If You Doubt President Obama's Lack of Common Courtesy...

While the media tries its level best to spin this has a "disagreement" equally the fault of both sides, I hope that most people understand two simple things about scheduling the Presidential speech to the Congress:

1. The President (and his team) knew that the Republican debate was scheduled.
2. The President (and his team) made a decision to request the forum on the same date as the Republican debate.

Is the debate more important than the economy? Of course the economy is more important but it is also important for the people to see the candidates to replace President Obama as they compete for the Republican nomination so they can make an informed decision in the election come November 2012. This is one of those things were both things are important but the President clearly decided to try and upstage the debate.

I can't see how people don't "get" that President Obama is at least part of the problem when it comes to partisan bickering. I've seen enough to blame both sides.

Give the man a break. He was just trying to avoid a conflict with NFL season opening. Clearly that is more important than some debate ...

Quote: weaselman

Give the man a break. He was just trying to avoid a conflict with NFL season opening. Clearly that is more important than some debate ...

That's kind of the weird thing. The guy has been on vacation the last however-long. Nobody begrudges the guy a vacation, but he could have picked any of a gazillion days to ask for the joint session. And he picks the one single day out of that entire gazillion where his political opponents are getting together.

And, he could have just done it on network TV, which is probably the right forum for this speech anyway, I think he's making a(nother) mistake by doing it at joint session. But it appears Boehner is going to let him make it.

I think Sep 7 is Congress's first day back from the August break, meaning, there's a gazillion things that they have to do to get everything started. It would be like hosting a fancy dinner party on the day that your moving boxes arrive.

I don't know Obama, but I know about 12-15 people that know him from Harvard (mostly), including Valerie Jarrett. Those people are divided in their support of him, like the nation as a whole, but one thing that they all say is that he has always kind of been an asshole when it comes to common courtesy and just being polite and amiable. They say that the attraction to him comes in the form of a certain je-ne-sais-qoui charisma he carries, and his ability to communicate well what he believes.

Taking those people at their word about him, then it cannot be denied that he is kind of an arrogant jerkface, but there's some of that in everyone that rises as high as he has. The thing that he lacks is a sense of at least setting it aside as he conducts business. He just doesn't seem to have that ability, and things like the joint session request are examples of that.

Would it make any difference to you if you discovered that President Obama consulted with Leader Boehner on the proposed date before it was announced? I thought not.

Maybe the president should follow his own advice from two years or so ago and stop talking? :)

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

he could have picked any of a gazillion days to ask for the joint session. And he picks the one single day out of that entire gazillion where his political opponents are getting together.

I don't know. I saw a photo in a magazine years ago of a page from the President's daily agenda. Every freaking minute was booked. The page in the photo spanned less than half an hour, but probably had half a dozen items scheduled. I'm not really convinced that his calendar was anything resembling an open book. I'm not saying this wasn't deliberately done to conflict, just that I don't believe that he really had anywhere near a gazillion open timeslots available to choose from.

Quote: s2dbaker

Would it make any difference to you if you discovered that President Obama consulted with Leader Boehner on the proposed date before it was announced? I thought not.

That's due to the separation of powers and the repsect each branch of government must show the other. Meaning the President cannot simply order Congress to hold a joint session for his benefit. He must instead ask they hold one and invite him to address them.

If anything the Speaker of the House should have pointed out the scheduling conflict, which could easily have been resolved by having the President's address eariler. It's a matter of courtesy. The debate had been shceudled before the President requested a date for a joint session.

Anyway, I'll take the NFL opening game over any President's address, unless there's a clear and present emergency like September 11th or December 7th. I wouldn't have watched such an early pre-primary debate anyway.

Quote: s2dbaker

Would it make any difference to you if you discovered that President Obama consulted with Leader Boehner on the proposed date before it was announced? I thought not.

It would. He didn't. He made the public announcement - and had his press secretary defending it - before coordinating with Boehner.

