BleacherCoaches.com

For those that don't already know the town hall meetings that the Congressmen are holding during their recess are getting very heated. The number one issue being debated by far is healthcare. I am getting frustrated by how the politicians are receiving so much opposition from those that are responsible for voting them in office against Obama's healthcare reform package yet defend it to the bitter end. These politicians are forgetting how the government was designed. Politicians are voted in by the population to vote for the population. Politicians of today seem to have suddenly began to think that once they are in office its time for them to do what is best for themselves. I am done voting in politicians that claim to have agenda's, plan's, or change's due to the fact that their agenda should be the public's agenda.

I am slowly becoming more knowledgeable towards politics because of the simple fact I just earned the right to vote 2 years ago so before that I found politics quite pointless. However, now that my vote is being unrepresented in all levels of the government I am getting extremely upset. I was always afraid to voice my opinion politically due to the fact I felt that I may have been less educated than some when it came to politics. However, now I have realized that my opinion matters whether I have a PhD in Political Science or if I just go out and vote.

The government, IMO, is slowly brainwashing people that we work for them instead of them working for us. The congressmen (donkeys and elephants both) seem to think that they don't have to be held accountable for bills they pass and reject and that is why they are getting extremely defensive at the town hall meetings. They all have the attitude right now that they do not need to answer to the people why they are making the decision they are making. For that reason, many incumbents have lost my vote.

The main message I think American's need to get out to their political leaders is a reminder that they still work for us.

Apb, as you admit you were not paying attention until the last couple of years. What you suggest is exactly what the American people have done over time. From 2000-2006 the Republicans basically had control of everything in Washington. The majority of the American people were not happy with the job they did and there was a major change in congress in 2006 and 2008. The democrats controlled the senate and house for a very long time, but in 1994 the American people were not happy with their decisions and the republicans took control of congress.

The democrats once again have control and if the majority of the American people are not happy with their decisions, things will once again change in 2010. Keep in mind, it has to be the "majority" of the people, not just he people who are the loudest. Right now those who disapprove of Obama's health plan out number those who approve by a margin of 49%-43%. If the election were held today, that would not bode well for the democrats. The next election is still 15 months away and a lot of issues will come and go in that time. Just a month ago everyone was talking about the stimulus packages and now it's all about health care.

It wasn't that I didn't pay attention it was that I did not form as strong of opinions due to the fact I was under 18 and couldn't vote. I think you misunderstood where I was going with my post. I am not concerned one bit over Democrat or Republican power. I am a republican but I vote for the candidate that shares the views of me the most. As I previously stated, I am not concerned over who is in control of the government party wise.

What I am basically asking the board is the following. To me it seems as though the politicians of today are not concerned of the wants of the public but instead seem to be telling us what we want. Was the majority for the stimulous packages? Is the majority for universal healthcare? Are the majority for high taxes and more government run programs? Do Americans want extremely high energy bills that will come with the potential "cap and trade" program? Are the majority in favor of staying in Iraq as long as we have? Do we want legalized abortion?

IMO, the majority's (not everyone but majority, in fact my opinion is not in the majority for some of the above issues) wants on these issues are being against them.Yet the government seems to be telling us that is what we want. Of the above list there are items pushed through or being pushed through by both parties so this is not an attack at either one.

So back to the question towards the board. I have only understood politics for less than a decade (about half way though the Clinton administration) because I am 20 years old. For those that have been around longer, has the government always had the attitude of which, IMO, is "they know what is better for the people than the people do themselves" or has this been molded over time?

abpk2903 wrote: So back to the question towards the board. I have only understood politics for less than a decade (about half way though the Clinton administration) because I am 20 years old. For those that have been around longer, has the government always had the attitude of which, IMO, is "they know what is better for the people than the people do themselves" or has this been molded over time?

I believe the Legislative branch has always been this way.

This is why we need term limits for them. Once they are elected, it is very difficult to get them out.

I think the quote below is odd. The Yahoo! article I read this quote in was about the protests at town hall meetings.

"Obama himself was one of the lucky ones whose town hall event in Portsmouth, N.H., on Tuesday was downright placid — so much so that he had to solicit questions from opponents by the end. But outside the hall, protesters on both sides of the issue wielded signs and traded insults, an indication that passions are running high."

I have a few questions.

1. How did Obama know who the opponents were and weren't?
2. If he wants "honest" debate, and he knew who the opponents and proponents were, why didn't he alternate with his solicitation of questions and why did he wait until the end to call on them?
3. I wonder how he got so "lucky" in his town hall meeting? Could it be that only select individuals were allowed inside? Especially considering the tempers that were flaring just outside.

