Obama - a failed presidency?

**firstandten** · August-31-10, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by d.mcc

there actually is NO FUCKING REPUBLICAN PLAN... All I hear from Republicans is, "Vote for us, and we're gonna fix it"

then... crickets! How are you going to fix it? What is your plan? Can you outline it for us? We're supposed to vote for you because you say you're going to fix it???

You forgot there is a Republican plan......

CUT TAXES !!

Whats your plan for reducing unemployment ? Cut Taxes
Whats your plan for helping small business ? Cut Taxes
Whats your plan for bringing manufacturing back ? Cut Taxes
Whats your plan for bringing green tech to the US ? Cut Taxes
Whats your solution for anything financial ? Cut Taxes

Thats the plan... sounds good doesn't it ?

**ghettopalmetto** · August-31-10, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by jerrytimes

I would be shocked if he did decide to do that, but if he did BRAVO! That would renew my faith that Mr. Obama is somewhat of a smart man. By the way, Bush's tax breaks were not just for the rich as most Democrats like to think.... those damn richies.... but no, they also served as breaks for the middle class.

Remember this. Those of you out there with jobs have a bosses and somewhere up the ladder there is an owner of your company. Some companies that are publicly traded now used to have men or women that once owned them too. These people are rich, and they are also the people [[not all of them, but some) that employ us, the working man. If they pay less in taxes, they have more money to keep their businesses alive, hence, keeping us employed. Tax breaks also give an incentive to the rich to open new business which also employs us, whether its a guy that owns a Taco Bell or a guy that owns an accounting firm.

You keep spoonfeeding yourself that bullshit. Maybe reality will adapt to this premise in the next thirty years, since it hasn't had any correspondence with it in the past thirty.

I'm not sucking anyone's dick in the hopes that he throws me some crumbs.

lincoln8740 · August-31-10, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

You keep spoonfeeding yourself that bullshit. Maybe reality will adapt to this premise in the next thirty years, since it hasn't had any correspondence with it in the past thirty.

I'm not sucking anyone's dick in the hopes that he throws me some crumbs.

says the guy that wants a 70-80% tax rate.

**Detroit Stylin** · August-31-10, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by firstandten

You forgot there is a Republican plan......

CUT TAXES !!

Whats your plan for reducing unemployment ? Cut Taxes
Whats your plan for helping small business ? Cut Taxes
Whats your plan for bringing manufacturing back ? Cut Taxes
Whats your plan for bringing green tech to the US ? Cut Taxes
Whats your solution for anything financial ? Cut Taxes

Thats the plan... sounds good doesn't it ?

And is so proven to have worked extremely well.....just look at economic expansion under Bush!

**Papasito** · August-31-10, 03:56 PM

NO PLAN!

That's exactly what I think may happen - that the undecideds and the disgruntled folks vote in a bunch of Conservatives that run on fluff and big promises, then they don't deliver jack crap.

The Republicans had lots of time to do something, anything, with Health Care, when they had a Republican sitting Prez, and a Republican majority in Congress. They did nothing.
So the ObamaCare stuff could have all been avoided if the looming issue [[which has been a front and center issue since Clinton's term) had been addressed by some real reform or regulation of any sort.

If Republicans take the majority in November and then sit on thier checkered pants, like they have done in the past after winning a majority, it's going to take the wind out of the Tea Party movement's sails in a hurry.

**ghettopalmetto** · August-31-10, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by lincoln8740

says the guy that wants a 70-80% tax rate.

Can you show me where I made such a statement?

I didn't think so.

**Papasito** · August-31-10, 04:03 PM

And I'm sorry for the double post, and I'm certainly not trying to defend Bush, because he could have done a better job, but seriously, who could expect anyone's economic philosophy to pay off during a period where 9/11, the housing bubble burst, and the dotcom era all dominoed? Throw in the invasion of random countries at will on borrowed money and you have an economic climate no one could have a prayer to fix.