Quote: heather

I don't know. I saw a photo in a magazine years ago of a page from the President's daily agenda. Every freaking minute was booked. The page in the photo spanned less than half an hour, but probably had half a dozen items scheduled. I'm not really convinced that his calendar was anything resembling an open book. I'm not saying this wasn't deliberately done to conflict, just that I don't believe that he really had anywhere near a gazillion open timeslots available to choose from.

No one doubts the president is busy. But we're talking about a JOINT SESSION here, something usually reserved for things like state of the union and after acts of war. Obama obviously assigns that level of importance to it (which I think is a mistake, but oh well). If it's that much on his radar, he's probably not looking to "squeeze it in."

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

It would. He didn't.

Boehner's office not only confirmed that President Obama did consult with Boehner before making an announcement but that Boehner raised no objections. But i'm sure that it's all Obama's fault for some other reason somehow, right?

Quote: RonC

I can't see how people don't "get" that President Obama is at least part of the problem when it comes to partisan bickering. I've seen enough to blame both sides.

Who doesn't get it? This flap is media driven. Even the left wing says that Obama probably was taking a little poke at the republicans. Keith Olbermann raised this possibility. This is the current state of US politics. It was reported that the house speakers office was informed ahead of time- but they did not check the calender. They screwed up. But so what, Obama has had a couple of years to tackle job stimulation. He chose not to. Why now? A day or two is not important.

Yes, I would feel differently if Speaker Boehner had given the okay for the proposed date and then reneged on it. I would say that was the wrong thing to do. That is not what appears to have happened here. Oh yes, of course, the spin-master at the White House, the press secretary, kind of said that it might have happened...but there is no proof at all.

In another way it only matters a little...the debate was on the schedule before ANY conversation about a date occurred.

Quote: matilda

Who doesn't get it? This flap is media driven. Even the left wing says that Obama probably was taking a little poke at the republicans. Keith Olbermann raised this possibility. This is the current state of US politics. It was reported that the house speakers office was informed ahead of time- but they did not check the calender. They screwed up. But so what, Obama has had a couple of years to tackle job stimulation. He chose not to. Why now? A day or two is not important.

I hear people everyday saying that they think the Tea Party is the cause of all problems.

Quote: RonC

Yes, I would feel differently if Leader Boehner had given the okay for the proposed date and then reneged on it. I would say that was the wrong thing to do. That is not what appears to have happened here. Oh yes, of course, the spin-master at the White House, the press secretary, kind of said that it might have happened...but there is no proof at all.

In another way it only matters a little...the debate was on the schedule before ANY conversation about a date occurred.

Because Boehner nor Obama bothered to check if one of the dozen or so Republican debates was on that date, it's all Obama's fault. I see how this works now. Obama checks his calendar then checks with Boehner. Boehner then checks his calendar to see if he's playing golf that afternoon, not that I begrudge the Speaker his time on the links. Boehner doesn't obect so Obama makes an announcement. Someone notices that the Republican candidates for President will be discussing who hates abortion more and .... Obama's fault.

Quote: RonC

I hear people everyday saying that they think the Tea Party is the cause of all problems.

Let's face it, they are really stupid.

Good thing all those smart people in Washington have a handle on things.

Quote: s2dbaker

Boehner's office not only confirmed that President Obama did consult with Boehner before making an announcement but that Boehner raised no objections. But i'm sure that it's all Obama's fault for some other reason somehow, right?

No, it's Obama's fault for the same reason. What you're saying is simply not true. Boehner didn't DK him, and believing that he did is, frankly, a little delusional.

Quote: s2dbaker

Let's face it, they are really stupid.

What part of this statement doesn't smack of toothless hillbilly ignorance and holy zombie conformance to liberal orthodoxy and closed-mindedness?

(Apologies to the toothless hillbillies on this forum who might have taken offense at the comparison to contemporary liberalism's mindless zealots.)

Quote: RonC

Yes, I would feel differently if Leader Boehner had given the okay for the proposed date and then reneged on it. I would say that was the wrong thing to do. That is not what appears to have happened here. Oh yes, of course, the spin-master at the White House, the press secretary, kind of said that it might have happened...but there is no proof at all.

