How is Obama Doing?

I didn't vote for Obama, but I hope he does succeed. I think it is dumb to hope otherwise. However, I have yet to see a change that he is promised for. As others have pointed out...

People voted for him because of his conservative spending - We're now much further in debt thanks to Obama.

He promised us an improvement in healthcare benefits (free ones depending on what point you were listening to him in his campaign) - I'm still paying the same outrageous amount that I have been with no promising hope in the future of it decreasing.

Obama promised to end this war - We have yet to see it stop, but i'm willing to give him time on this one.

Obama promised to help us with energy related problems - I'm paying more now for energy sources than I was six months ago when he took office.

By my standards, he has yet to do anything except spend money... lets hope that this miraculous change he has talked about comes sooner rather than later.

 

The reason people hope he does not succeed is because they do not want to see his agenda furthered. Success = failure to many. So in other words, to see him fail, really = success.

Nah, they voted for him because he's black.
They voted for him because they hated Bush.
They voted for him cause they liked his agenda of furthering dependence...

Obama's never been a conservative at anything.

All you're gonna get with Obama is more expense and less care. How is that any better? Is that something you really want to see him succeed at?

Nah, he only said that to get elected. Ad that as another reason people voted for him; cause he'd end the war.

His solution is to stop pumping, stop drilling and stop exploring... How on earth does that solve anything?


You sure you want him to succeed?

That's pretty much all he's done; spend money - money we don't have.

See now why people want him to fail???

 

Success in my eyes is different from yours, I suppose. I am defining success as seeing the economy improve (more jobs, lower unemployment rates, etc.). Now, I agree with you in the sense that I don't believe the methods he is taking is going to necessarily get us from Point A (a bad economy) to Point B (a good economy). But, I think many people do not want to see the economy improve simply because of their dislike of Obama. I just can't justify that way of thinking on any level.

 

Man, we all want the economy to improve. In many areas it has been for a long time and would likely continue to. I guess we differ in many ways about how you arrive at such an improvement.

For me, its Government stay the hell out of my way.
For others its Government will fix everything for me.

The important point to remember here when talking about Obama Failing, its the plan we want to see fail, not the improvement.

 

Personally I think people voted for him because of his promise of handouts. They expected some government moron to be on their doorstep the day after the election with a big fat check. They fail to realize that he's handing out to all the other rich bastards that help get him elected. He has no intentions of giving money to the people that really run this country: the hard working everyday American.

It's really sad that Americans can so easily be swayed.

I was reading about the average IQ of the American public the other day. Studies have put it at an average in the low 90s. That's really bad considering mental retardation starts around 80. Americans seem to be getting dumber as time goes by. And it's starting to show in our choices.

 

hmansfield, you seem to have conveniently forgotten that the fraud and deceit that Enron and dozens of other companies were caught engaging in happened during the Clinton years due to total lack of enforcement and regulation, which is what you seem to think only happens when Republicans are in office.

Bush got stuck holding the bag for that one and the DemoRats tried to pin it on him, even though he had nothing to do with it. Enron did give some money to Bush's campaign, but gave far more to Clinton's.

Obama is currently engaged in more constitutional violations than Bush was ever accused of. Most of the constitutional issues that Obama and the Democrats criticized Bush for are still in use by Obama with no plans to disengage. It is obvious that he is seeing things from a different perspective now that he is responsible.

The President has no authority to nationalize banks. The banks that received TARP funds were not given a choice.

The President has no authority to fire the president of GM, nor does he have the authority to appoint a numb skull who openly claims to know nothing about the auto business to the CEO position. This happened before the government took a 60% stake in GM.

Also, do not forget that Obama did not win the popular vote by a landslide. 53% is not a landslide and can easily be accounted for by the strong support he received from the overwhelmingly liberal media. He may not have won at all if the press had not coddled and protected him (by not investigating the many legitimate claims about his associations and history), and if the Republicans had run a real Republican against him. McCain may have been a better choice in 2000, but there wasn't a good choice in 2008.

I do blame Bush in part for Obama's election. Bush was a major "enabler" that helped elect a socialist who seems hell-bent on destroying America by running it so far into debt that it can never recover.

Obama is a good talker, but so is every con artist out there. Thus far, he has not accomplished much of anything other than running the economy much further into debt and further dividing the country. As more people realize how wasteful and ineffective his programs are, you will see his poll numbers continue to drop. Perhaps they will drop further than the record-setting and well-deserved lows achieved by the current Democrat Congress.

</rant>

You have not yet seen anything. Cap and Trade is an expensive venture that will do little to stop emissions. The real goal of Cap and Trade is to make energy so expensive that people will be forced to cut back on usage because energy will be so expensive.