You could cut taxes to the bone, and it wouldn't have helped.
Bush's warmongering while the country was dead broke didn't help one bit either.

Hey, isn't the glass steagall act still not reinstated?
How about the current administration get serious about the economy and start fixing the stuff that caused the meltdown in the first place that still hasn't been fixed? Even if things get turned around, the system is still set up to go right back to collapse....

**firstandten** · September-01-10, 01:07 AM

Originally Posted by Papasito

Hey, isn't the glass steagall act still not reinstated?
How about the current administration get serious about the economy and start fixing the stuff that caused the meltdown in the first place that still hasn't been fixed? Even if things get turned around, the system is still set up to go right back to collapse....

Hey, it would be nice if Obama could wave his hands in the air and like Captain Picard of the Enterprise say "make it so" and the economy is fixed. Remember he is dealing with the best Senate money can buy so you can forget about the Glass-Steagall act being reinstated any time soon.

**Mikeg** · September-01-10, 08:50 AM

In 18 months, this President [[aided and abetted by a Democratic Congress) has done more to advance the "progressive" agenda than any other President since FDR, yet some of his supporters are whining that he isn't going far and fast enough!

I suspect that the whining is motivated by the dawning realization that there will be no more "aiding and abetting" following the mid-term elections.

**rb336** · September-01-10, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Mikeg

In 18 months, this President [[aided and abetted by a Democratic Congress) has done more to advance the "progressive" agenda than any other President since FDR, yet some of his supporters are whining that he isn't going far and fast enough!

he has? how, exactly? do you even know what the "progressive agenda" is?

**Detroitej72** · September-01-10, 09:27 AM

Advancing the progressive agenda? I think not.

Most of what Obama has done is continue the status quo from the Bush years. One of the only "progressive" bills he passed was the health-care reform bill, which borrowed heavily from the plan McCain touted during his presidential campaign.

And just a little note, Democrats may have a majority, but a large number of these seats are not progressive. Part of the DNC's strategy for winning majorities was to recruit conservative Democrats to run in the heavily con districts,thus many could be considered DINO's.

**mjs** · September-01-10, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by firstandten

Hey, it would be nice if Obama could wave his hands in the air and like Captain Picard of the Enterprise say "make it so" and the economy is fixed. Remember he is dealing with the best Senate money can buy so you can forget about the Glass-Steagall act being reinstated any time soon.

At the very least, he could speak to it. Hear him mention it once? He seems to be pretty good at getting his policies in regardless of popular opinion. Its where the whole might be in favor of extending Bush tax cuts came from. The context is that he said it in his post-vacation speech seconds after he bashed republicans for stalling out his small business bill. It was a between the lines compromise offer. He doesn't give a rats ass about the budget and is banking on the Republicans feeling the same. He gets to spend and they get to cut.

**mjs** · September-01-10, 09:41 AM

There is something McCain would offer different from Obama. McCain actually did put a bill out there to reinstate Glass-Steagal and it went down in flames. There was also a proposed amendment to the "too big to fail" bill that limited any bank to controlling 10% of all the money in the U.S. Also voted down though not by any Michigan Senators. How in the hell can you put no size limit in a too big to fail bill? I said it then and I'll say it again, if we do feel the need for a race to the bottom corporate welfare government, the bank bailout should have at least included some regulatory legislation. Another, rush rush bill that jacked the rest of us peons.

Papasito is exactly right. List the root cause and then see if your solution specifically adresses that root cause. Its not what Washington has been doing and then Wall Street walks around asking what does it take to get people to have faith in the financial system again as though there's been any changes that address anything. And absolutely nothing is going to change until next year when DC realizes who elected them as more Murkowski like folks go bye-bye.

**firstandten** · September-01-10, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Advancing the progressive agenda? I think not.

Most of what Obama has done is continue the status quo from the Bush years. One of the only "progressive" bills he passed was the health-care reform bill, which borrowed heavily from the plan McCain touted during his presidential campaign.

