Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are many accomplishments of this President, he has done a good job and conversely the Congress has done NOTHING Good! My hope is 17 repugs members of the House will get the boot in 2014 so we can actually do things for the good of the people.
In one breath you will find the ignorant ranting about Obama doing nothing, but then they are the first to have their kids on their insurance after age 22, or they bought a house with the incentive, or got a clunker sold for $5000, or any number of the many programs that have helped our economy and our people.
Name 1 thing the members of the house have done to help people... want to look at what they were saying about Hurricane Sandy? ... well until their own state blows up... Texas you can go suck an egg!
btw... obstruction is not a benefit. fire them and hire no one you would be far better off and save a retirement and income of a large group doing nothing.
As someone who is deeply involved in the automotive aftermarket through investment, you need to understand that "Cash For Clunkers" was NOT a positive thing.
Essentially, the taxpayers subsidized the manufacturer's rebates, while simultaneously -- through unintended consequences -- raising the price of used cars. There's nothing positive about that.
I generally agree that President Obama has been a better president than some would admit. I have especially liked early focus on improving services to Vets, which had been sadly neglected for many years.
1) He is not Bush (who was universally hated abroad)
2) The ability to speak clearly and convincingly, without embarrassing an entire nation
3) The ability to use diplomacy without religious influence and polarizing rhetoric in a way that is relatable and respected internationally, with the possible exception of Israel.
Those are only three examples, but that is enough.
Ability to speak clearly and convincingly, you're not talking about Obama. Have you seen him speak? Obviously not. I was so embarrassed by him being totally lost the last time I seen him speak. If someone doesn't tell him what to say, better yet, say it for him, well, duh, duh, ah, ah, ah!
He is far from perfect, and I know of no genuinely informed progressives who are entirely happy, many are not at all happy. However, their reasoning is much like yours and mine, based on genuine, measurable policy decisions, and has nothing in common with talking
points passed down from FAUX News
and Glenn Beck and regurgitated by wingnuts.
He did pass legislation restricting Wall Street from predatory practices that flourished under Bush. I do think they should have been far stricter.
As far as Syria, both Bush and McCain would have already commenced air strikes.
If all Obama wanted to do was send a message, an "unbelievably small" operation, then he should have just done the airstrikes without going to Congress. Small surgical strikes, even though completely ineffective, would have at least sent a message that he meant business and could send larger force if weapons were used again.
The way Syria was handled was completely amateurish and weak. He actually acts like having Assad's main arms dealer broker a deal to give up weapons is perfectly reasonable. Everyone with a brain except Obama's most loyal supporters knows that Assad will never hand over all the chemical weapons in his possession. How would we ever know if he did or didn't? He's denied having any chemical weapons for years. At this point, I think Obama wants to put Syria completely out of everyone's mind.
The main thing he has accomplished is to insure that it will be a looooooooonnnnnnnggggggggg time before we elect another person who looks like he could be the father of Tremar Martin.Most white people dont forget it when a black man preaches to them about race. It is not the job for the president.
Tell me, is cutting the national debt, still on the list becaue they just keep making up crap for the ignorant lefties to repeat..
Bush still signed the budget with the largest deficit. Obama has been much less than exceptional, or even mediocre, in this regard, but he's at the very least as good as the spendthrift who preceded him. Cutting the deficit inherited by nearly 50% (projected, 2014) isn't exactly something to be ashamed of... unless perhaps you're a neocon who thinks inheriting a surplus and leaving a record high deficit is a good thing?
Bush still signed the budget with the largest deficit. Obama has been much less than exceptional, or even mediocre, in this regard, but he's at the very least as good as the spendthrift who preceded him. Cutting the deficit inherited by nearly 50% (projected, 2014) isn't exactly something to be ashamed of... unless perhaps you're a neocon who thinks inheriting a surplus and leaving a record high deficit is a good thing?
The national debt has gone up by a larger amount with 4.5 years of Obama than it did with 8 years of G.W. Bush.
The national debt has gone up by a larger amount with 4.5 years of Obama than it did with 8 years of G.W. Bush.
True.
But Bush didn't come in with a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit like he exited with. He came in with a small surplus and turned it into $1.4 trillion through eight years of tax cuts and big government spending. It's more about velocity and direction. Jobs was an exceptional CEO because he turned Apple around from a failing company to what it is today. Even if Cook maintains or even increasing profitability, it won't compare. On the other hand, if he takes Apple and runs it into the ground posting the largest corporate loss in its history... well, you could then say "he done a Bush."
Obama is no Jobs, and I don't even like Apple products.
Bush still signed the budget with the largest deficit. Obama has been much less than exceptional, or even mediocre, in this regard, but he's at the very least as good as the spendthrift who preceded him. Cutting the deficit inherited by nearly 50% (projected, 2014) isn't exactly something to be ashamed of... unless perhaps you're a neocon who thinks inheriting a surplus and leaving a record high deficit is a good thing?
When was there ever a surplus? Clinton never left one to Bush, and Bush darn sure didn't leave one to Obama. The Clinton "surplus" was a myth. If you have time, you should read the following website that explains the differences between national debt and deficits, and public debt and intragovernmental debt (where the government borrows money from itself, i.e., from Social Security). It's a very illuminating article. It's someone's blog article, but he cites U.S. Treasury numbers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
