Forum Post: Yes or No- Do you approve of the job President Obama is doing as president?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 10, 2011, 10:45 p.m. EST by mreynolds
(26)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
0 comments 1 week ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
9 comments 1 month ago by grapes
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
2 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
7 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 5 months ago by factsrfun
6 comments 5 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 5 months ago by gsw
7 comments 5 months ago by factsrfun
3 comments 6 months ago by agkaiser
2 comments 6 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 6 months ago by grapes
The only thing I can is, if you think times are tough now, just elect a republican president added to a republican held senate and congress and you can kiss your social security goodby and any other freedoms you think you might have.
Obama is Bush's third term. Moar wars, moar corporatism, moar corruption, moar money to Israel. Epic fail.
Continuity of agenda. Vote out all the republicrats.
Except that we've only had one war, and jobs have grown nonstop for 13+ months, we have actually cut things (unlike bush who cut nothing in eight years except revenue resulting in a multitrillion dollar debt)
Oh yeah. He only started ONE unconstitutional and illegal war. MUCH better! And you could say in a way he started the other two as well because he promised to end them, and decided not to.
Jobs have grown nonstop for 13 + months?
Are you serious?
Citations please!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.theuptake.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Austans_April_2011_Blog_Post.jpg and http://jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=b0bd302a-38f2-4381-a2fa-1f82a585c375
:)
end bush tax cuts , rebuild America bridges and roads , invest in middle class not banking class thats the occupy wall street message.
No Obama is Wall St he has the goldman sachs receipts to prove it too. If you are here for OWS then surely you cannot be pro-Obama that would hypocritical. As for his foreign policy I don't think former Pres. Bush would disapprove. we are up to 5 wars (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lybia) and Afghanistan has escalated and the opium fields are growing strong so the CIA can continue to run heroin and Iraq is still pumping out the oil. Ahh Change.
Foreign policy? Thus far, absolutely yes. Everything else? Meh.
He had the opportunity to show support for the students in Iran, and he chose to fold. The middle east is going to hell. Israel cannot depend on the support of the US. Taiwan has a treaty with us for military support but Obama just shot down a deal that would have benefited US citizens for the purchase of aircraft because he capitulated to the demands of China. European countries are burning Obama in effigy. Yeah, they love him now and us as well.
really? what has been good about his foreign policy?
He went to war in libya, did not get out of afganistan or iraq.
Threw long time american allies under the bus (mubarak) while basically remaining silent against much worse regimes (syria, iran)
And makes ridiculous promises like he was going to resolve the israeli-palestinian conflict within 2 years of coming into office.
Libya wasn't a solo effort, Afghanistan and Iraq weren't his idea (and frankly weren't built to be dismantled quickly), no one has really tried tangling with Iran since Regan (which he did by proxy, using Iraq) and anyone who took the prospect of an Israeli-Palestinian resolution within two years seriously only has themselves to blame.
You forgot about China. Which is just a shitty situation that no president would be able to make just "go away". I sincerely believe he's doing the best he can.
and just acts like an idiot in euroupe
nooooooooo
No.
Well, lets see, do I approve of ramping up the war in Afghanistan, spreading it into Pakistan, starting ANOTHER war in Libya, building predator drone bases in Africa, renewing and making even worse the PATRIOT Act, telecom immunity for spying on Americans, selling murder weapons to psychopathic Mexican drug cartels, declaring war on Arizona, kissing bankster ass, kissing British Petroleum's ass, fighting the states who have legalized weed, going after health food cooperatives for selling raw milk, even more insane spending (DEBT) than Bush engaged in, and the rest of the unconstitutional, anti-freedom, anti-life, corrupt bullshit? Erm.....NOPE.
yes
Don't you think he's a poster child for corporate influence in government and special interests
Yes given the state the Country was in when it took over I don't think anyone could have done better.
you mean 5% unemployment, 2 wars (now 4), better international relations?
wait...didnt' he close gitmo? Oh snap!
Until the conversation shifts to getting the money out of campaigns Obama's job will be raising money for the next election.
The GOP has succeeded in making him ineffective. SO, is Obama to blame for the mess in Congress or is Congress to blame? In my opinion, it is the system that is failing now because of extreme bipartisianship and the hatred spewed out daily by the right wing media stars. How can we succeed without compromise and they do not allow that. Sad.
Obama didn't fight and neither did the Democrats. He had the House and Senate for the first 2 years and all we got was insurance reform. I know what you are saying and i am well aware of the dirty tricks Republicans pulled. Obama didn't fight though. He didn't even show up in support of the Wisconsin union protesters.
Both sides used "dirty tricks" to get what they wanted.
I'm not defending Democrats any more then i would defend Republicans... And that's not at all. Our spoiled brats in Washington are all corrupt. Who really cares what side they are on ?
Then what you propose is to vote the other white meat into office...the Libertarians!
Hooray! Anarchy for all.
Nope not proposing to vote for Libertarians or any other political group.
Then what are you proposing? A leaderless society where people roam about picking their nose and stealing from one another?
Um, seriously? I think you just set a world record for straw-man arguments.
Are you kidding me? Obama feeds on the partisan divide. Clinton used to actually call Senators and Congressmen from both sides of the isle to field opinions and build consensus. So did Reagan. That is what a real leader does.
The dolt occupying the oval office isn't just ruining this country, he is selling it off once piece at a time to the highest bidders from Wall St. K St, or anyone else with money.
Hey now, don't just blame this on the Gop(granted half the blame does go to them).He has done plenty to discredit and fuck up things himself.
ineffective at what? what has the GOP prevented? He got his health care, he got his stimulus. Also the GOP is not going away, Obama can't just roll over them.
