Let Us Go to Rio!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[packsaddle]

Yes, a tragic loss and devastating for those families and more.

Calico, those deceptive voices don't make us listen. We choose to accept statements as fact and if they are in error it is also our choice if we ignore evidence to the contrary. Yes, if lies are shouted often and loudly enough, there is a tendency to listen to them. But it is incumbent on us to put them to the test or not to. And we have made those choices freely.

[NE-IV-88-Beaver]

President Obama seemed to be swept into the highest office in the land with his cry for "Change, Change, Change".

 

What would be a real change would be if he rolled up his sleeves, took the bull by the horns, actually came up with a real plan for change on his own and then put together a group to actually see it pushed through. So far, IMHO, it seems that all he has done is identified obvious problems, that we all see, and asked for the "clowns" in Congress to come up with a plan to correct them, in a lot of cases the same clowns who passed the legislation that either created the problem or allowed it to continue and flourish. Last night on SNL they opened with an Obama skit with a checklist on problems solved and unfortunately there wasn't a single item that could be checked off as completed. What's the tie-in with the subject at hand - that's why I object to him going to Copenhagen to promote an event scheduled for 2016. Instead stay here and put some effort into solving our current problems; Oprah, Michelle and a video from BHO probably would have been more than sufficient.

 

President Obama, please do what you were elected to do and govern! Pick one problem and get it solved, stop flitting from one to another and creating more turmoil. I'm a sixty-something guy who has never seen so many problems brought up in such a short time in office and yet, not a single effective solution put in place.

 

And all of this from a conservative registered Democrat, perhaps that's an oxymoron in itself!

[OldGreyEagle]

perhaps the IOC considered the impassioned plea from the Rio contingent that while North America, Asia and Europe had hosted multiple games, the South American continent had never hosted an Olympics (heck even Australia has)and the bid from Rio showed that it was time.

 

no subterfuge, no bribes, nothing more than South America being ready. The selection of the Olympic games is much like the scoring of gymnastics, subjective, and the cities know that going in.

 

[GernBlansten]

"Pick one problem and get it solved"

 

I want a president who can multi-task.

Are you suggesting that he should focus on Afghanistan solely until its resolved? Even if it takes 10 years? Then move on to the economy. When its recovered, move on to health care.

 

Even GWB could multi-task. He cleared a lot of brush in Texas while getting us into these messes.

 

[gwd-scouter]

So the President is taking heat for taking too long to make a decision about Afghanistan. Taking heat for moving too quickly on healthcare reform.

 

Obviously he gets support for those measures that appeal to the most Americans. Uh, oh really? Let's see: 50% against the current healthcare reform proposals vs. 47% in favor - so let's scrap that because the majority of Americans don't want it.

 

On the other hand, 51%, the majority, of Americans say the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting, but obviously they're all wrong and we can't listen to the majority on that issue.

 

Interesting.

[NE-IV-88-Beaver]

Aw right Gern, you got me! You're right, he should multi-task. Let him pick two problems and get them solved! That would seem to be better than just using a scatter-shot approach in bringing all of these problems to the forefront without putting forth any concrete solutions. And yes, there must be some priorities established. What issues cause the most concern to the American people, you know the people that all of da folks (sorry, Beav) in Washington are supposed to be representing?

[packsaddle]

Sounds like an interesting exercise. Anyone who thinks Obama should solve something, or for that matter many things, should choose two of the big problems that face this country and then describe how to fix those in less than four years. This might be fun.

Let's see:

Economy

War

Debt

Healthcare

Environmental Protection

Unemployment

Energy

Education

Entitlements (Medicare, Social Security, etc.)

other suggestions?

[OldGreyEagle]

I ahev an issue with including Sociel Security in with the term "Entitlement", I know it may be semantics and I would never want to be known as anti-semantical, but I see entitlements as something people "get" from the government because they are in a specific category. I have been paying into Social Security for quite a few decades now, as have many. I don't see that money as an entitlement, I see it as mine.

 

Then again, I could be wrong.

 

BTW, out of the list that Pack gave us, didnt the President, while on the campaign trail, have solutions for most if not all these ills? Can't he just put into place the solutions that he promised?

[gwd-scouter]

Social Security as an entitlement or as mine? Hmmm. I've always wondered about that. Yep, we've all been paying in, just like we pay in to Medicare. I just wonder if anyone ever figured out how much our current retirees are taking out of both of these programs compared to what they paid in.

[NE-IV-88-Beaver]

"didnt the President, while on the campaign trail, have solutions for most if not all these ills? Can't he just put into place the solutions that he promised?"

 

OGE -

 

That's kind of the point, isn't it! What happened to all of those solutions? Just call some of dem good ol' boys in from the Hill, tell 'em what the fixes are and get 'em going. That's the "change" that we were looking for, so now's the time to deliver the goods. Stop blaming the other side for blocking the Prez's plans when he hasn't really told us what they are. I'm still waiting for the first detailed plan to emanate from the White House.

