Re: He is pushing for Government take overs and Socialism, and it's not about people power, any more than Castro's revolution. He uses people as a tool and he will spit them out when he doesn't need them any longer.
That's a rather extreme point of view. I've seen the staunchest of Obama's critics describe him this way, but since a man's actions speak louder than a pundits criticism, I tend to take those rebukes with a grain of salt. Maybe you can explain why I should take this seriously by giving an example, and then we can discuss it.
For example, what do you have against Socialism? When you hear that word, do you think of "Socialist Russia" or "Socialist China", or do you think of "Social Security"?
Socialism merely means the use of government social services. Your government, for example, provides fire and police coverage. That's Socialism. Your government provides Medicare and public schools. Both Socialism. Your government provides a military, a Department of Homeland Security, and even an Environmental Protection Agency. All Socialism.
That point that might concern you is where you draw the line between providing a government service, and when does it become a "government takeover".
That's a fair point, and we can discuss that, but I've not seen any evidence of the latter. In fact, take health care as an example. We've examined other countries that have excellent health care systems, such as Canada, France, and the U.K. - all places where the government controls all aspects of health care. We don't like everything about these systems, but there are some things we do like, such as the fact that they don't have any medical related bankruptcies because of people not being able to afford health care, while we in the U.S. have that problem, to the tune of 100s of thousands of people.
And yet, we aren't advocating right now for a complete government takeover of the health care system. Despite what you might have heard, we are merely suggesting that we expand Medicare to cover people in other age groups that either cannot afford current medical insurance payments, or who aren't satisfied with their current coverage. That's why we call it the Public OPTION - because it's optional.
Again, you might have heard differently, but I can tell you from having paid attention to multiple sources (and not just from the side of the pundits) that there is nothing malignant about the Public Option, and it doesn't sound to me very much like a government takeover. It sounds instead like a compromise to help people who currently don't have the coverage they need or want today, while providing some competition to the rest of the health insurance industry.
But if you don't like it, we can talk about it, and hopefully, you can tell me what you would do differently.
I just think it makes little sense to throw personal attacks at Obama, when the reality is that the situation is very complex, and many aspects need to be understood before one can give an intellectually honest criticism about the current process, or the intentions of people involved.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