In terms of what he's done though??? I mean the debt is very bad and the economy has not improved.... maybe it's because his policies are failures because he has 0 experience at this type of job. He got elected because of his abilities to read prepared remarks...
and speaking of corporate and special interest greed... Jeff Immelt is the head of Obama's economic advisors? READ Obama works for GE. That was good advice that GE should get Hundreds of Billions of dollars in bailout money
What about the Democrats? Where are they compromising? They had full control of the senate and the house and still we are in worse shape now. There was an urgency from voters for the mid-term elections that sent many packing. Lots of people were and still are furious by how badly things have gotten, especially at the reigns of the National Socialist Democratic party currently derailing any hopes of a recovery.
Obama is one tough negotiator. He steadfastly insists on concessions by both Democrats and Democrats alike.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-debt-ceiling-deal-required-tough-concessions,21067/
Well said!
Agree the problem is the system not the Pres. He's done the best he could with the cards he got. If he had thought at any point that he had the movement behind him, I think he would have moved more boldly. I think now he will. There was and continues to be a huge backlash against his election. Part of it is just plain racist. Part of it is payback for bucking, in the SMALLEST possible way, Wall Street and the Pharmaceuticals. More than any President in my memory (and I'm OLD), this one could get on board with this movement. It's in his heart; but his brain has been holding him back.
He is an absolute failure.
But he's a nice guy...and if I may add, has feelings too.
No, he failed at what he promised.
yes
Absolutely!!!!!! He's AWESOME!!
Please look up the Judicial, Legislative and Executive (President) Branches of the United States. Take the time to nderstand his powers and his limitations. To put everything on his head surely equates that most Americans are clueless as to how the "government" system is "supposed" to work. Now, how is it that Wall Street and Corporate America are so ingrained and integrated within these branches of our Government? Corruption and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
no, i do not think wallstreet is doing a good job. wait... this is the wallsteet protest, right?
It doesn't matter who's in office - it's the government behind the government that's running the show. He's just a popular fall guy.
I do not approve. We can't get democracy from either political party.
NO. He needs to try harder! He acts like a coward.
http://www.americanselect.org/
In obvious ways I think he's been a failure and a disappointment, but honestly I don't see an electable alternative, and I don't think Obama is beyond saving.
While there's alot of opinions good and bad, I'd like to point out one thing: We could have had McCain and Palin.
Count your lucky stars, America.
That is why it is important to have the least-bad republican win the primary.
No I do not.
Our Presidents do NOT have the power to do the things we think we've elected them to do, then we are disappointed when they don't do the things we think we elected them to do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phs6CwnutoY
end bush tax cuts , rebuild America bridges and roads , invest in middle class not banking class thats the occupy wall street message.
Huge disappointment. No fight in him. Just keeps rolling over.
He rolls over by choice, as did Clinton. It was never their plan to serve the people. Modern Democrats speak in the rhetoric of liberalism and carry out policy that serves the same corporations that funded their campaign. Obama's perceived image as a humanitarian is an illusion given to us by the media, also serving the elite banking and corporate class. At least Republicans tell us flat-out that they're destroying our lives. I give them credit for that.
Hell no, but you got to cut the guy some slack...congress is a mess..how can he accomplish anything...how can any man, white, black or hispanic deal with 2 wars, aig, everon, and the collapse of wall street....they cant they are not superman....we the people need to step up and demand accountability...not from obama, but from all goverment.......local, stated, and federal, i see corruption throughout the people in power even on the local level......revoult....it is our only option!!!!!...rise up against the hypocracy!!!!....united we stand, devided we fall......its that simple
Well, um, he could at least not start a third war. Or not expand the warrantless wiretaps. Or extrajudicial retention. Or the other Bush programs he has expanded.
No....Poor leadership skills, Avoiding important issues like immigration.
end bush tax cuts , rebuild America bridges and roads , invest in middle class not banking class thats the occupy wall street message.
How's that sound?
like fox news republican end bush tax cuts , rebuild America bridges and roads , invest in middle class not banking class thats the occupy wall street message.
When, oh when will we finally get a viable third party in this country to run against the nutjobs on the right and the left? We the 99% are mostly in the middle of the road, and we just want a return to sanity.
still too early to tell...
Nope.
No. I voted for him to end the wars, not start another one (Libya). I voted for him to bring back Constitutional rights, end the Patriot Act, not, in the biggest act of hypocrisy, assasinate an American citizen without due process of law. And he's a Constitutional Lawyer! WTF?! Not to mention he's stacked his economic administration with LOTS of ex Goldman Sach's execs, to say he's also not in collusion with Wall Street is like saying it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck, but it's a chicken.
I'm not voting for him again.
I said almost what you just said here. See Lusiphur's response.
I'm deeply of the opinion that there's no way in hell he's going to get re-elected. For the very first time, ever, I registered as a republican to be able to vote Ron Paul in the primaries. And I've voted in four elections.
If there are others like me, I'm betting a lot of people are pissed at him. Then again, a lot of people are pissed at the whole system in general.
I am sure a lot are. In the end they will vote for the lesser evil. Ron Paul has no chance. Because he's anti establishment and he might actually end wars.
No. Its been a fucking absolute disgrace! No im not a right winger/teabagger/libertarian/former obama supporter.
Does it really mater?
As long as the game is rigged, there will be no change, irrelevant of who is president.
it's like that everywhere in the world and always has been.
you can either pick your president, nominate someone new, or try for revolution. Revolution is not going to happen, get real, and if it does happen it will suck. How about calling out Obama and getting behind a real canidate? And Biden is seriously as bad as Quayle.