In another way it only matters a little...the debate was on the schedule before ANY conversation about a date occurred.

Not to nitpick but it's Speaker Boehner not Leader. And even if he was Majority Leader he still isn't addressed as Leader.

Quote: JimMorrison

Not to nitpick but it's Speaker Boehner not Leader. And even if he was Majority Leader he still isn't addressed as Leader.

You're right and I fixed it in my post.

Quote: RonC

Of course the economy is more important but it is also important for the people to see the candidates to replace President Obama

Almost sounds like you'd be a fan of the Fairness Doctrine.

I still can't couple the words 'President' and 'Obama' together.
Its too much of an oxymoron, like 'Justice Sotomayor' or 'Clinton Integrity'.

Quote: rxwine

Almost sounds like you'd be a fan of the Fairness Doctrine.

Not at all--I'm just not a big fan of the campaigner in chief attempting to take away any audience the debate would have had just because he can. He's supposedly giving a speech about how he will help the jobs situation. That is something Presidents do--address issues. Where he went astray, in my opinion, is trying to also make it to his campaign's advantage by scheduling it on the same night as an event already on tap.

To me doing both things--scheduling the speech and trying to do it on the night of another even--shows that all the man cares about is his re-election. I realize he has to care about it, but he also has a job to do. I feel that he is doing it poorly and part of the reason is that he has no clue how to come out of the campaign mode.

We'll see what his plan looks like...he hasn't had a plan work very well yet, but what I have heard about this speech is that it will be more of the same.

Quote: EvenBob

I still can't couple the words 'President' and 'Obama' together.
Its too much of an oxymoron, like 'Justice Sotomayor' or 'Clinton Integrity'.

I thought we made a mistake by electing him and I think he has pretty much proven that, but I was never on the "I want him to fail" side of the thing. I hoped that he would at least be successful enough to make a difference in the economy and other issues. I may want a different President but I also don't want to give up four years with nothing going well. Sadly, that is pretty much what happened.

I don't think he was qualified to be President but, when you think about what being President is, who has run or been in office that was truly "qualified" before they did the job?

Quote: RonC

I hear people everyday saying that they think the Tea Party is the cause of all problems.

What was in my post that even referred to the tea party?

Quote: RonC

I thought we made a mistake by electing him and I think he has pretty much proven that, but I was never on the "I want him to fail" side of the thing. I hoped that he would at least be successful enough to make a difference in the economy and other issues.

It's not so much wanting Mr. Obama to fail as that he coulnd't possibly succeed.

If we make an analogy of the US economy as an aircraft loosing altitude. Obama rushes in to rescue the flight and he says "Those wings are weighing us down. Take them off." And he's surprised the plane now is diving straight into the ground. No matter how much the passengers and crew want the strategy of removing the wings to work, it cannot possibly do so.

double post

Quote: nareed

If we make an analogy of the US economy as an aircraft loosing altitude. Obama rushes in to rescue the flight and he says "Those wings are weighing us down. Take them off." And he's surprised the plane now is diving straight into the ground. No matter how much the passengers and crew want the strategy of removing the wings to work, it cannot possibly do so.

To be more accurate: Bush rushed in first and Obama followed his path.
My analogy is that the plane was falling and Bush and Obama said it is out of fuel so they added more fuel. But in reality the problem was too much baggage and neither did anything to lessen the load.

Quote: matilda

What was in my post that even referred to the tea party?

Nothing. I was just stating something that I hear as an excuse for all of the ill in the world...the Tea Party...

Quote: Nareed

It's not so much wanting Mr. Obama to fail as that he couldn't possibly succeed.

If we make an analogy of the US economy as an aircraft loosing altitude. Obama rushes in to rescue the flight and he says "Those wings are weighing us down. Take them off." And he's surprised the plane now is diving straight into the ground. No matter how much the passengers and crew want the strategy of removing the wings to work, it cannot possibly do so.