And just a little note, Democrats may have a majority, but a large number of these seats are not progressive. Part of the DNC's strategy for winning majorities was to recruit conservative Democrats to run in the heavily con districts,thus many could be considered DINO's.

Great points, remember Obama is not a progressive ! He is a pragmatist that leans left. That is a huge difference. Look at the legislation he has advanced and gotten passed. such as health care and the stimulus bills. not progressive in the least but pragmatic in the sense that he got as much in these bills that he could reasonably feel he could get thru.

**mjs** · September-01-10, 09:59 AM

Another example of not addressing the problem. I'm looking at house now that the suckers willing to overpay are clearing out. I asked about how my government backed loan would change between 10% down and 20% down. I'm told I can go as low as 3% and get the same rate. What!!!! Why is 3% down still acceptable to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? When is good old fashioned responsible saving for a home going to come back? They do know that many experts predict prices will continue to go down? Why back a new deal that is expected to go under water with taxpayer money?

**jiminnm** · September-01-10, 10:47 AM

The Albuquerque Journal published their poll this a.m. showing that 50% of New Mexicans disapproved of Obama's performance and 45% approved. 60% thought the US was on the wrong track while 30% thought it was on the right track. This is in a state with twice as many registered Dems as Repubs. He's getting down into Bush territory.

Also, our illustrious Governor and former Prez candidate, Bill Richardson, has an approval rating of 33%.

**1KielsonDrive** · September-01-10, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Mikeg

In 18 months, this President [[aided and abetted by a Democratic Congress) has done more to advance the "progressive" agenda than any other President since FDR, yet some of his supporters are whining that he isn't going far and fast enough!

I suspect that the whining is motivated by the dawning realization that there will be no more "aiding and abetting" following the mid-term elections.

Sorry, I have serious doubts about the accuracy of that statement. This president is, of course, much better than the previous president, but how could almost any president succeeding Bush, not be? If you're satisfied with mediocrity, then Obama will do just fine. Obama isn't inspiring or a great leader. Change? Not much. Change you can believe in? Not at all. Maintain the status quo? Excellent.

**maxx** · September-01-10, 05:47 PM

It's hard to get much of anything done when you've got someone like Mitch McConnell in Congress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us...mcconnell.html
"...In the process, Mr. McConnell, 68, a Kentuckian more at home plotting tactics in the cloakroom than writing legislation in a committee room or exhorting crowds on the campaign trail, has come to embody a kind of oppositional politics that critics say has left voters cynical about Washington, the Senate all but dysfunctional and the Republican Party without a positive agenda or message...

'Their goal,' said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip, 'is to slow down activity to stop legislation from passing in the belief that this will embolden conservatives in the next election and will deny the president a record of accomplishment.' ...
.As the year went on, Mr. McConnell spent hours listening to the worries and ideas of Republicans, urging them not to be seduced by the attention-grabbing possibilities of cutting a bipartisan deal. .."

[Bipartisan compromise used to be the essence of legislation .]

**Jimaz** · September-01-10, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by maxx

It's hard to get much of anything done when you've got someone like Mitch McConnell in Congress....

'Their goal,' said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip, 'is to slow down activity to stop legislation from passing in the belief that this will embolden conservatives in the next election and will deny the president a record of accomplishment.'...]

So there's a problematic log jam and instead of removing the logs he wants to remove the river. Brilliant. Just brilliant.

One wonders if he even recognizes his role as one of those logs that needs removal.

**gibran** · September-01-10, 06:25 PM

how can these folks stand in front of a country that is starving for jobs and play politics with our future just to pay back the president who won this election fair and square... how...ummm well... I would say that the lame brained Democrats just let them...and if you really thinnk that the tea party republicans will help this country guess again...it will be Reagan on steroids

**Big Dog** · September-01-10, 07:15 PM

To reinstate the tax cuts for the wealthy, wiil add trillions to the deficit. They are not funded, and never were. Wake Up.