Just because something is common place, doesn't make it effective or representative of the interest of the majority of the population.
And how exactly will help supporting the candidate one of the two tribes that have being bought up and paid for?
Get real, neither the Republicans, nor Democrats care about the people of the USA. They care about the big money that let them pay the hundred of millions that being elected cost. They care about their cushy jobs and inside information.
The vote of a fool has exactly the same weight as the one of the informed. The only hope for democracy is that the people start thinking for themselves instead of relying on "Leaders" that only want to fulfill their own agendas.
No. He is a good speaker, but his puppet masters have him on too short a chain
NO!
http://www.oligarchyusa.com/
http://www.istockanalyst.com/finance/story/5390832/some-fascinating-stats-about-our-corporate-oligarchy
http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/category/21st-century-challenges/ethicsandeconomics/
According to a 2008 article by David Rothkopf, the world’s 1,100 richest people have almost twice the assets of the poorest 2.5 billion (Rothkopf, 2008). Aside from the obvious problem – that this global elite has their hands in everything from politics to financial institutions – …
http://theprogressiveplaybook.com/2011/09/occupywallstreet-an-american-tahrir/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ght22PnCXy0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/wisconsin-is-ground-zero_b_825321.html
http://last-lost-empire.com/blog/?tag=global-corporate-oligarchy
To the extent that we, the people, are removed from control over our lands, marketplaces, central banks, and media we are no longer empowered. In practice, those few who do control the land, central bank, media and "free market" are the real rulers of our corrupt and declining "democracy."
Due to propaganda from a corporate-owned and edited media we are kept from knowing, much less debating, the nature of our system. Due to a central bank owned by bankers, media owned by a few global concerns, and trade regime controlled by global corporations (i.e., one designed to remove the people from control over their markets and environments) the vast majority have become little more than latter-day serfs and neo-slaves upon a corporate latifundia.
To restore a semblance of effective democracy and true freedom Americans, and people around the world, need to re-educate themselves as to the true nature of their political and economic systems. Toward this end, OligarchyUSA.com is dedicated to providing old and new information, books, links, reform ideas and debates not easily found or accessed today in establishment media.
OligarchyUSA.com is but one more site and sign of the times as ground-up counter-revolutions arise around the world... all in response to a forced and freedomless globalization courtesy of a ruling global elite perfecting their top-down plutocracy and revolutions of the rich against the poor. In short, democracy is no longer effective today. For this reason, it is toward a restoration of truly effective and representative democracies, and natural freedom, that this site is dedicated.
An American Tahrir? You're quoting a muslim term to describe Liberty in America? Precisely what is your affiliation?
i'm not affiliated. lol. nope. just little old me all alone trying to save the rock stupid humans from corporate oligarchy.
That's what you say. You have affiliations of some kind. The kind that are the end of freedom loving people.
quite the opposite. i have no affiliation, and you are the trolling enemy of freedom.
We need a president who can do more than talk.
NO
Ron Paul 2012!
and a sub forum for Obama
Hell no, democrats and Obamaweenies don't co-op it is going to backfire trust me.
no cuz he is socialist http://www.moneytrendsresearch.com/
NO!
well get money out of politics
Define "get money out of politics"
define why are you on ows site with no message moron
I have stated a message to many different people you imbecile.
and whats that?
Go look it up.
I know what you mean push congress to end bush tax cuts , rebuild America bridges and roads , invest in middle class not banking class thats the occupy wall street message
Nooo..that is the polar opposite of a good idea. Go look it up on the forum.
i have and your a republican that we have to expose
I am huh? What makes me a republican? Because I oppose moochers and the societies they ultimately destroy?
If you worry about "moochers" in a society where the rich have sucked the life out of every one of us, you are not part of this movement. Many of us are "mooching" off of government because working hard and living a decent life doesn't fulfill our needs. This is a problem created by the domination of the banking elite, siphoning billions for themselves and enslaving us to enhance their own lives, not because the people struggling in the lower and middle classes are too greedy. That's just stupid, and I hate to seem rude, but it is.
So adjust your needs so that you can live on the fruits of your own labor. Greed is not a bad thing. For some reason you think that it is. I am not envious or angry at anyone for the life they choose to lead. If people make money they have also the right to keep it and use it as they see fit. The "evil rich" can only "siphon" money for themselves if people surrender their own money by buying their services or goods. Take control of your life by shopping only with people or companies that you endorse.
But demanding that corporations and the "evil rich" should be taxed more so than any other person is plain wrong. The constitution says ALL Americans are to be taxed equally. This prevents the sort of situation that makes one group of people pay the majority of taxes and permits another group of people to mooch of the fruits of their labor. Just because someone has more money, success, or talent does not automatically make them an "evil" or bad person.
Greed is a bad thing, and does not benefit those who have basic human rights taken from them by the greedy. The "evil rich" "siphon" resources by buying out every wing of society. Did I pay for what is aired on FoxNews?
"The constitution says ALL Americans are to be taxed equally."
The constitution does not say that.
You are a lost cause.
then your not the ows moron
Stop being a Tool! Arguing Political messages of the ruling parties has nothing to do with this Financial Revolution. This is not about the Government except where it pertains to removing the Corrupt Capitalistic Feudalism and replacing it with the proper Democratic Republic it should be. Focus on the task at hand. Fight the Corruption.
I support the 28th Amendment: Separation of Market and State. Keep the Government Free of Market control.
NO!
