Senator Barack Obama said that he would be too busy inventing new ideas to run the government. I suppose that means it is "willy-nilly" for his aides to run the government, just like old George W. Bush's White House.
This type of hands-off administration is exactly what we have had for almost seven years! Isn't it time America has a president who is directly connected to the inter-workings of the government? Don't we deserve someone who is not afraid--and competent enough--to get their hands dirty from doing the work of the people?
Obama may not realize it now, but the job he really wants is that of a presidential advisor. An advisor is a person who sits around and thinks of ways to make the president's policies better. Then the president decides which ideas to implement or turn-down.
In the United States, since 2001, we have seen the devastating outcome of letting aides and advisers have the initial and final say in how our government works. President Bush has been anything but a strong leader on domestic and foreign issues, considering he was just in Saudi Arabia begging that nation's king to lower the price of crude. I suppose that is the best idea George W. Bush could come up with on his "own."
America is ready for a president who can take charge from day one and tell the government how things are going to be done, not the other way around. It is time we have a president who can take on the economy and energize it with fairer taxes and implement economic packages that will rebuild the middle class.
3 comments:
I think you are right about Obama and his preoccupations with "thinking" of revolutionary ideas. However, a president that engages too much in the affiars of the people and business is not the answer. Laissez-faire politics is the best course of action. With direct government interaction, there will be a steep increase and taxes and a waste of hard earned money (most of hit pocketed by the politicians anyway). We need a president who is going to get us out of recession as did Roosevelt. He must be a conservative as a progressive. He must introduce enough progressive reforms to maintain the status business, competition, and free enterprise. Limited goverment interaction is the best solution. For example, Hilary Clinton's policy on Universal Healt Care is a mere death sentence for this great nation. As shown in Maine already, imposed health care actually worsened the conditions. By fining people who could not afford the health care in the first place actually put the people in a worse situation. Additionally, doctors and physicians are barely being paid enough to maintain there practices, let alone make a decent salary. My prediction is that many doctors will refuse to accept Universal Health Care and people will be stuck with insubstantial health care providers. Not to bring in emotions, but Temple does more open heart surgerys per year than the entire nation of Canada. People will have to wait an extreme amount of time to get appropriate care. Also, those that are more likely to die will receive care before those who have a better chance. Although it may be a more altruistic view, it is right that the pateint with the better chance should receive the transplatation rahter than the ninety-year-old ghost. I think that you need to rethink your political pholosiphy.
Dear 68.37.183.115,
Thank you for your comments regarding your opinion of universal healthcare.
It is not wrong to expect individuals, and families, to provide for their own basic healthcare. Many people are seemingly content to sponge off of the government (i.e., taxpayers of America) when they are severely ill by visiting an E.R. for immediate treatment.
Under Hillary's plan, healthcare premiums will be based on a person's income, rather than a premium rate set by a private, corporate insurer looking to pad its profit margin.
How long do people without insurance coverage wait for surgeries? Honestly, I have no idea. I've traveled to Canada and Europe extensively, and I have never met someone who had a derogatory comment about their nationalized healthcare system. Is it fair for me to bear the cost of someone's $100,000 heart procedure, when they are unwilling to pony up a solitary dime? I think not.
Universal healthcare is hardly the incarnate of Satan as some conservatives, including yourself, and Obama would have us believe.
Jackson Leslie
Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!
Post a Comment