I hope that America succeeds and survives the Obama era, but I do not hope that he is successful when it comes to transforming the USA into something conjured up by his idealist, socialist views. I think most people hope that he succeeds in solving the major problems, but with little damage inflicted on the economy. I am not sure if that is possible.

 

The guy has been in office 7 months, and everyone's acting like everything that was screwed up was supposed to get better immediately. This isn't a Tivo, real economic growth takes time, you can't just skip the commercials to get to the good times, the first step is to stop the bleeding.

I love the way people who don't like Obama for what ever reason, are arrogant enough to spew insulting bullshit like "everybody else must be stupid", "People are waiting for hand outs", and "He got votes because he was black"....that is sooo sad, and totally reminds me of Archie Bunker. Same rhetoric.

You guys really think a lot of yourselves.

It must be tough walking though life and teaching your kids right and wrong when you feel like the majority of the country is full of ignorant idiots with no mind of their own and you are better than everyone else...that's a pretty high perch you put yourself on, and yet, I don't see any of you offering up any solutions or contributions....just bitter bitching because you lost the election.

Watch this video and see if you see any similarities with yourselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fqCS7Y_kME

Or maybe this one better feeds into your pathetic outlook and prejudices:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bpXRqQEXSQ

 

How ironic that I would post the same back in the Bush days when the lefties would come and post!

I'll just come back with the lefty's response though: It's not my job to make a solution, the nation voted them in with confidence that they would.

In all actuality though, I do have a few ideas. I would start out by giving hard incentives to keep the American jobs here. We're still losing our jobs to foreign countries. I would begin to penalize those companies, starting now, that have opted to shut down employment here and increase it elsewhere. I'm not talking about shutting down existing plants in China and bringing them here. I would also "grandfather" those companies who have been developing products in foreign countries for say... more than five years. But, lets see some heavy taxing on companies who are making that jump right now. Force these companies to find other innovative ways to keep their prices low enough for the consumers, or, they can shut their doors and allow capitalism to take its course. This is just one of my ideas. I could keep going on, but my ranting wouldn't change much. We need Obama to make the "change" for us.

 

I can actually agree with much of that. The other day I did a post : Is Newt Gingrich Smarter Than a 5th grader ?, where I took his "Real Stimulus" that he is pushing (along with his book) and pointed out that the tax cuts for businesses that the REPS keep pushing over and over again for the last 80 years (and have gotten during the Regan, Bush, and Bush Presidencies), where too broad and suggested that there be stipulations.

First of all, they shouldn't be across the board. If the true intent is to stimulate job growth, then any business that gets a cut, should have a majority of their operations in the U.S., not just merely be incorporated here...and there should be some accountability that they actually use the cuts appropriately, and not just put the excess in their pockets.

Every business does not deserve a tax break, and I see no reason to give one to a company that has offices in the U.S., but manufactures in Mexico, or has all their customer service in India, or the Philippines.

Newt also suggested an amnesty of owed taxes to generate more capitol, I suggest that it extends to all defaulted Government loans, including Student Loans.

He had some other ideas including offshore drilling, but he didn't do the math on them and much of it just seemed like rhetoric to get people cheering for the opposition party, so I had to make fun of him

I should add that I am not suggesting some big bureaucracy of applications, paper work and approvals for the business tax cuts. I say make it simple. Everyone that is eligible and applies for it , should get it. Let consumers and company employees be the watchdogs. Before they get the tax cut, there should be a public notification, to all employees, share holders, and associates, and an ad in the paper.

Anyone not using the cuts for expansion, or new hires should be made to pay it back. Anyone caught lying and don't have a majority their operations in the U.S. should be treated like tax frauds.

 

Hey, I would be up for that. I think both sides, whether republicans or democrats want to see the jobs staying here in America. I am probably more liberal than most Republicans when it comes to economics, so it's probably not the best indication that others would agree with you as well.

I personally think it is pretty clear though, the method of giving money to the rich in hopes that it will eventually flow down to the blue collar Americans has yet to work. We have been trying it for a while. AEG was about to have to close its doors while the upper level managers were out taking lavish vacations. That method clearly doesn't work because that's not how capitalism works. Capitalism is all about getting as rich as you can. We need to be strict on where any money is going and give them real encitives to stay here. There needs to be a negative impact on businesses that are doing this to their employees.

 

What I don't want to see is Americans being fooled to believe that his "plan" is actually benefitting the people. I don't want to see damage done either, but you know just like I do that in the end everything that is going well in the U.S. will be interpreted as his success by many when indeed it is the American people and businesses working hard despite the fact that Barry is trying to introduce socialims.