I want a president who will stop wasting our tax dollars on a war that is starting to look like imperialism. I agree the taliban and such need to be brought to justice. But this war is not the way to do it. I want a president who is not okay with having the death of innocent civilians on his hands.
I want a president who is not funded by corporations.
I want a president who will end this economic injustice we are facing.
Please define "economic injustice".
How about a president that can operate within the constitutional boundaries of our system of government?
How about a president that can live within the means of our budget?
How about a president that can come up with a budget first?
How about a president that will finally give a state of the union address?
If America collects 200 billion dollars per month how in the world are we spending more than we make? How in the world can a deficit even exist? I spend more than I had once and ya know what? I had to pay back the credit card company. It sucked but that is the way things are.
I like everything you said. Keep adding to the list.
More than anything I think this movement needs to organize 10 questions that we need to get Obama to answer. And we add 10 questions every week. He can't deny such a simple request if a large number of people demand something so simple.
We CANNOT begin to drag barack through filth, let us not forget, the president doesn't control anything... he CANNOT act unilaterally. Barack is doing the best that ANY president in his position can do, no one can solve this problem, again this comes down to the fact that this government must AUDIT itself, shave off the unnecessary layers and attempt to further improve and a nation built to achieve a more perfect union..
"the president doesn't control anything"???
then who does?
The president's party controlled both houses of congress with a super majority in the senate, 80% approval. There will never be a president with more favorable circumstances than that.
not only has he squandered political capital, he has wrecked the economy. We dug ourselves into this huge debt and all we have to show for it is a bunch of crappy 1 year government jobs, and a handful of rich Obama cronies
I would COMPLETELY agree that he has done things that we... most politely said ill timed, see: the health care bill, but for example, IF, WE HAD NOT signed the bailout(s) all of our money would be very much gone, now we must agree! of course! that the money that was well spent of COURSE not, but that doesn't mean that HE took it from us...
Is this a joke? Aren't we past the belief that any US President of the past several decades, at least, has been anything but a tool of the banking elite? Why are we asking questions like this? President Obama is a joke. Please, inform yourselves before becoming active at these protests. That is my biggest fear about this movement, that it will become a trend of youth culture rather than a clear-cut, progressive movement. Our recent US Presidents, all of them, have not served the people. They have served the corporate and banking elites, and that will remain the case until we relinquish all power from the banks and eliminate corporate constitutional rights.
Edit: And I didn't mean to sound rude, I just think it's an imperative for people to understand exactly how infiltrated our politics have become by money. Both major parties have been hijacked. Never trust a public figure that refuses to mention the corruption of the banking system, the failure of the drug war, and US military utilization for corporate interests.
No it's not a joke! You may be right, but it doesn't mean everyone agrees with you.
If we do not agree, how can we move together? What are we moving for?
How about a better quality of life?
That doesn't mean we have to all think with one thought. More importantly, your argument is hugely unproductive. Incremental change is better than no change, or are you so blinded with righteous anger that you refuse anything except a full-blown (and never going to happen) revolution? Because if you are, I would say that you are doing more damage to America than any politician.
Revolution is exactly what we need but that doesn't necessarily require violence, as the term would traditionally imply. This is a movement for truth. If we cannot agree on what is true, how will any of the progress made here be lasting? My only hope is that the majority of us are able to stay unified and steadfast on the principles that are central to this movement, that the banks have destroyed society and government and need to be brought down. Without this, there will be no victory.
Violent or not, a revolution would destroy this country, and would make life hell for most of the people you claim to want to help.
We don't need a revolution. We need some very clear, very simple, very straight-forward rules, laws, and regulations.
And nothing is lasting. There is no ultimate solution. Chances are, our kids and their kids will have to fight similar battles. There is no such thing a total victory here.
As far as agreeing, most of us can agree on a few basic tenets. We don't need to all agree 100%. That's not how democracy works. In fact, that's not how ANYTHING works. You agree on what you can, compromise what you can't agree on, and allow some things to be given up in the desire to reach a greater good. The only alternative is tyranny, and I would hope no one here wants that.
The presence of tyranny is the inspiration for this movement, not an alternative to complacency with a less-meaningful cause. It should not be considered a revolution to bring an end to world domination by banking elites, by means of relinquishing power from the banks. It is our natural right to be free, not living as slaves by those whose manipulation of our currency keeps us in serfdom. If there are any principles that must not be compromised, they are, first and foremost, to establish a debt-free, independent currency and eliminate corporate personhood. What does this movement stand for if it is not to defend the people against the will of corporate executives and international banking cartels, serving none but themselves with unlimited power? If our cause is not to bring an end to this type of tyranny, why does it bring hope to so many? I am not willing to pass this burden onto future generations, and neither should you be. We have become informed enough to unite against that which we have never known how to control. Most of us can agree on that.
I think if President Obama was allowed to do his job instead of being constantly distracted by the petty, vindictive, racist pablum fed out to the conservative masses he would have been able to do more for this country. Over all yes I approve. I can nitpick what he's done so far, go issue to issue, point to point and tear (it) apart.As can be done with each and every President from the very first. Dealing with humans means dealing with inconsistencies, incompletion and inadequacies. Don't look at the day to day things rather look to the long run. See where things go beyond just today, that's where the true tale is told.
You mean Cutting down on wars Closing Gitmo Ending Patriot Act No more bailouts Making healthcare a not-for-profit system like law and fire services.
Oh wait, he didn't do any of that!
he was distracted by the burning crosses on the lawn
PHEW! One monstrous disaster avoided. Good thing petty, vindictive, gun loving American patriots were there to stop it. And soon they'll get a chance to kill Obamacare too. Defund it and the 14,000 IRS stormtroopers that would be used to police We The People.