I disagree. I'm not sure anyone could have fixed everything in the time that President Obama has been in office BUT I do think someone could have handled the job much better. Making Obamacare the top priority when the economy should have been wasted a lot of time. Perhaps that was done because he knew it would be unlikely to keep the majority in both the Senate and House if he passed something a lot of people were against. In other words, he could choose the economy and maybe get a chance at Obamacare...or make Obamacare #1.

Quote: RonC

I disagree. I'm not sure anyone could have fixed everything in the time that President Obama has been in office

I do know: no one. It wold take a long time and the political will to do what needs to be done, assuming the voters even let you.

Quote:

BUT I do think someone could have handled the job much better.

Possibly. Bush failed just as badly.

What Obama's done dreadfully wrong is to create a politcal and regulatory climate that is hostile to business. Businesses create wealth and that's what you need in a recession. Government creates nothing, it can't. By tieing business down, at all levels, the economy is not going to recover. That's what I meant when i said his first action was to remove the wings, when the wings are what keep the plane up at all.

At this point the best thing Obama could do for the economy is to reverse what he has done already, which will never happen and much of it isn't even possible any more (how do you unspend wasted money?) the next best thing would be to announce early next year he won't run for re-election.

Quote: Nareed

Possibly. Bush failed just as badly.

No, not quite. He actually did some things that are regarded as positive. I think at the end of the day, President Obama will be remembered as one of the biggest failures as a President. I actually hope he does something to change that--maybe try leading instead of just trying to get elected to a second term--but I doubt it.

President Bush was not perfect, of course...but he did not fail as badly as President Obama has to this point.

Quote: rxwine

Quote: RonC

Of course the economy is more important but it is also important for the people to see the candidates to replace President Obama.

Almost sounds like you'd be a fan of the Fairness Doctrine.

In what bizarro-insane universe does "want people to see the candidates" = "wanting government to force-control content of political broadcasts"?

Quote: RonC

I disagree. I'm not sure anyone could have fixed everything in the time that President Obama has been in office BUT I do think someone could have handled the job much better. Making Obamacare the top priority when the economy should have been wasted a lot of time. Perhaps that was done because he knew it would be unlikely to keep the majority in both the Senate and House if he passed something a lot of people were against. In other words, he could choose the economy and maybe get a chance at Obamacare...or make Obamacare #1.

Maybe not. But if that's true, and knowing that it's even worse now than in 2009 ... wouldn't the new President be expected to have even more than 2.5 years to turn it around, even if, for the first two years, he has a filibuster-proof congress (as Obama did)?

It can't be doubted that things were bad when Obama took over. (And suing banks for bad mortgages they were forced to write - thank you CDA - isn't going to help.) But it also can't be doubted that what the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives/Whatever put in place over their time didn't/doesn't work as things are even worse.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

But it also can't be doubted that what the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives/Whatever put in place over their time didn't/doesn't work as things are even worse.

Thats because they plunged ahead with their agenda and ignored the economy.
Who in their right mind passes socialist health care in the middle of a recession?

Quote: EvenBob

Thats because they plunged ahead with their agenda and ignored the economy.
Who in their right mind passes socialist health care in the middle of a recession?

Fixed your post ;)

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Maybe not. But if that's true, and knowing that it's even worse now than in 2009 ... wouldn't the new President be expected to have even more than 2.5 years to turn it around, even if, for the first two years, he has a filibuster-proof congress (as Obama did)?

"Turning it around" and "fixing everything" are two different things. The President choose to work on his agenda rather than on the economy. A lot of attention was paid to getting Obamacare passed (sadly, not enough attention to make it anything but a disaster in waiting) and less to the economy. We had to learn a new way of doing things...we had to have the legislation passed before we could know what was in it (Nancy Pelosi)...when we had bought hook, line, and sinker a fellow who said he would run the most transparent administration in history.

