I think it was something like that. Back then I actually HAD student loans I was repaying, but whatever happened, I didn’t qualify and had to pay my loans back to the last cent.

I forget where I read it. But some time ago someone wrote that the best thing to do for the economy regarding higher education funding would be to forgive all past Federal loan debt. I’m kind of for it since those working could use the extra money to invest or purchase; while those out of work or those just interested in graduate education/retraining would be more likely to do so.

Not a big fan of the idea intellectually but personally it would benefit me a lot.

When I say Obama lies to promote his agenda, I don’t make crap up like the Left did when they said Bush lied to enrich his Halliburton buddies and to avenge his insulted father.

I simply point to the facts, and the facts are overwhelming. On issue after issue, from signing statements to bill transparency to “bipartisan” cooperation to “no taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year” to unlimited detention, to pullout from Iraq… I mean it’s not a list, it’s a friggin LITANY of lies.

The difference between me saying Obama lies and the Left saying that Bush lies is that OBAMA DEMONSTRABLY and PROVABLY LIES. When Clinton lied it was to protect himself. When Obama lies it is to advance a hidden agenda. His lies are part of his STRATEGY to advance his goals.

Now Obama is lying about what he said about the bailout bill. What he said in January is diametrically opposed to what he is saying now. Then he said that it was a matter of FIERCE URGENCY to pass the bill because it would have IMMEDIATE EFFECT. He even produced a friggin GRAPH showing the decrease it would cause in the unemployment rate. Now he says “Well, it’s a two year plan.”

Bullshit. It was a two year plan back in January, but he knew it wouldn’t pass unless he promised it would do things that he KNEW it wouldn’t do. So he promised it. Not because he intended to DELIVER what he promised, but because that was what it took to PASS the bill.

This is just one small example of how Obama operates. And yes, in most Presidents there is a certain twisting and spinning of facts and promises in order to advance an agenda, but in my opinion Obama is a whole different level of spin and twist compared to any previous President I’ve ever seen. From what I have seen from the man ANYONE who actually BELIEVES what he says on any issue is simply a naive fool. A “rube” as Glenn Reynolds has come to call them.

And when Glenn Reynolds daily mocks the veracity of the President, I think it’s pretty clear it’s not some right-wing fringe that is making the case.

That’s the reality of the situation.

Obama is a good man. Nice family, articulate, looks presidential, intelligent, great orator. He raised a ton of money, and pulled off a miracle upset in beating Hillary Clinton. Good for him.

The question is, Are his policies good for America?

It is a fair and open question. There is lots of room for good, constructive debate. I voted for his opponent, but so what? I’m stuck in the mushy middle.

If his policies make America stronger and more safe, I will definitely vote for him in 2012. This frames the discussion properly.

So far, I am hugely concerned about his global warming proposal and his health care proposal. I think his $787 billion stimulus (borrowed gov’t spending) DID NOT WORK. There is no way to rescue a moribund private sector economy (where jobs are created), by greatly expanding the gov’t sector. But, I’m open to be persuaded otherwise.

Bush Derangement Syndrome was wrong, Palin Derangement Syndrome is wrong, Obama Derangement Syndrome is wrong — not because I’ve become a prissy little school marm, but because it distracts from figuring out these tough issues.

–HankB

But he’s screwed up a lot in just 6 months. Give him time.

I’m not sure we can say that the President has fundamentally screwed everything up just yet though.

To date I have seen little evidence that this President is any more inclined to twist the truth than typical administrations, FWIW.

I know that this is an historic presidency, but is there any similar history of Presidents coming out of the gate & consciously trying to flood the American press this much with (1) how well the new adminstration is performing (esp. considering slightly more than 6 months in office), and (2) how any mis-cues and poor perfromance is the result of the previous adminstration? Not even considering substance, the volume contradicts your assessment.

I think the substance is also a pretty good indicator that objectivity is an issue. I’m not sure that part is totally the fault of the O’s adminstration — there seems to be a real lack of an objective, critical press that would put things into perspective. Criticism of this President is met with consequences, but that’s not without precedent. What is new is the media response. I am at a loss to explain why this is having such an impact — in previous times, resistance from the adminstration typcially (1) becomes the story, (2) causes someone to crank up the magnification of the news-scope, or (3) creates a negative atmosphere in the press.

Your car is going to pot. You search on the internet and find that a Texan, Mr. Bush, is selling a car with only 50,000 miles on it to the first bidder, sight unseen. You go for it. A week later the car arrives in your driveway. It’s bad, but not too bad: The windshield has a crack in it; the air-conditioning doesn’t work, and the tire treads are nothing to boast of.

So you take the car to your mechanic, Mr. Obama, who looks it over and promises to have it for you in a week.

A week passes and your neighbor drives you to pick up your repaired car.

You are astonished that the car is sans windshield and you question Mr. Obama about this. He says that the missing windshield is necessary because he has pulled out the toxic air conditioner. You notice the poorly treaded tires have been replaced by square wheels. We reinvented those wheels, says Mr. Obama. There is no use protesting that square wheels will impair the forward movement of your car because the removed engine has been replaced with an environmentally friendly windmill.

This thing ain’t going anywhere.

You protest heatedly to Mr. Obama, who shakes his head in disbelief and advises that you take up the matter with Mr. Bush. Mr Obama asserts he has only received the mess through you from Mr. Bush, who sold you a defective car, and who is therefore responsible for the final product.

Question: Under these circumstances, is it likely that you would fault Bush rather than Obama for the condition of your improved car?

I made a promise before the election that if Obama were elected I would not treat Obama the way Bush was treated. Even though I had no intention of voting for him, and did not.

Now I turn on right wing radio and I’m just sickened.

Recently, I’ve become alarmed by how many of the regular posters here at Dean’s World are basically turning into everything we hated about those with Bush Derangement Syndrome, only with Obama.

I mean, I am DEFINITELY not on board with a lot of his policies… But jeez, calm the hell down. The Republic has withstood worse battering that this. Some of it — I hate to tell you — even came from the Bush Administration, which I think most of us can agree wasn’t the best at, well, anything.