He is a joker. I am simply amazed that most people haven't seen that already. But they will see it eventually. He will not last beyond one term.

abpk2903, one of the criticisms I've always read, especially about democrats, is that they are poll driven. Many posters to this site jumped the democrats who changed their mind about the Iraq war. They were labled flip floppers and only cared about surviving rather than voting what was right. Do I understand you correctly and you are saying that the politicians should be poll driven?

Obama was up front when he ran for president about reforming health care and yet he still received a comfortable majority. Don't you think that if people were really truly against changing the health care system he would not have been elected president? This topic was very high on his agenda and he made that clear during the campaign. It's only the right wing smear machine that has distorted his programs. Senior citizens are afraid that they are going to lose their medicare benefits. Where do you think that idea came from? Not from the democrats. It's typical Rovian tactics to scare an conquer. Perhaps if everyone had the chance to hear only the facts the polls on the topic might be different.

Nobody liked the government bailing out the big companies....not when Bush did it and not when Obama did it. Would we have been more content if banks had continued to fail and nobody could get a loan for anything? The economy was a disaster and the choice was to act or not act. History under the leadership of Herbert Hoover taught us what happens if you do not act.

The legality of abortion is controlled by the supreme court, not the politicians. Although I'm liberal, I do not believe abortion under most circumstances is the moral thing to do. However, before Suter resigned, 7 or the 9 justices were nominated by republican presidents and the court did not reverse Roe v. Wade. If it didn't happen under those circumstances it's not going to happen for a long time. That's the reality of the situaton. The pro-life crowd needs to focus their efforts on changing hearts and saving as many babies as they can that way.

Ridgedad, to answer your questions.... 1) Body language and facial expressions would probably be a big clue. When standing before an audience it's easy to tell who is for you and who is against you before they even speak. By the way, were you equally upset when the republicans did they same thing during the presidential campaigns? If you were, you certainly didn't mention it here. 2) I can't say why Obama didn't alternate questions, but if I had to guess I would say that he wanted to make sure he got his message out before someone hijacked the session into a shouting match. 3) Obama didn't get "lucky". Perhaps it's because he is the POTUS. Yelling at congressman or senator is one thing, but the POTUS is completely different. I couldn't stand George Bush as president, but if I were to have ever met him face to face I'm certain I would have shook his hand and addressed him as sir or Mr. President. My disdain of his policies and job performance doesn't mean I wouldn't be able to treat the office he held with the respect it deserves from all of its citizens. Perhaps it's the same with Obama?

And by the way, what's with all the shouting at these meetings? Is it truly democracy in action when when a few individuals are allowed to disrupt a meeting that is trying to inform the public? I thought you guys always said it the republicans who were "civil" and above "name calling."

I am not trying to debate any of the issues I listed in my second post and I stand differently than the majority on some. The reason I brought up those points was to list some examples of policies the government has changed or is trying to change even though the majority of the population may be against it.

I agree completely with OAR, on the issue of why President Obama's townhall meeting remained very civilized. It would take a real nutjob to get up and scream at the president. I am not in favor of the radicals at these meetings creating a scene. However, that is what it has taken to bring these issues to the forefront. If all these meeting would have been as civilized as President Obama's then the townhall meetings never would have became national news. This is one case where things go the way of the people that scream the loudest.

I am very confused about this issue of universal healthcare (UHC). I am not saying that I am totally against it but it seems that the American people are not getting enough facts about what it may bring. As I previously stated I am 20 and very worried about this issue because in a year and a half will go off my parents health coverage upon graduation of college. This is one reason why UHC could be very beneficial to someone in my situation that will need coverage between finishing college and finding long-term employment with my career. However, it will still need funded and the details of how it is going to be funded is yet to set in stone. Also, last semester I had a Political Science class with a professor that I respected highly. He never stated if he was for or against UHC but he did explain some pro's and con's of the potential system. The part that he concerned me with was how in some country's once someone reaches certain ages or conditions benefits begin to be denied. IMO, this is a form of population control by the government. The second part that concerned me was stories in some countries that offer UHC about people dying waiting for simple surgeries because the lack of doctors and hospitals. He also explained the need for some type of healthcare reform due to the fact Americans spend twice as much as any other country on health coverage yet aren't even in the top 10 of benefits of health coverage. If the healthcare system becomes government run how will the doctors get paid? This could be a very challenging part of the puzzle. If the doctors are underpaid there will be a shortage of doctors and this will lead people waiting several months for emergency surgeries. If the doctors are overpaid then that is money out of the taxpayers pocket. IMO, the public choice will eventually not even be a choice because what will lead business owners to offer health coverage to employees when the government will offer it to them for free? Or why would a family that is struggling to make ends meet continue to have health coverage taken out of their paycheck when they could simply let the government pay for it? The less clients an insurance company has usually goes hand in hand with higher rates. I see a domino effect.