 

It's the same argument every time we switch from a Republican to a Democrat. After 4 -8 years of "Hands off" government and deregulation, the financial sectors, banks and the economy get raped and pillaged

-Business tax cuts, "Hands Off" Government and bad economic decisions and the Great Depression during the Hoover Administration.
-The Failure and Unemployment in the Auto Industries in the 80's During the Regan Administration
-The Total Collapse of American Savings and Loans During the Regan Administration
-Corporate Reorganizations, 8% Unemployment and 14 % poverty level during G.H.W. Bush
...and of course creative corporate book keeping, and failure of financial sectors lead by unscrupulous behavior in the Housing and Mortgage Industries in the G.W. Bush era.

leaving us with some kind of recession and unemployment and when the next guy comes in to stop the bleeding, all of a sudden everyone is calling it socialism.

Well, a little socialistic consumer protection is not all bad. As we have seen countless times, we can't trust the private business sector to do the right thing. Every time we hand them the ropes and give them total control, they drive horse and buggy into their own garage.

We cannot trust the major financial groups in this country to do right by all of us, they will continue to exploit loop holes and pocket huge profits and leave the rest of us holding the bag.

If I were one of them, I may want less regulation, but since I am always the one on the "holding the bag" end, there needs to be appropriate protection for all.

The argument that if I make more money for myself and my shareholders then we can put more money into the economy (meaning we can buy more stuff) is a little to self serving for me. Hiring another maid, cook and gardner for another summer home, is not stimulating employment.

 

Well, that's you. I run biodiesel from waste vegetable oil, which this time last year was a prohibitive $5.76/gallon at the highest, over $1 more than local petrodiesel.

That same station has been holding steady at $2.79-2.99 all summer, no big price spike, and B99 is now the same price as local petrodiesel in the area. Price parity at last! Before, I was paying a virtual tax for using domestic carbon-neutral fuel.

Yes, the change has been dramatic for those using alternative energy.

 

Good, because that money is needed by those who have not grasped the concept of bargain shopping:

http://firetown.com/2009/07/20/excessive-u-s-government-spending/

$2 Million for 2 pounds of ham?

 

Every year that BUSH cut taxes, revenue to the Federal Government went UP. Unfortunately the federal government continued to overspend as well.

No nation or government has ever taxed itself into prosperity, PERIOD. Looking at the Bush tax cuts, year after year the revenue to the Federal Government INCREASED.

What people like Harry here don't want the rest of us to know is that he and his buds like to suck up 65% of all the revenue generated by people who work so they can continue to spend it on people who do not. That's not Freedom. That's not America. And that is certainly not what our founding father's intended when they authored our government.

How on earth any idiot can possibly believe that raising the taxes on those of us that already involuntarily contribute almost all of the revenue generated in our society can continue to sustain life needs some serious help.

 

I don't know what "must have been" means. Do you mean that you really don't know?

There are a number of good articles if you Google Obama Wiretapping.

It comes down to this: former President Bush invoked the "States Secrets" privileged to legalize the use of certain wiretaps. While previous Presidents have done this. Pres. Bush did it more often than any previous President. It was based on Pres. Clinton's policy - Clinton invoked more state secrets wiretapping than any President before HIM.

While he campaigned against it, the Obama administration appealed a decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco where Pres. Obama not only wants to uphold the legality of the Bush wiretaps, but he wants to preserve the practice of warentless wiretaps for his present administration.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/obama-sides-wit/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/16/MN3U18PAU3.DTL

Pres. Obama also wants to immunize communications companies from prosecution in engaging in what is, technically, an illegal act (you don't need to grant immunity unless someone's broken the law).

Pres. Obama has succeeded in clearing the way to proceed. Personally, I think he's doing the right thing.

 

You are obviously too young to remember the horror and the hysteria of the economic disaster that was the Carter years.

Jimmy Carter - USA's worst President (even worse than Andrew Johnson)

 

Democrat Robert Reich, who was President Clinton's Secretary of Labor, remarked earlier this year, "We have socialism for the rich, and capitalism for everyone else".

BTW, last week Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders hinted that we might have to see 60% tax rates to pay for government spending. SIXTY PERCENT TAXES!!!

 

That's the problem. He's too young to fully understand what's been going on since Carter, CRA, etc., etc.
For those not old enough to remember, its all right here: http://www.ofheo.gov search for "Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae"

Here's another dose of reality.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487

 

Well, that's what it comes down to. Mia. And that's why the Democrats target anyone that is too young to remember when President Clinton ran for his first term.

I listen to the Democrats and I've heard all this before.

It's the same old story.

It reminds me of the old saying, "You can vote for a Republican and hope he won't do what he promised, or you can vote for a Democrat and KNOW he will not do as he promised!"