Which is completely unexpected since he campaigned on ALL of those things, right? What's that you say? He didn't?? Hmm, guess you should have probably listened to him before voting.
1) Wars: Obama campaigned on cutting troop presence in Iraq. Which is happening. Fairly quickly. He also campaigned on ADDING troops to Afghanistan. That was one of his primary planks. So why would you expect him to do otherwise? 2) Gitmo: It was attempted and congress refused to pay for it. It's hard to move prisoners when no prison will take them and there is no money to pay for the move. What do you suggest, setting them all free into Cuba? 3) No More Bailouts: Again, he voted yes for the bailouts as a senator, and campaigned on doing what needed to be done to save the economy. You can disagree with the policies that caused a need for the bailouts, but disagreeing that the bailouts saved us from going completely off the cliff is silly. 4) Healthcare: Again, he did not campaign on socialized medicine. I am disappointed he didn't fight harder for the public option, but it was a losing battle from the get-go.
So, FuManchu, you are 0 for 4. Care to educate yourself and try again?
Is Obama a great president? God no. I disagree with the man on a number of issues. Is he doing more or less what he said he would? Yes. Is congress (republicans and democrats alike) making change damn near impossible to enact? Yup.
So on a scale of 1-10, I give Obama a 7. He's doing what he promised, he's occasionally trying for a little more, and he's fighting an uphill battle the whole way.
I never said he failed to deliver on all of his campaign promises. This is about approving his job as a president. Especially one who got the Nobel prize for peace (war = peace?)
Also, with GWB we knew not to expect anything. This guy had one of the biggest opportunities in recent times to effect a major change and he squandered it.
I don't care what he campaigned on. I care what he actually does. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that without public option, forcing people to take private medical insurance is not good. I am not alone on this stance.
Bailing out banks was not the right thing either. Although GWB is partly to blame for that. I am not a financial expert. Many prominent investors like Jim Rogers say it. Their argument seems to make sense. Also there is the thing about taking tax payers money and giving it to the same people who created the mess. Whether letting them fail would have created a depression, I am not sure. The so called "experts" like Bernanke who didn't see the housing crisis until it was too late are not to be believed. Sorry for turning this into a long thing about the financial crisis.
He was a candidate of hope for progressives. He let them down. So No, I do not approve of his job as a president.
That said, he is still better than the nuts from the other side. I guess I just expected way too much from him. Like a lot of his original supporters out there.
That's the thing:
He was NEVER a progressive, and to be disappointed with him now because he turned out to not be a progressive is disingenuous.
If you paid attention to him, you would have seen from the start that he was a very mild centrist. He never claimed otherwise.
If you expected a lot, I'm sorry, but if your expectations were based on nothing but wishful thinking, you have only yourself to blame. If you disagree with the man, by all means, disagree with him, but don't do it on the grounds that he "misled" you when he did nothing of the sort.
There's too much of that here, and we need to recognize that we will NEVER have a perfect president. Ever. Criticize them for what they do wrong, not for not living up to all your hopes and dreams of what a president ought to be.
well then somehow a lot of us were misled into believing he was a progressive. Oh well.
It was half media narrative and half wishful thinking. Either way, it's unfair to blame Obama.
He said he was going to close Gitmo. He said he wouldn't raid legal dispensaries in states that have approved medical marijuana.
And just in general, he was a constitutional law professor, I thought he'd be better on civil liberties.
Does it mean a lot of progressives will not support him this time? I did some research after you pointed out he never campaigned on those issues. I was surprised
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/military/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/taxes/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/politifacts-top-promises/
Maybe, but are you willing to cut off your nose to spite your face?
Progressives stayed home in 2010, and look what happened. Both parties may be disagreeable, but they are not equally so. Instead, as I've mentioned elsewhere, if you want to enact real change, start locally. Support a party or candidate you believe in in local elections, then move up. It's not glamorous, and it takes time, but it's the only way you'll get real, lasting, meaningful change.
He said he was going to fix this budget deficit that Bush created...
And the deficit for this year is less than the deficit in Bush's last budget by .1 trillion dollars. Despite still being in the throes of an anemic recovery. So I would say that's a damn good start.
can you provide a source?
From what I've seen Obamas deficits have been twice that of anything Bush did
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past-deficits-vs-obamas-deficits-in-pictures/
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BUDGET_DEFICIT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-07-14-23-36
Also, the Heritage Foundation is a known extreme right-wing think tank, so their stories are suspect.Especially given how badly they botched their projections in that graph.
So that article says that Obama reduced the deficit by .1 Trillion from the 2009 record of 1.4 Trillion SET BY HIM, NOT BUSH. In 2009 Obama was president, the article doesn't mention Bush.The article also mentions the deficit was 1.4 Trillion in 2010.
This article is in complete agreement with what I posted. As can be seen on that chart the 2011 deficit was projected to be 1.3 Trillion. Compare this to Bush's last year (2008) of .4 Trillion. And Obama and everyone else was making a big fuss then...
However I will say I'm surprised that the projections were accurate, but that was only predicted 2 years in advance, I'm sure 5 years from now we'll hear, "Oh things were much worse than we thought... and if we didn't spend more it would have been worse..."
Obama WAS president in 2009, but if you don't realize that federal budgets are made a year in advance (in other words, the 2009 budget was completed in 2008), you really are not worth speaking to about the topic.
lol, not worth speaking to? what percentage of people on this site do you think understands how the federal budget works?