I believe that, with workable ideas and proper focus on the correct issue, we would be much better off than we are now. It would not be booming but the pain would be less than we feel now.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I don't know Obama, but I know about 12-15 people that know him from Harvard (mostly), including Valerie Jarrett. Those people are divided in their support of him, like the nation as a whole, but one thing that they all say is that he has always kind of been an asshole when it comes to common courtesy and just being polite and amiable. They say that the attraction to him comes in the form of a certain je-ne-sais-qoui charisma he carries, and his ability to communicate well what he believes.

Taking those people at their word about him, then it cannot be denied that he is kind of an arrogant jerkface, but there's some of that in everyone that rises as high as he has. The thing that he lacks is a sense of at least setting it aside as he conducts business. He just doesn't seem to have that ability, and things like the joint session request are examples of that.

This comes as no suprise to me at all. In 2008 I thought he came off as arrogant. The kind of guy who comes in as your new boss and tells you how you are doing everything wrong and are lucky he came along to show you how to do it right. This despite the fact that you were doing fine for years before he showed up. I haven't liked him "personally" from day one. I think that feeling is growing in the population.

Quote: RonC

"Turning it around" and "fixing everything" are two different things. The President choose to work on his agenda rather than on the economy. A lot of attention was paid to getting Obamacare passed (sadly, not enough attention to make it anything but a disaster in waiting) and less to the economy. We had to learn a new way of doing things...we had to have the legislation passed before we could know what was in it (Nancy Pelosi)...when we had bought hook, line, and sinker a fellow who said he would run the most transparent administration in history.

I believe that, with workable ideas and proper focus on the correct issue, we would be much better off than we are now. It would not be booming but the pain would be less than we feel now.

I agree with the last statement, but in the current political environment, we have to pay careful attention to what "workable ideas" means. I don't think Democrats are humanly incapable of doing what's right. But I do believe that, as articulated over the past decade-plus, Democrats as a political movement have done the exact opposite of "workable ideas." (Assuming, of course, that "workable ideas" means ideas that work in improving the economy.)

I also agree that "turning it around" and "fixing everything" are two different things. I would go further and say that "fixing everything" is impossible. And, if there were such a thing as more-impossible-than-impossible, I would take a step even further and say that it's more-impossible-than-impossible that the government can be relied upon to "fix everything."

I get a little worried that people may start to buy the bizarro-maxim that "things must be getting better" when what's really happening is that they're used to "things being bad." In the words of Dean Vernon Wormer, "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to got through life (no matter how used to being fat, drunk, and stupid you are)." OK, I added that last part ...

As useless as defensive driving courses usually are, one guy did say something that stuck with me. He was talking about drunk driving, and the "excuse" that people can hold their liquor, or that it takes more liquor for them to become impaired. "Not true," he said. "Those people are just as drunk and just as impaired. They're not sober, they're just used to being drunk."

Quote: RonC

A lot of attention was paid to getting Obamacare passed (sadly, not enough attention to make it anything but a disaster in waiting) and less to the economy. We had to learn a new way of doing things...we had to have the legislation passed before we could know what was in it (Nancy Pelosi)...when we had bought hook, line, and sinker a fellow who said he would run the most transparent administration in history.

Obamacare is pretty bad. If it's not repealed in some form, it will be a boon for private practitioners and hospitals in Mexico. For the short term, at least.

But it's hardly all. The "stimulus" was an unmitigated disaster. Over a quarter of a trillion dollars mostly wasted or given to favored groups. It might have expanded government, but it hurt the economy. Add this to Bush's misguided bailout of troubled banks, and you can see why the deficit and the national debt have begun to rise to third world levels.

Bailing out the banks sounds good, but in the end it shelters the banks from risk. So when the next bubble rolls around, and one will, the banks can go hog wild and make the riskiest investments, knowing that if they fail mommy government will pick them up and bail them out.

Back in 2001-2 when Bush bailed out the airlines it seemed sensible. After all, 9/11 and the ancillary effects on air travel wasn't the fault of the airlines, and there were matters of national security involved. But looking back on it, how much money did the airlines need for problems antedating 9/11?

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Quote: EvenBob

Thats because they plunged ahead with their agenda and ignored the economy.
Who in their right mind passes socialist health care in the middle of a recession?

