hoodmik wrote:
The reality is Obama is getting our country back on track. The majority of us can see this and are optimistic about the future.
Um, you need to get your facts straight. Speaking as an economist, you cannot get your way out of a fiscal problem by spending more money. Everything that Obama has done to date has only had one net result. It has GROWN government...and by extension, government spending. So, how is Obama getting us back on track?
Let's try another approach. What track is America supposed to be on? The only way to truly answer that is to go back to what our forefathers gave us after our war for independence. Our first government was founded through the Articles of Confederation. The problem was that the government provided by the AoC was too weak to function appropriately. So, our forefathers drafted the Constitution of the United States of America. Where the AoC was too liberal (used in the classical sense, not political) and tending toward anarchy, the Constitution was more structured and spelled out specifically what the new government could and could not do. This was further refined by the Bill of Rights, and more specifically that there are some things the government must never do, namely impede a person's individual liberty, remove the ability of citizens to protect themselves (particularly from a tyrannical government) through the purchase and acquisition of arms. (I must note that Arms was all inclusive as our forefathers knew it. There was no distinction of one form of weapon from another that was applied in the bill of rights.) The government could not interfere with an individuals ability to practice a religion. Moreover, the government could not grant itself more power or authority than what was outlined in the Constitution.
So, social reform was NOT intended by our forefathers. Every social program passed by the government was done illegally. Was this the track you wanted us to get onto? If so, that's not getting back on track. It's diverting onto another track entirely.
Lastly, what majority? Are you speaking of the narrow margin of voters who managed to reelect this president? Let's not forget how tainted this last election was. There were polling centers receiving 100% vote for Obama, a statistical impossibility. Others who had over 100% turn out. Again, a statistical impossibility. People whose votes were changed from Romney to Obama, right in front of them. People who voted in two states. The charges here can go on, but do not change the truth established here. Any way you look at it, the election results are biased. Even if the vote results didn't change if all the bias can be accounted for, you cannot alter the fact that not everyone chose to vote. Also, Obama did not win with a decisive majority (over 50%). So, all you really have here is a country with a split personality. Half says left, the other says right. Neither is in the majority. So, just because you won one election (presidential) do not forget that there are more elections that took place, most of which went to the right, or stayed the same. Otherwise, Liberals would have control of both houses.