Anyway yeah, you're right Bush contributed to the 2009 budget. And tax revenues were lower than projected. But Obama is also responsible for the 2009 budget. In case you don't know Obama introduced new spending in 2009, the Stimulus was passed in 2009 and that had a tremendous amount of spending in it, money that was spent in 2009. I guess he can share 2009 with Bush. but 2010 and 2011 are all his. So we went from a $.4 Trillion deficit in 2008, to $1.4 Trillion in 2009 (which included obligations from the Bush administration plus new spending from the Obama administration) then $1.4 Trillion in 2010, to an amazing $1.3 Trillion deficit for 2011!!
Obama is Bush on steroids.
I'm not trying to defend Bush, he did a shitty job, but Obama made it worse.
You ARE trying to defend Bush. You also conveniently forget to mention that Bush kept Iraq and Afghanistan off the books the entire time he was president.
As far as the stimulus, it was a drop in the bucket compared to things like declining tax receipts. Here's the primary source form the CBO http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf#page=19 . The deficit was projected at 1.2 Trillion before Obama took office. So tell us again about the big, bad stimulus/
And I honestly am not interested in what percentage of people don't know how the budget works. I'm not talking to those people, and they're not trying to clumsily prove a point, unlike some people. When they say something egregiously stupid, they will be called out on it too.
Where am I defending Bush? By saying he's not as bad as Obama when it comes to fiscal responsibility? That's the point, we all know Bush was horrible, but Obama is twice as bad.
You want to hear about the big bag stimulus again. Ok, well it was 787 Billion dollars put on the credit card, and Obama threatened that if we didn't pass it unemployment could go as high as 8%... And now we see that it was poorly planned out, that ha ha, there weren't so many shovel ready jobs, and the people who really benefited were Obama's cronies who got millions of dollars to run some fly by night company into the ground and walk away with their multi million dollar salaries. And now we're all stuck with the bill. The war in Iraq over the course of 10 years has cost that much money, Obama spent it overnight.
Don't forget that in addition to the stimulus there were the Obama bailouts, which are a continuation of Bush policies, another few hundred billion dollars to irresponsible banks (who are major Democratic party contributors) It's true TARP was passed by Bush, however Obama supported it, and 300 Billion of the 700 Billion dollars allocated for it was spent by Obama at his discretion. Bush and Obama are on the same side in this regard.
Couldn't open your link. however if you see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
you can see that the budget deficit for '09 was estimated at $400 billion dollars. But the actual deficit was 1.4 Trillion dollars. And the money spent in 2009 is partly Obama's responsibility.
You said I 'wasn't worth talking to' if I didn't know that budgets were planned one year in advance. So what do you believe? That all the spending in 2009 was determined by Bush in 2008 and there was nothing Obama could say about it. That they're sitting on their hands 'till 2010 comes around?? No, Obama added expenditures in 2009.
And since 2009, we've had more stimulus, more bailouts, and deficits that are just as high. The budget projections for the next 10 years (wouldn't it be fortunate for a Republican to get elected now? I mean the budgets are all planned out, any problems will be Obama's responsibility ;) ) all show deficits higher than Bush era deficits.
In a budget that has 3.1 Trillion dollars in expenditures, I'd say that $787 Billion dollars is significant. Especially when the debt is a huge issue, to piss away a Trillion dollars is not 'a drop in the bucket' Granted all this money was not spent in '09, combining this with the bailouts what you see is that Obama threw money around to his friends and contributors the same way Bush did, but to a much greater extent.
So it's pretty simple, you can argue about the details, but to reiterate, OBAMA HAS BEEN A FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE PRESIDENT. We all criticized Bush for his budget deficits, Obama's deficits are 3 times as big. We all criticize Bush for bailing out his cronies on Wall Street at the expense of the tax payer. Obama bailouts out his supporters on Wall Street. We all criticize Bush for being an unqualified idiot who has no idea what he's doing, well get Obama off the teleprompter for 5 minutes and listen to him uhhh..... uhhh... indefinitely. Bush and Obama are like Beavis and Butthead.
If you want change we can't have liberals/progressives electing unqualified canidates based on their ability to read a teleprompter. He is throwing money around to banks, big business, special interest, the same way every other politician does. We need a real canidate.
Unfortunately Lusiphur is right. He did say "Let's go to Afghanistan and kill Osama Bin Laden" to a cheering crowd. He was for cap and trade. He said yes to bailouts. When I actually went to his website to see his policies I disagreed with him on most everything and agreed with Cynthia McKinney. My classmates did agree with Obama wholeheartedly not because of his beliefs but because they actually thought he was on their side.
However I must admit that I said "I'm only for Obama because no one is for McKinney and I don't want McCain to win. Obama is lesser evil." (Even if I couldn't legally vote)
I have seen my mistakes now. I have repented. When I do get to legally vote you can bet your ass I won't be taking that fallacious "prevent the greater evil" position again.
Fuck you Republicrats. Or Depublicans. Whichever name you choose.
It's not a falacious position, it is a pragmatic position. This is what politics is about. You do not vote for someone unelectable for president, because there IS a greater evil.
If you want to enact REAL change in a MEANINGFUL way, vote for people you believe in on a local level. When you get a member of the party of your choice to a position on the city council, then try for the state senate. When you get there, try for mayor or governor. Then move up to rep, then senator. When your politicians are a noticeable voice in the senate, THEN you can consider the presidential seat.
Just know, as I said below, you will NEVER get a perfect president. That's not how democracy works. You find someone who is both electable and better than the other electable competition, and you support them. It might suck sometimes, but do you really want another 8 years of Dubya?
Also, McKinney was a complete nutball with positions that no sane individual should support.