**Big Dog** · September-01-10, 07:16 PM

I thought the repubs were against adding to the deficit. Keep listening to Fux Noise.

**d.mcc** · September-02-10, 12:20 AM

**oladub** · September-02-10, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by gibran

how can these folks stand in front of a country that is starving for jobs and play politics with our future just to pay back the president who won this election fair and square... how...ummm well... I would say that the lame brained Democrats just let them...and if you really thinnk that the tea party republicans will help this country guess again...it will be Reagan on steroids

If the country is starving for jobs, the question is why the country is starving for jobs. Policies which have and continue to export our jobs should be changed. NAFTA, GATT, involvement with the WTO, and other such policies were the creations of both Democrats and Republicans. I don't see either party taking the initiative to rid us of those policies. The Republicans, under Bush, certainly didn't. The ball is now in the Democrats' court with a Democrat President and Congress. I don't see Democrats as doing much to staunch the flow of jobs either. With ever more regulations and expenses being created as a dis-incentive to hire Americans, we can expect the rate of job losses to Asia to continue.

The US government, meanwhile, is so bankrupt that the Fed is buying treasuries which is to say that it is monotizing the debt like the Weimar Republic did. Apparently, China's demand for US treasuries is reduced so the Fed's money machine will attempt to provide liquidity in this collapsing economy.

This gets around to the failed presidency. If Obama's economic clown team can't pour enough liquidity into the market, that was destroyed by too much liquidity, in time for the election, Democrats are toast. However, should Republicans take over Congress and things don't get better, and they won't, then blame will be equally spread between Obama and a Republican Congress which could allow Obama to be re-elected in 2012. Obama's present poll ratings are actually pretty good despite the faltering economy. Plaster the whole country with 'change' and 'hope' posters, get Obama on Oprah's show a few times, provide a weak Republican opponent, and his numbers should get bumped up enough for four more years.

**maxx** · September-03-10, 08:11 AM

When you talk about NAFTA's outcomes, there are opinions of all sorts.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/policy/nafta/nafta.asp
NAFTA is good for our major ag. products.

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexpor...gs%2026-27.pdf
Since NAFTA... Jan. 1, 1994, export sales of U.S. consumer-oriented products to Canada have soared ...[to] $6.1 B in ...2002 ...to Mexico have leaped to $2.8 B. ...just about every item in the U.S. consumer-oriented category experienced sales increases to Canada and Mexico.

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/
"...NAFTA requires limits on the safety and inspection of meat sold in our grocery stores; new patent rules that raised medicine prices; constraints on your local government’s ability to zone against sprawl or toxic industries; and elimination of preferences for spending your tax dollars on U.S.-made products or locally-grown food. In fact, calling NAFTA a “trade” agreement is misleading, NAFTA is really an investment agreement. Its core provisions grant foreign investors a remarkable set of new rights and privileges that promote relocation abroad of factories and jobs and the privatization and deregulation of essential services, such as water, energy and health care..."

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp173/
"...As a former foreign minister of Mexico once remarked, NAFTA was "an agreement for the rich and powerful in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, an agreement effectively excluding ordinary people in all three societies." It should, therefore, be no surprise that NAFTA rules protect the interests of large corporate investors while undercutting workers' rights, environmental protections, and democratic accountability. Hence, NAFTA should be seen not as a stand-alone treaty, but as part of a long-term campaign by the conservative business interests in all three countries to rip up their respective domestic social contract...."

oladub: NAFTA, GATT, involvement with the WTO, and other such policies were the creations of both Democrats and Republicans. I don't see either party taking the initiative to rid us of those policies.

Not until there's campaign finance reform.
http://fairelectionsnow.org/

Why not talk about the Republican party as a failed political party given the sort of issues they choose to use in their campaigns, their demagogic leaders, and the sort of mentality they are appealing to.