[CalicoPenn]

In 1993, the biggest obstacle to health care reform was that "The President 9and his wife) is going to push this on Congress without Congress being involved, and it's Congress that should be taking the lead".

 

Now we have a President who has presented to the Congress the broad canvas for what Health Care Reform should look like and what his hopes are that it contains, and leaves it to Congress to work out the details because that's what Congress does, and that's not good enough?

 

Is there anything that will satisfy the naysayers short of the GOP plan for health care reform that was waved around in President Obama's face when he spoke to a joint session of Congress - a plan that turned out the be readily available by the ream in any office supply store in the country - a blank sheet of paper? Probably not.

 

That 8 soldiers gave their lives in Afghanistan this past weekend is a tragic loss. That President Obama isn't acting like a Cowboy-in-Chief and won't commit more soldiers to Afghanistan at a General's request (a General that works for him, not the other way around) without giving serious thought to the strategy in Afghanistan, and suggestions for a change in strategy (as proposed by other people in the DOD, including the Secretary of Defense - a Republican who is opposed to sending more troops into Afghanistan right now) is a testament to his character, and does honor to those soldiers that died by ensuring that their deaths don't just lead to any more deaths by other soldiers.

[NE-IV-88-Beaver]

OGE -

 

I'm in agreement with you on Social Security. Just some rough calculations show that they're giving me in one year what I gave them in three years. So I have to collect for at least 13+ years to get my and my employer's contributions back. Now I'd like to think that if I'd saved it myself, and invested it half-way wisely, it would have earned at least enough in interest or dividends to buy me another 5 years. So now I'm up to collecting for at least 18 years before I'm getting any money that wasn't mine to begin with. Somehow, I fail to see how that qualifies as an "entitlement", either.

[packsaddle]

Social Security is not an investment program unless you think of it as investing in other elderly citizens. It is an entitlement that you are entitled to once you reach a certain age, dependent on your contributions during your working life. Assuming the program doesn't evaporate, some of us (me for example) will collect far more than we ever put into it, as did my father, my mother, and most of the previous generation. For others who choose option 1) for the second set of solutions, who cares...you'll be dead.

So I'll try my hand at my own question starting with Social Security.

Solutions:

1) die

2) eliminate the cap

3) establish a means test

4) abolish it and adopt an 'every-man-for-himself' approach (this was the Bush option of private investment...sounds GREAT in retrospect doesn't it?)

5) any combination of the above except for 1) and 4) because those pretty much take care of everything.

Same answer for other entitlements.

 

Health-care:

1) die quickly

2) do nothing (every-man-for-himself again)

3) make all politicians seek private coverage or else no coverage.

I am firmly in the belief that we've already chosen option number 2. We chose it in 1993, maybe before that. We're just too pig-headed to admit it.

 

Edited part: Responding to Eisely's following message - man you got THAT right! Low Expectations/Less Disappointment(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[eisely]

Having low expectations of politicians generally, particular with respect to "the one," I am less likely to be disappointed. Presidents do need to pick and choose and set priorities for where they will invest their time, engergy, and "political capital." I don't know if the fix was in for Rio from the start or not, but for the US to garner only 18 votes and to be knocked out in the first round of voting can only be considered to be a personal rebuke to Obama by the very foreign elites whose favor he has sought. He would have been wiser to stay home and focus on those things that matter far more.

[CalicoPenn]

The only people who consider the IOC vote a "persoanl rebuke" against the President of the United States are people who are eager to grasp at any perceived slight as a slap against this particular President.

 

The IOC vote wasn't a personal rebuke against Obama - had he not been there, the results were likely to be the same. The only people who had Chicago as a front runner were pundits in US Media - no one in the world's media had Chicago in the top 2. Few people had doubts that Rio would end up with it (they bid more money than anyone else, and South America has never had an Olympics). That Chicago made it to the top 4 was one heck of a coup, considering the scandal surrounding the Salt Lake City Olympics (which exposed the massive graft and corruption of the IOC), the terrorism attack on the Atlanta games (which is still fresh in the minds of some of the members of the IOC), the moronic roadblocks the US has put up against world travelers since 9-11, and the still burning fight between the IOC and the USOC over US television rights (the most profitable part of any games, as it turns out - and the USOC wants its share) and the USOC's idea to develop an Olympics Channel during the Olympics to develop a stream of revenue for the USOC with the IOC getting a small piece of that pie.

 

Why isn't anyone, in any media outlet, calling the votes against Tokyo and Madrid a personal slap against the Prime Minister of Tokyo or the King and Queen of Spain? It's because everyone knows, on the face of it, how ridiculous that sounds. It's just as ridiculous to claim it has any significance on the part of Barack Obama.