Well...good point, but you can't honestly call Obama good, can you? Plus he is pushing for three more trade agreements right now so how is this any different from McCain?
Also - please list the "insane positions" for me. When I went to her campaign site, I agreed with her mostly on anti-war, womens' and environmental issues. Plus she was against free trade and was for labor rights. Were you talking about the "CIA killed Martin Luther King" and "Let felons vote" positions? Because I agree that those two positions are crazy.
Being against free trade is fine and well, until you realize that that position essentially deprives people a lot worse off than you the chance to do something better for themselves. Yes, it's painful now, but what we are experiencing are growing pains of the kind that were felt after every major change in the economic world. We had the same thing during the industrial revolution, and we overcame it.
Think of it this way: Yes, unemployment is at almost 10% right now. On the other hand, people in India and China who had no money, no food, no chance, and no hope suddenly have the means to provide for themselves and their families. The trade-off for slightly decreased quality of life here in America is a stunningly huge increase in the quality of life elsewhere. And really, how can you as a human being be against that?
Would you be able to look a third world family in the eyes and tell them they have to go back to living in a lean-to in slums the likes of which you can't imagine because Americans can't deal with giving up some luxuries?
Is it perfect? No, of course not. We need stricter monitoring, and we need better support for Americans transitioning from manufacturing to service-based work. We can do a lot. But protectionism is not it. It has never worked, and it has always had repercussions far worse than the growing pains of having to compete globally.
Also, she is a little extreme on the environmental issues, and you can't simply overlook her crazy assertions (cia and MLK, 9/11 truther, etc.)
Well, I guess I'm a nutball because I think the idea that the CIA or FBI may have had some involvement in inciting the shooting of MLK is not that far fetched. J. Edgar Hoover had a deep hatred for the man.
And what happens with free trade is - we don't tell them to go back to living in lean-tos. The companies they work for do that. When the workers begin to expect higher wages and ask for better treatment, companies have been known to up and leave and move their operations to the next poor, underdeveloped village where they can begin the exploitation anew.
Right, but they leave behind infrastructure, knowledge, and skills. If it is done ethically, it makes the place better. If it isn't, it leaves the country broken and in ruins. The answer is that we have to make sure these companies do things ethically, not shut down international trade.
So Lusiphur you are for FAIR trade.
Because right now I assure you - what we have right now is a human rights seesaw. Even some Libertarians I spoke to reluctantly do not agree with the trade we have now. They word it like "We don't have free trade right now because in order for it to be free trade the country has to be free". The wording may be back pedaling it a bit, but the meaning is clear - "free" trade, aka destructive trade, is not free. It is the real "trade war" that the multinationals have been declaring on us while using other countries as a mask.
Free trade is trade without the use of tarifs and import taxes to protect domestic labor and unfairly compete against imported goods and services.
It is not synonymous with raping indigenous people. That's just how you personally interpret it. I absolutely am for FAIR trade and FREE trade. Lets not inject personal feelings into terms that have specific meanings.
I guess you are somewhat right about fair trade requiring free trade though.
After all China used mercantilistic practices against us along with many other countries and look how that turned out. For us I mean.
Actually I meant that it raped wages and standard of living for "rich" countries.
Unfairly compete? Free trade works in theory but in practice - who is going to compete with slave wages and no rights? We tried with right to work states and China and Pakistan and all of them are still killing us. Free trade only works when everybody plays fairly...unfortunately we have had none of that (on both sides).
Except that it's working, slowly. For instance, India is no longer used for basic manual labor, because the populace has outgrown it and it's no longer efficient. In 20 years, it will no longer be cost-effective to outsource call centers to India. Now, those jobs will probably never come back here, but we won't lose any more of them.
A better question is why are we trying to compete for the basest of base jobs with countries that can use uneducated slave labor for those positions. Are we as a people so desperate and pathetic that we need those jobs that can be done by a 13 year old chinese kid who never learned to write? Shouldn't we be looking for something a little more worthy of our nations education and prospserity instead?
Like the Bay Area tech jobs that are being outsourced to South Korea? This affects more than just manufacturing.
I'd have to agree with you on that one.
Slightly decreased? There are people who have lost their homes and are living in tents! Right to work states are popping up like daisies and if you get hurt in some jobs the employer doesn't even have to say sorry! Even when you -do- successfully win a lawsuit, sometimes the settlement check can be delayed and delayed for years and then you will still be poor, maybe living on disability that is running out and in debt.
Last time I checked, protectionism worked and works very well for China and all their ilk. Meanwhile becoming a "service economy" by shipping them our goods so that they can sell it back to us with the naive premise that they will actually buy from us has...failed horribly and led to massive unemployment and an economy going down down down. (Along with a credit based economy)
You know what would result in prosperity for all, instead of being a cat and mouse game where rich countries are torn down so that multinational employers can continue to pay slave wages? Fair trade. Or at least do free trade with countries that are actually free and fair (and we should try to be fair and free ourselves as we are no better trying to displace the farmers of South Korea with cheap beef and pork I must admit).
Nobody wins with free trade, but the multinationals. As soon as China or India becomes the "arrogant rich country" and starts demanding rights and the USA becomes a shithole, the cycle will just repeat itself. It is just an economic seesaw of whittling down human rights into privileges and stopping social progress. Whole industries in the US have been crushed by the multinationals. The US used to pride itself on being #1 and being the land of the free and home of the brave - now we can't possibly say any of that anymore and be honest at the same time.
Also for environmental issues - list what you think is extreme then.