If some of these questions can begin to be answered I could form an opinion on the matter more quickly but with all of these barriers in the plan, I can not say I am for it (nor am I saying I am against it).

abpk2903 wrote:I agree completely with OAR, on the issue of why President Obama's townhall meeting remained very civilized. It would take a real nutjob to get up and scream at the president. I am not in favor of the radicals at these meetings creating a scene. .

Well, if you can't see that was a staged/controlled crowd you are blind.... Why have people lost trust in Democratic Senators, Congressman and the President? The explanation could never been on display better and never so evident than at Obama’s Town Hall meeting in Portsmouth, NH. The White House insists that the people at the Town Hall event were picked randomly. Oh Really? You mean like little 11 year old Julia Hall, the daughter of an Obama supporter and Obama organizer who some how out of sheer coincidence and luck of the draw not only was picked randomly by a computer to be at the town hall, but was also able to ask a question of “The One.”

Give us a break President Obama and do not insult our intelligence.

The Gateway Pundit asks whether the people who were bussed in were randomly picked as well? For weeks Democrats like Nancy Pelosi have been claiming that the anti-Obamacare response was fabricated and lead by RNC operatives. Sorry San Fran Nan, but that type of anger and hostility is impossible to manufacture. However, how convenient that some how an Obama Town Hall reflects nothing of what has been going on across America. It did not even reflect the atmosphere outside on the streets of Portsmouth as pro and anti-Obamacare folks battled each other. Talk about your astro-turfing a town hall meeting..... and here are the lies of this RADICAL President of ours from last nite:

10) "One of the chief sponsors of this bill originally was a Republican -- then House member, now senator, named Johnny Isakson from Georgia -- who very sensibly thought this is something that would expand people's options."

Isakson came out immediately after this and emphatically condemned this outrageously false claim.

9) "AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?"

The AARP quickly corrected this misinformation: "Indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate."

8) "You will not be waiting in any lines."

All the evidence says otherwise.

7) "46 million Americans don't have health insurance coverage today."

This is an obscenely dishonest "calculation."

6) "I'm not promoting a single-payer plan."

Obama admitted that such a plan is exactly his goal here. And there is a non-partisan study confirming that ObamaCare will indeed destroy free market health care, leaving us with no other options but government-run care.

5) "Under the reform we're proposing, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that 10 million workers would be forced out of their employer-based coverage and into government health care by this bill.

4) "So the intention...was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they're ready, on their own terms. It wasn't forcing anybody to do anything...And somehow it's gotten spun into this idea of 'death panels.'"

House Republicans, patient advocates, and conservative publications have repeatedly highlighted the specific parts of the bill that would in fact force seniors into counseling sessions that pressure them to stop burdening the system.

Obama's own Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, has openly admitted that Obama's "vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change." The real savings come from rationing care. ObamaCare will have panels modeled after Britain's system, which cuts costs by denying care to the sick and elderly.

3) "We're not talking about cutting Medicare benefits."

Obama admitted that this was how his health care scam would be funded. He has proposed $313 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid to pay for this.

2) "This is not about putting government in charge of your health insurance."

Yeah, how could passing a needless, blatantly unconstitutional law to address a non-existent crisis with endless government rules and regulations on every aspect of health care possibly be misconstrued as "putting government in charge?"

1) "I won't sign a bill that adds to the deficit or the national debt."

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the current legislation being promoted and defended by Barack "No Pork in This Bill" Obama will cost an absolute fortune and increase, rather than decrease, health care costs...making this claim completely absurd.

The one accurate thing Obama did say at this propaganda event was this:

"...If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right?...It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

Right. Exactly.

vman wrote:
Well, if you can't see that was a staged/controlled crowd you are blind.... Why have people lost trust in Democratic Senators, Congressman and the President? The explanation could never been on display better and never so evident than at Obama’s Town Hall meeting in Portsmouth, NH. The White House insists that the people at the Town Hall event were picked randomly. Oh Really? You mean like little 11 year old Julia Hall, the daughter of an Obama supporter and Obama organizer who some how out of sheer coincidence and luck of the draw not only was picked randomly by a computer to be at the town hall, but was also able to ask a question of “The One.”

I never said that I didn't think it was staged. I was just agreeing with the fact that most people will not disrespect the President like that. I personally think it was staged.

vman wrote:
"...If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right?...It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

Great point, I was going to bring this point up myself but cut it out for fear I was rambling on. Everything the government runs is broke and we can't have a healthcare system in this country that is broke as well.

I agree totally with vman, Barry was preaching to the choir in Portsmouth. The whole thing was orchestrated by the Emanuel Bros. EVERY one there was pre-screened and everything was scripted. OAR what about the union and acorn leg breakers at these town halls? Bought and paid for by Barry's Thugs to keep "order". I've seen these union legbreakers before during strikes to keep the rank and file from crossing the line. Intimidation and fear is the democrat mantra.