Obama Report Card - Two Years Later

[Hot Mega]

I have no respect for people who judge people by the group.

So we can't agree that Al Aquaeda (for example) by the group are evil, murdering bastards (well, maybe the bastard part is technically debatable)?:crying:

Maybe you'll respect me in the morning if not.:o

Listen, I am fair minded 98 pct of the time. I give people their chances...the problem is in this case...they are doing and saying the same shit...(and worse in some cases) that they were doing and saying of Clinton prior to the circus they concocted against him.

Why would a reasonable person believe they have anything more than the same or more in store for Obama if they return to power?? I suppose crossing your fingers and hoping for the best might work.

I say you do so at your own peril IMO (at least peril of your faith in some of these clowns to behave responsibly with power).

 

[CunningStunts]

Let's see... after hearing people bitch incessantly about the Bush years, mainly due to the wars and deficits, Obama has changed no policies on the wars and has increased the deficits at an alarming rate. IN addition, he has used the angst in the country to ram bills through the clueless Congress to increase Federal spending in all areas, including the massive "stimulus" bills (aka largest Pork spending bill in history), a health care bill that was sold as saving us money when in fact it's causing premiums to go up and BTW no one is even sure what's in it, and he's bailing out people and businesses what got where they are based on their own bad choices. I give him a 2, and that's me in a generous mood today.

 

[Hot Mega]

Let's see... after hearing people bitch incessantly about the Bush years, mainly due to the wars and deficits, Obama has changed no policies on the wars and has increased the deficits at an alarming rate. IN addition, he has used the angst in the country to ram bills through the clueless Congress to increase Federal spending in all areas, including the massive "stimulus" bills (aka largest Pork spending bill in history), a health care bill that was sold as saving us money when in fact it's causing premiums to go up and BTW no one is even sure what's in it, and he's bailing out people and businesses what got where they are based on their own bad choices. I give him a 2, and that's me in a generous mood today.

A president (of the US) rams bills through congress now? When did the separation of powers change??

Also, for the millionth time GWB had the whole world behind him to go after AQ in Afghanistan...NOT to chase Saddam around Tikrit for a trillion dollars.:2 cents:

That was the war problem most people had with him.

Bush signed the draw down of troops from Iraq and because it was an Obama policy to begin with (pulling troops out of Iraq) Obama didn't have to make a change to that policy.

Unemployment peaked out at 10.4 pct under Obama about a year ago and has been under 10 since.

The Great Depression lasted 10 years and took a war for it to end.

Would you have preferred another 10 or more years of a depression and what that could have done to our debt? The circumstances CERTAINLY were ripe for it to happen.

If it's the case that his actions averted another depression then most people with commonsense would think it more than worth it what he did.

But it's easy to be an armchair QB when these things didn't happen and try and claim it was a mistake.

 

[CunningStunts]

^^^ HM, to deny the vitriol spewed at Bush is just to deny reality. When BHO did the same things, nothing from the people or the media. That's my point. And I happen to agree about Iraq, but once you are in a war, you gotta be in it to WIN.

The bottom line is that claiming the almost $800 billion worth of wasted taxpayer money in the "stimulus" bill saved us from a "worse" recession is spurious at best, and ah hoc since it cannot be confirmed nor dis-proven. But the massive 14 trillion dollar debt that has us printing money like a third world country is objectively hurting all Americans. IMHO, the best thing the government can do is keep things fair in the market and keep thier hands off the rest... they hurt the economy more than they help it (see housing crisis, created by Federal mandates to get people in houses).

It all comes down to these questions: Do you trust these politicians? Do you believe that massive, expensive programs run from DC help the nation? Do you believe it's ok to FORCE people who don't agree with this philosophy to pay for those who do? Do you believe the majority has the right to force their agenda on individuals who disagree?

The answer to these questions will form your politics and form the basis for for every modern political issue we discuss. And Obama clearly thinks YES, YES, YES, and YES. I say not just no, but hell no. :dunno:

 

[Supafly]

Might want to check your math, Scooter. We'd be lucky to be 3 billion in debt...

I believe if he makes that 'trillion', he might be closer to the real picture. Yet I am from 'old europe', so what do I know :1orglaugh

In my opinion, if you could only get lost of that Filibuster bullcrap, a lot more could have been done. Again, I can't believe noone did that as of yet.

But as you pointed out, he has two more years to run and we will see what he does.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

In my opinion, if you could only get lost of that Filibuster bullcrap, a lot more could have been done. Again, I can't believe noone did that as of yet.

.