Fixed your post ;)

Clement Atlee and Tommy Douglas. Thanks to both those gentleman (the former in 1946, the later around 1965).

Neither during a recession. I think Obama had little choice but to try and reform healthcare, based on his campaigns. Sadly it seems you've ended up with a morass that's possibly worse than what you had to begin with, which was not efficient either, but Obamacare looks to be adding to the inefficency.

Anyways, not time to debate that old horse again, we aren't likely to come to any new conclusions. I'm happy with the systems I've lived under.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Fixed your post ;)

You're right, who passes it period, let alone in the
middle of a recession.

Quote: thecesspit

I'm happy with the systems I've lived under.

Thats because you've hardly had to use them. Studies
show the people who are happiest with socialized medicine is
the majority of the population who never uses it. Its
like having the worst auto insurance co in the world.
You have zero complaints until you actually need to
file a claim.

Quote: EvenBob

Thats because you've hardly had to use them.

Bzzt, wrong. But thanks for playing.

A better answer "you've not had to use private health care so you can't compare". Now that'd be fair comment.

I can still state I'm happy with the system I've used, my family has used and my friends have used. I am sure it could be better. Not what I was arguing.

Back to whether this Address is the correct venue: Since Reagan, there have been three Presidential Addresses to a Joint Session of Congress that were not (1) State of the Unions or (2) The "New President's Address" (which is in the same January slot as the SOTU but not called that because he's only been there a week or so...) Those four were:

GHWBush: Concerning the First Iraq War
GWBush: 9 Days after September 11
Obama: To talk about his Health Care Plan

#4 will be: Obama, to talk about his Jobs Plan.

You may feel that all four of these are worthy of a Joint Session, and that Joint Sessions should be used more frequently. I disagree and believe they should only be used when there is a pressing need to show the country *and the WORLD* that we are all together in a difficult time. Anything less can be done without such pomp, normally as a Presidential Address from the White House or (in rarer cases) just wait until the next State of the Union Address. I don't believe my feeling "disrespects" the President by telling him he has no right to address Congress. I just think that he's using a venue that, while he has every right to it, is not proper even for something as pressing as unemployment.

Quote: thecesspit

Bzzt, wrong.

It really doesn't matter, its apples and oranges. GB has a
fraction of the population of the US and Canada has a fraction
of the population of GB. The US is a huge country, it will
never work here. As I've said a dozen times, my brother
in law lives in Canada and is a missionary married to a Canadian
woman. She has a debilitating disease that is too expensive to
be treated under the wonderful health care system there. My
brother in law has insurance under his missionary program and
they have to drive into the States every 6 weeks so she can
be treated here. Like I said, you love it because you don't use it,
not really.

Quote: cclub79

Back to whether this Address is the correct venue: Since Reagan, there have been three Presidential Addresses to a Joint Session of Congress that were not (1) State of the Unions or (2) The "New President's Address" (which is in the same January slot as the SOTU but not called that because he's only been there a week or so...) Those four were:

GHWBush: Concerning the First Iraq War
GWBush: 9 Days after September 11
Obama: To talk about his Health Care Plan

#4 will be: Obama, to talk about his Jobs Plan.

You may feel that all four of these are worthy of a Joint Session, and that Joint Sessions should be used more frequently. I disagree and believe they should only be used when there is a pressing need to show the country *and the WORLD* that we are all together in a difficult time. Anything less can be done without such pomp, normally as a Presidential Address from the White House or (in rarer cases) just wait until the next State of the Union Address. I don't believe my feeling "disrespects" the President by telling him he has no right to address Congress. I just think that he's using a venue that, while he has every right to it, is not proper even for something as pressing as unemployment.

2 were worthy; 1 was not...and this one is not either.

Calls to arms and national emergencies make sense. Trying to pass a program, not so much.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

In what bizarro-insane universe does "want people to see the candidates" = "wanting government to force-control content of political broadcasts"?

Someone's worried they won't see an alternative viewpoint, eh?

waaaah!

