s going on in our society. Everything is happening at such a slow pace that I’m afraid that most people don’t see how “we the people” are losing our voices. It has nothing to do with being a Republican or a Democrat. What’s the old saying? Throw a frog in a pot of boiling water and he will jump out, but throw a frog in cold water and turn up the heat he will slowly cook to death. That is the analogy I use with our government.
I agree with you that the structure of our economy was different 30, 40,and 50 years ago. You mentioned that mom and pop stores are closing because Wal‑mart and other larger companies are forcing them out of business. That’s true. I can say that because I was one of them. We closed our business because we knew we couldn’t compete against the giants like Petsmart and Petco. I’m not blaming them for being successful, though. Every large company had to start somewhere. That is what’s great about our country. You can start small and dream big, eventually becoming wealthy and successful. So why would you let the government come in and decide how much money you can make or how much money you can pay your employees? Where do you draw the line? Sure, I’ll be one of the first to say that Wall Street was out of control and that the “golden parachutes” the CEO’s rewarded themselves with were shameful, but it’s the stockholders and shareholders who should decide what happens in the private company. Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned. The Obama administration is most certainly trying to stifle capitalism. He is wanting to control the wealth, and the amount of wealth one can earn. We may be in uncharted territory, but you had better watch where Obama steps because it may be on your toes next. You can’t have it both ways.
As for the man himself, I don’t appreciate our president visiting another country and apologizing for Americans being “arrogant.” He may be trying to improve relations, but dogging one’s own citizens isn’t the way to go about it. If the American citizens are arrogant it’s only because we’ve been taught that you don’t have to work hard or have a job in order to have your needs met. The government will give it to you anyway. Our forefathers worked hard and fought hard to get ahead in life and I think they would be ashamed to see what has happened to our country.
America was founded on God and Christian principles, and for Obama to say that we aren’t a Christian nation is an outrage. “In God We Trust” can be found on all of our currency. “One nation under God” is in our Pledge of Allegiance. Heck, even the Alabama State Constitution states “ that all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” So do what you want to make you happy in life, but please don’t trample the values of the U.S. Constitution in order to get there, and don’t expect me to foot the bill for it.
Yes, everyone has a right to an opinion, but throwing a fact or two in to support your arguments usually helps. Unfortunately I don't see many facts here.1) The health care reform that is being proposed is not anything like what Great Britain or Canada has, so to make those comparisons is not at all appropriate. The Obama administration has no interest in restricting needed care for patients.2) Where is your evidence that Americans are fat and lazy or that the government is the reason? There are fewer Americans on welfare now than there were when George HW Bush left office, and the program has already gone through reforms to help ensure that the generation-after-generation scenario is less likely to occur. You're making the same old arguments, long after the reforms have occurred.3) It's a "conflict of interest" when the government bails out the largest financial institutions? You've got two facts missing in that statement, 1) the government had a huge interest in ensuring these large financial institutions stayed solvent, 2) they didn't take control of the banks, they loaned them money and then set restrictions on how that money could be used, that seems reasonable and prudent to me.4) Again you offer no evidence to support your argument that when government grows it never shrinks, lots of people say it, but offering some evidence would certainly make the argument stronger. The reality is we have gone through periods where the government got more involved in certain areas, then pulled back. The financial industry being a prime example. We took the path of reducing regulation that was recommended by conservatives, and that is exactly how we got in the financial mess that the current administration is having to deal with.5) To the same point, when you discuss mom and pop companies being put out of business. This administration wants to ensure that there is a level playing field, it doesn't want to stifle capitalism, it wants to ensure that capitalism can work. It can't work in an environment where a small number of companies control huge segments of the economy.6) Nothing annoys me more than when someone takes Obama's remarks about our policy toward other countries and somehow makes that about the people. He is not "dogging" American citizens he is "dogging" the arrogant POLICIES of the previous administration that said if you don't agree with us, we don't want to talk to you. If you aren't with us you're against us. That's not how you have effective relationships with other countries. He's apologizing because the previous administration screwed up so badly in their foreign policy, that we have to apologize in order to be able to start over. And let the forefathers rest in peace, I'm so tired of people conjecturing what our forefathers would believe today.7) First, when did Obama say we aren't a Christian nation? Do any of the references you mention say "the Christian God" or "Jesus"? No…there are many expressions of God in many different faiths and those references do not make us a "Christian" nation. We are a land of people of many faiths who should all be treated equally under the law.