The "checks and balances" were created by the Founders for one reason: to make it difficult to get legislation passed. It's not like the UK Parliament with a bunch of cooks screaming at eachother and where they can oust someone from their own party if they get out of line (although the system has its possitive features), and IMO it has served us well enough since the beginning. States' rights are more important anyway. :2 cents: The funniest thing, however, is every state gets two senators. Love it. And it pisses some people off something fierce since some states that are tiny can block votes.

 

[Jagger69]

No, sorry. Even in two years, the Wackeos still won't have any viable prez candidates. Who ya gunna run--Sarah Palin :rofl: John McCain for the 46th time :rofl Ron Paul Rudy Guiliani Glenn Beck :thumbsup:

The republicans can't run any of those candidates and have any hope of winning. I'm going to make a prediction that here is your 2012 republican nominee for president:



http://www.rickperry.org/

"Slick Rick" Perry has been governor of Texas for 10 years....already longer than any other governor in state history and he wants 4 more years. Ah, but his ambitions don't stop there. He would kill to step out of Dubya's shadow as far as a Texas legacy goes. I'm betting that he'll run for sure and the guy is as smooth and slippery as they come....he could give lessons to Bill Clinton in fact! :1orglaugh. He's conservative enough to rally the tea-party nuts and he's adaptable enough to make more moderate republicans feel good about him. Hell, I know registered democrats here in Texas that think he's an excellent governor and intend to vote for him next week! :surprise:

Remember, you heard it here first.

Well, since he is a right wing guy, I'll just throw it out there that in fact Bernie Goldberg said she will run against Obama. Take it with a grain of salt. I'm pretty sure after he made that ascertion that in fact that would only happen if BO's ratings plummet even further. Man, would that make for some grade-A drama though.

Did Bernie say where he got this information or is he just speculating? It would be suicidal for the dems if she battled Obama for the nomination....just can't see it happening no matter what.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

The republicans can't run any of those candidates and have any hope of winning. I'm going to make a prediction that here is your 2012 republican nominee for president:



http://www.rickperry.org/

"Slick Rick" Perry has been governor of Texas for 10 years....already longer than any other governor in state history and he wants 4 more years. Ah, but his ambitions don't stop there. He would kill to step out of Dubya's shadow as far as a Texas legacy goes. I'm betting that he'll run for sure and the guy is as smooth and slippery as they come....he could give lessons to Bill Clinton in fact! :1orglaugh. He's conservative enough to rally the tea-party nuts and he's adaptable enough to make more moderate republicans feel good about him. Hell, I know registered democrats here in Texas that think he's an excellent governor and intend to vote for him next week! :surprise:

Remember, you heard it here first.

John Thune or Tim Pawlenty will be a factor. My prediction would be Pawlenty.

Did Bernie say where he got this information or is he just speculating? It would be suicidal for the dems if she battled Obama for the nomination....just can't see it happening no matter what.

Pretty sure it was just speculation, but Bernie is a sharp character. He's good on Real Sports as well.

 

[Friday on my mind]

^^^ HM, to deny the vitriol spewed at Bush is just to deny reality. When BHO did the same things, nothing from the people or the media. That's my point. And I happen to agree about Iraq, but once you are in a war, you gotta be in it to WIN.

The bottom line is that claiming the almost $800 billion worth of wasted taxpayer money in the "stimulus" bill saved us from a "worse" recession is spurious at best, and ah hoc since it cannot be confirmed nor dis-proven. But the massive 14 trillion dollar debt that has us printing money like a third world country is objectively hurting all Americans. IMHO, the best thing the government can do is keep things fair in the market and keep thier hands off the rest... they hurt the economy more than they help it (see housing crisis, created by Federal mandates to get people in houses).

It all comes down to these questions: Do you trust these politicians? Do you believe that massive, expensive programs run from DC help the nation? Do you believe it's ok to FORCE people who don't agree with this philosophy to pay for those who do? Do you believe the majority has the right to force their agenda on individuals who disagree?

The answer to these questions will form your politics and form the basis for for every modern political issue we discuss. And Obama clearly thinks YES, YES, YES, and YES. I say not just no, but hell no. :dunno:

Thats like comparing Herbert Hoover to FDR.
Bush and company created the mess just like Hoover did,while FDR and Obama are the ones that came after and had to try to stabilize and repair things.I did not fault Bush for doing what had to be done like stimulus etc,but I do fault him for getting us to that place where such was neccesary.
Yes 10% unemployment is high but it easily could have been 30% like it was during the depression and Bush and Obama did what was needed to not allow it to get that bad and most experts say it easily could have.

And the housing crisis was not created by trying to help people get into houses.It was created by a lack of regulation on financial institutions who were using mortgage backed securities as get rich quick schemes.It was not some average people who created this but Wall st.Again the same as it was in FDR's time.