Considering how long the political season is, the chance the audience will miss something said over and over and over again is ZERO.

Quote: rxwine

Someone's worried they won't see an alternative viewpoint, eh?

Not worried about it, there's more than just MSNBC, CNN, and the other sycophantic media out there. Norah O'Donnell as White House correspondent? RLY?

Amazingly, you seem to have no problem with government suppression of political speech. BTW, that = un-American and is seditious. There is not a position one could possibly take that is more fundamentally anti-American. You will find several instances of me disagreeing with liberalism, and even calling for its defeat in the marketplace of ideas. But you will NEVER find me calling for its suppression.

Quote: rxwine

Considering how long the political season is, the chance the audience will miss something said over and over and over again is ZERO.

Wow. That may be the first time I've ever heard the length of the political season being blamed for a candidate being a dick.

Obama is a dick all by himself. The length of the political season has nothing to do with that.

Normally, I'd be defending a liberal president, liberal that I am, but golly, Obama has just not turned out to be. He is not entirely to blame. You've got a congress who waters down a bill so much that it twists its original intent with riders and compromises that makes the whole thing be a joke. Mistake #1.

The economic stimulus and everything thereafter was like lighting a flame to money. But what else was he going to do? Cut trillions of dollars in spending and cut tens of thousands of more jobs so they can go and work at Wendys or collect unemployment. The correct way to bring up a faltering economy is by temporary stimulus. The problem was that the stimulus didn't do anything, because the money went mainly to the wrong places.

America's in deep trouble. Corporations have done absolutely everything to cut costs that it's farmed out most of its meaningful employment overseas. There is very little manufacturing base left anymore. Your natural resources are slim and there's been no effort to exploit what you have left because damn it, there's regulations against that. So without a manufacturing base and without a plethora of resources, what does America produce? Movies, porn, computer programs, a gigantic service and banking industry, but nothing of substance, and even that's farmed out. Obama's promised this green industry. Well the green industry relies on alot of government subsidies before economies of scales can bring them to meaningful fruition, and nobody wants that. I ask you, when the trillions of dollars get cut from the budget, those are jobs. Where are these people going to go? Cuts in the defence industry? There goes 6,500 educated people of Lockheed. I guess they'll become Caltrans toll booth collectors. Wait, those jobs are being cut too. Maybe they'll become homeless and live on the streets in Portland (because the Bay Area is frickin' too expensive, still).

Socialized medicine is just fine. Every stinking country in the Western World beside the United States has it because even a simple minded person realizes that it ain't usually your fault for getting sick. People on this forum go on and on about how great US medicine is because (a) they haven't been sick or (b) they've been insured when they get sick. I will say the same thing about your stupid tax system. State tax, city tax, all of which kill business. Get on board with the Value Added Tax, folks.

Your government just can't comprimise and come up with something meaningful because all of the health insurance companies would go broke boo hoo. Lobbyists ensure that the health insurance and pharmaceudicals are just doing dandy, even though their call centers are in Vietnam, their drug plants and R&D are overseas. It's sickening really. Private health care is just fine, as long as you can afford to pay the deductables, as long as your employer provides a decent program with a low enough co-pay. Get unemployed, and pay 50% of your unemployment benefits to COBRA for 18 months or go uninsured. Get a catastrophic injury or a couple of broken bones while you're not ensured, and voila, you're bankrupt. That's fair??? Yep, Canada and other western countries have their waitlists and they have their problems, but the overall cost of health care is much much cheaper than the United States, and in some ways, it is inferior, but everyone is covered, and it is fair. Corporations are no longer offering great health care insurance in the united states because it's too damned expensive.

Why did Canada do fine during the economic bust? We have plenty of natural resources, we had banking laws that eliminated the complex instruments invented by the crooked bankers, and we had housing and mortgage instruments that prevented a housing bubble from happening. No crash.

Anyway, back on topic, yes, it was absolutely dumb to schedule the session the same night as the republican do, just as much as it was dumb to go on air during the Apprentice to announce that his cousin Osama was dead.

End of rant.