Like I said in my opening statement, Natasha had asked me to respond by expressing my views on WHY I didn't agree with her blog, and that's what I did. I expressed my opinion and what I believe to be true. If you don't agree with me that's fine. I'm not hear to argue about politics or try to convince anyone to change their political views. I'm sure we'll have supporters for both of our views, and that's great. That's America.
Obama is the anti-Christ
Kristopher where are your facts to back up that less people are on welfare now? Obama told us if we passed his stimulous package that unemployeement would not pass 8%. We now stand at 9.1%. The highest it has been since Jimmy Carter. I would assume these people that are being laid of are asking for some kind of help. People can blame Bush for all our economic problems if they want to , but the fact is that Bush worked with a Democratic controlled Congress. Congress controls tghe purse strings. The industries in the biggest messes are cotrolled by labor unions and the labor unions caused the falls of the auto industries and the bankrupcies in the airline industries. Who benifitted the most from the restructuring at GM the labor bosses or the individuals who owned stock in the conpamy? The labor bosses did. The housing market slid because the federal governement (Democrats) forces finacial institutions to make risky loans to people that they know could not pay the bill. Somehow these people were due homes they coul.d not afford. McCain in 2004 said Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae were in trouble and asked to have them looked into. Congressional Democrats turned a deaf ear. And now the leaders of these failed companies and are advising Obama. If you think Bush screwed up so bad with his foreign policy how is Obama doing. Noth Korea is lunch missels left as right, Israel thinks we are turning our backs on them. Iran can have nukes I guess and Germany has about had their fill of Obama. What bridges has he mended? He has driven a wedge between us are our oldest ally in the middle east.
I didn't find Jennifer's statment funny at all. I mean you have two intelligent women from very different sides and viewpoints who took the time to write two very thought-provoking, interesting blog entries and then she responds with Obama is the anti-christ. Igorant statements like that are the reason why there will always be such a terrible political devide in this country. Pathetic.
Lighten up Frances. Wow. Thin-skinned much?
I feel quite certain that she doesn't really think Obama is the anti-christ. Perhaps it is the complete and utter lack of anyone being able to take any sort of jab at all that causes such deep divisions within the American people.
Calling the President the anti-Christ is not "taking a jab"…and as for the facts on welfare…was everyone here asleep during the 90's? The Clinton administation instituted welfare reform and we now have "Welfare-to-Work" which limits the benefits for welfare and no longer allows for folks to continue to receive benefits if they are able-bodied and not part of the work force…that's the fact (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/particip/indexparticip.htm). So, to continue the myth that somehow we still have a problem with "generational welfare" is ignoring reality.North Korea has been launching missiles for decades, it's just what they do. And no matter what you say about Israel, someone is going to be upset…we get criticized if we're too friendly and criticized if we're not friendly enough. This expectation that Obama is somehow supposed to turn everything around in just over 100 days is ridiculous. He's laying the groundwork for a long-term sustainable foreign policy by putting in place an experienced team and sending the right messages to our allies and others around the world. Yes, there will need to be more concrete action on North Korea and Iran, and this administration realizes that, but it will not be the US acting alone. Whatever approach we take to deal with these threats will be in concert with the other powerful nations of the world, as it should have been all along.
Time will tell – Time will tell – Time will tell \ If the first 100 days is any sign….. Put your head between your legs and kiss your _ _ _ goodbye… By the way your wallet wont be in the way it will be in Washington…
Wow! calling Obama the anti-christ is what keeps us divided?????? Yea, because no one said anything about George W the last 8 years. He was called every name in the book people. Don't dish it if you can't take it.
I was against the name calling of Bush as well…dislike the policies, but respect the man and the office.
I love how "anonymous" can make such a blatent personal statement about my intelligence, based a one liner that I find quite amusing. If you want to post something that takes a jab at my intelligence, you can start by posting your name. Geez…pathetic.p.s. Thad, from what I remmeber correctly, anonymousness is to be deleted…get rid of that person who apparently can't take a joke. Pathetic HA