And the answer to the questions about whether the programs are ok and helping are the same as they were in FDR's time when he did the new deal.They were and are needed and it's entirely OK and fair to force them on those who oppose them.

 

[georges]

I give him 1 out of 10

 

[tartanterrier]

I'll give him a 7.I don't think he's done a lot but maybe a kick up the
arse at this half-time appraisal might just get him going.

Maybe he's just too busy admiring his new surroundings along with
his added perks

 

[CptHa]

7, he has had his gaffes, but solid for the most part.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

, but solid for the most part.

How so? Stacking his cabinet with some pretty extremist individuals? All the tax cheats and wack jobs like Geithner and Holder? Or the Supreme Court nutjobs he appointed? These people are just legislating from the Bench.

What I like best (or should I say worst) about BO, is his radical appointees to the SCOTUS. It's just really sad. That is one damn place where I would say I would cast a "least worst" vote; the Supreme Court has an immense ammount of power and the Pres is in charge of it.

 

[CptHa]

How so? Stacking his cabinet with some pretty extremist individuals? All the tax cheats and wack jobs like Geithner and Holder? Or the Supreme Court nutjobs he appointed? These people are just legislating from the Bench.

What I like best (or should I say worst) about BO, is his radical appointees to the SCOTUS. It's just really sad. That is one damn place where I would say I would cast a "least worst" vote; the Supreme Court has an immense ammount of power and the Pres is in charge of it.

Not that it'll change your mind, but for a start, how about approximately 3000 less people have died from terrorist attacks in the same time frame between the current and previous Presidents.

 

[Jagger69]

What I like best (or should I say worst) about BO, is his radical appointees to the SCOTUS. It's just really sad. That is one damn place where I would say I would cast a "least worst" vote; the Supreme Court has an immense ammount of power and the Pres is in charge of it.

"Radical appointees" :1orglaugh

This is the same partisan "the sky is falling" crap we heard from the left when Bush appointed Roberts and Alito. And don't forget Harriet Miers! What a jewel of a selection she was!

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

"Radical appointees" :1orglaugh

This is the same partisan "the sky is falling" crap we heard from the left when Bush appointed Roberts and Alito. And don't forget Harriet Miers! What a jewel of a selection she was!

It happens on both sides, but for sure you would agree there are more activist judges on the left than the right. :dunno: Of the three branches, the most troubling has to be the judicial. Lifetime nominees and no answering to anyone (that's the point, so they can judge cases on merit and not really worry, which is why is should be as bipartisan as possible).

 

[CunningStunts]

"Radical appointees" :1orglaugh

This is the same partisan "the sky is falling" crap we heard from the left when Bush appointed Roberts and Alito. And don't forget Harriet Miers! What a jewel of a selection she was!

Yeah, I suppose the US Department of Justice should then be renamed to the Department of Justice for Minorities, since they don't seem to care about protecting anyone else's rights... don't believe me? Google is your friend.

So if he's not so "radical" as the whacko conservatives claim, why are even moderate Democrats running from him and the party leadership as fast as they can? Why is the working American public minus the unions fleeing their agenda? Why are most independents, who got him elected, not voting Democrat next week? :dunno:

 

[bodie54]

How so? Stacking his cabinet with some pretty extremist individuals?

Robert Gates, Erik Shinseki, Ray LaHook, Kenneth Salazar, Ronald Kirk, Steven Chu, Susan Rice, Lisa Jackson, etc etc....these are extremist individuals??

"extremist" Eric Holder has been around for quite some time. His first superior court appointment came at the behest of noted extremist Ronald Reagan. Among his other extremist acts, he represented the NFL in it's investigation of Michael Vick's dog figthing.

What I like best (or should I say worst) about BO, is his radical appointees to the SCOTUS.

:rofl: at "radical"

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

"extremist" Eric Holder has been around for quite some time. His first superior court appointment came at the behest of noted extremist Ronald Reagan. Among his other extremist acts, he represented the NFL in it's investigation of Michael Vick's dog figthing.



"

Holder is a nut. He's a racist, anti-gun, pro-Islamist, anti-border control radical. Quite frankly a pussy at that.

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

He gets a "2" from me. He started out with a trillion dollar deficit and thought the best way to solve that problem was to spend another trillion. I admit it was a complicated situation, and I don't think the Republicans' idea of lowering the tax rate would help enough. Still, I do think it would have been better than spending like there is no tomorrow.

People say we just need to be patient and wait until his policies change anything. They might, but I have seen so little change in 2 years that I now believe the problem won't be solved until Barrack Hussein Obama is defeated in the next election or until his second term is over.

The reason for this is that business owners are too worried about this President's radical ideas for wealth redistribution and the possibility of inflation rates that could be brought upon by his having spent like a drunken sailor.