It's a long post, so pardon my use of bullet points to address it:
1) Slightly decreased. I stand by my assertion. Yes, some people are living in tents. Most aren't. It's not a good thing, and I am not for it, but the solution to the very small percent of our population that has been impacted that badly is NOT protectionism. It's a more robust safety net to tide us over until things equalize.
2) Then you haven't checked very thoroughly. They are on the verge of a collapse that will make 2008 seem like a tiny market correction. Their inability to properly build a consumer class and their artificial GDP growth have made one gigantic bubble out of their economy. Their unwillingness to allow natural growth has led to economic disparity that makes ours pale by comparison. That is hardly "working very well".
3) We are still the largest manufacturer in the world, iirc (too tired and busy to look it up, but we are either #1 or in the top 3), and one of the largest exporters. We just export higher value-added goods like airplanes and microchips.
4) The economy has been going up and unemployment has been going down since 2009, albeit slowly.
5) I agree with you. Whole-heartedly. I am a huge proponent of fair trade. Fair trade is not the antithesis of free trade, and is not synonymous with protectionism, though.
6) Again, fair trade reqires free trade. The US will not become a shithole, and if India and China become arrogant rich countries, wouldn't that be a huge success over them being miserable and poor countries? And don't you think that eventually, these multinationals will run out of people to exploit? That is the end goal. I think we can get there in a better manner than we are now, but it is certainly not through protectionism.
7) Of course whole industries have been crushed by it. That's the nature of industry. It moves on. Or do you also mourn the loss of the horse-drawn cart industry?
8) McKinney is anti-nuke, which is enough to know that she is not the least bit serious about green energy, as any green energy plan that doesn't take nuclear into consideration is a lunatic pipe-dream. She supports large-scale organic farming, which is one of the worst things you can do to the planet. She is anti- all genetically modified food, again killing the planet for a cause.
US will become a shithole if we let it. Don't count that out. And no they won't run out of people to exploit, because if this were between two countries, it's a seesaw game. However this is between every country in the world, and it will just get much much worse with only a few having jobs and many getting...shafted. The jobs will just jump from country to country, leaving black holes in every wake until consumers (yes even my parents) stop sacrificing their own jobs over "Oh my god savings!".
No I didn't mean anti-development, I meant something like - "Country A used to lead in the tech industry and then Country B became the leader, because all of Country A's tech companies outsourced to Country B for lowered taxes, wages and regulations. Country A lost an educated populace while Country B gained it."
I agree with you reluctantly about nukes, because Big Oil is a cancer. We need to manage it like France and not Japan though. As for large-scale organic I can see efficiency and production as an issue and some GMOs are extremely helpful like the Golden Rice that was manufactured to help Vitamin A deficient children. I was more against the "Super Salmon" GMOs that actually did hurt the salmon population and the "Roundup Ready" seeds unintentionally inciting a "product patent" war.
1) I've supported a family of three on just over 30k a year. I've been poor, and I know what it's like. I also realize that poverty in America is still better than something like 2/3rds of the world. It's all relative.
2) We ARE in a trade imbalance, but it's not nearly as large as you might think, and is almost non-existent if you look at goods AND services. Plus we have (well, had, it's shrunk noticeably, hence the protests) a thriving domestic consumer class, meaning we don't need to export as much.
3) They are if you count goods and services, and again, they don't need to be. We as a society should be advanced enough that we don't need to sell widgets to China to get by.
4) For every personal anecdote you come up with that disproves the point, I can find one that proves it. Hence, we'll ignore those and look at the data, which shows positive (though slow) growth in both GDP and employment.
5) Two wrongs don't make a right.
6) It's not a seesaw game, it's a balancing game, and eventually we'll get to a point of equilibrium. All we need are some basic, common sense rules and regulations and the balls to enforce them.
7) But America ISN'T losing an educated populace. In fact, more and more highly-skilled, highly-qualified individuals are coming here every year because we continue to lead in high-tech, and are accelerating. More importantly, it doesn't have to be a race to the bottom of the kind ou describe, it could just as easily be a race to the top, where countries compete to out-do each other positively. It happens internally in the US with the tech sector. Austin wanted to become a tech capital, so they invested in things like green space and art museums to attract an educated workforce.
8) I agree, we need proper management and oversight, which is why I disagree with blanket statements like "no nukes" or no "GM Crops!".
One - Of course for now. But I am worried about the future and this I think is what OWS is about.
Two and three - Yes this is about a domestic consumer class that has shrunk noticeably. If we let the multinationals have what they truly want though it will only get worse.
Four - It probably looks that way due to Obama's new stimulus measures. It's delaying the storm.
Five - Indeed. Right makes right.
Six - Yes we do need to lay out some ground rules. In reality, it will take a revolution and a wake up call to consumers for that to happen.
Seven - We won't be leading if it all goes to South Korea. And yes we are losing an educated populace - the state of public education and public interest being two issues. (They cut geography in California public schools it was horrible.) And your Austin example is cool, but wouldn't demand be an even bigger lure?
I'd love to continue this, but as I have to be at the office in 6 hours, I will have to put it off. Thanks for the pleasant and stimulating discussion. We may disagree on some points, though not as many as any of us may think, but I'm confident that so long as we are able to have an honest and earnest dialogue, we'll all win in the end.
Pleasant night.
Night!
This makes you a warmonger who approves of a govt owned by Goldman Sachs.
Good luck with that.
Completely agree
He had majority during the first 2 years. His healthcare bill made it mandatory for people to get private insurance. Is that good healthcare? Why didn't he push for public option? He says one thing and does another. Typical of third world politicians. They know what to say to attract votes. Once in power, they play their usual games.
Yeah but don't you think the budget deficet was irresponsible?? All that debt and no results...