The Incredibly Failing President Obama

Yes we do. Even CBS has had to acknowledge the low poll ratings of
who is quite possibly the worst president ever. And CBS is almost as
far left as NBC.

 

Meanwhile, in the real world, the GOP is polling at historically low levels, and once solid GOP voting blocs like Cubans are starting to leave the party.

Eventually, it will come to the point where the George Wallace voters in the south is all you will have.

 

No, in the real world the president's poll numbers stink.

Irrelevant. Totally irrelevant.

 

Yes, we know the GOP will soon become irrelevant. Thanks for stating the obvious.

 

I did not claim any of Obama's proposals had merit in the above statement ?

Your logic is flawed. What does the fact that I have not answered a silly question have to do with Obama cutting the deficit. That said, Obama has done a number of things.

We just finished discussing QE2. That is part of it.

Bailing out the financial system (including the auto industry). Making moves that restored confidence. This is the main part as the main decrease in the deficit is due to increased revenue due to a functional economy.


I hear a constant whine from the Right about Obama not supporting the military. Not increasing military spending would help the cut the deficit.

Not increasing spending in general helps.

These things have merit.

The rise in the debt level decreases as the deficit drops. With revenue at 3 trillion and spending at 3.5 trillion that means 500 billion is borrowed for every 3.5 Trillion spent = 14 cents borrowed for every dollar spent.

Your number applies the situation that was handed to Obama by Bush. 1.4 trillion dollar deficit for 3.5 Trillion in spending.

I agree that big government is a large part of the problem. That and big military which is also part of Government. Another part of the problem is that the corporations no longer pay their fair share. It used to be a 50/50 split. Now the workers are paying roughly 80% and the corporations 20%.

The GOP "talks" about wanting small Government but never does it. The main indicator of fiscal prudence is the rate of change in (how much you spend -what you take in).

I am a fiscal conservative and so have been watching this for many decades. The GOP during and since the Reagan years have not been Fiscal Conservatives. The rate of deficit increase under Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., was massive. Deficits were reduced under Clinton and Obama.

Total military spending under Clinton was roughly 300 Billion. 8 years later under Bush Total Military Spending increased to over 900 Billion. Then Romney was talking about another 200 Billion dollar increase and giving no way to pay for it. "LOONIE TUNES"

 

This is the only part I want to respond to. I am already on board with Bush leaving a massive mess to Obama. I have very little good to say about Bush. All you criticize the GOP for I agree with. We no longer have conservative representation within the GOP. They have nearly completely abandoned any effort to promote conservative ideals. The Gingrich years of the mid-90s were a glimmer of the conservative agenda. Once they got complete control with Bush they turned. This taught me that completely control and power is a bad thing. They had the opportunity to run a fully conservative agenda, and instead turn 180 degree away from it. This next election, if the GOP can take control, and a dem in the WH, will be very telling about whether the GOP can right the boat. I have no confidence at all.

 

I disagree we got a glimmer of "the conservative agenda" during the year Gingrich was the Speaker. The biggest part of the Gingrich/conservative agenda was massive tax cuts mostly benefiting the wealthy. They didn't get that with Clinton at the helm, who used his veto power to stop them. The most they got was a compromise on capital gains taxes in 1997.

In 2001 we got the conservative agenda with the massive tax cuts. And we saw the golden opportunity of the surplus budget squandered away shortly followed by new record deficits.

 

yeah,go right ahead and keep tellin' yerself that drool.
Sounds like the poppycock advice Senator Chuckie Schumer gave fellow
Democrats right before the ObamaCare vote in spring of 2010.
That once passed and americans feel almost instant relief from high premiums
that it will be a huge asset for Democrats in fall and the November House
elections.The House went Republican,and was the biggest rout {turnaround}
in 60 years.
Dream On.

 

In November remember the simple equation:

ANY Democrat = Hussein Obama.

 

o Economy that was tanking at a -9% rate and shedding 700,000+ jobs a month turned around

Prove Obama turned it around.

Copied for future pasting.

o 52 straight months of private sector employment growth.

Bush had 52 straight months of full employment as opposed to 52 months of Obama's shoddy employment record with it's horrible unemployment

o 110% increase in the stock markets since taking office

Yes enriching the top 1% increasing the wealth gap by flooding the markets with money

o Halved the deficit in 4 years.

After he and his fellow Democrats increased it almost 5 fold in two and keeping it there for 4, ROFLMAO you are actually trying to credit him with something here? BTW I thought you and he opposed the sequestration that is responsible for the decline. Can you point to me the Obama budgets that were passed that did this halving?

o Got Osama bin Laden.

What did he do to "get him"? He was there or something? He came up with the plan?

o Saved 2-3 million jobs with stimulus package

Pure conjecture

o First decrease in spending in a year in decades - 3 times.

After he and his fellow Democrats raised 29% in two years. Which Obama budgets were passed that cut spending. Prove he supported the sequestration that cut the spending.

o Over 9.6 million additional private sector jobs created since Jan 2010

In spite of him and still horrible employment numbers

o Oil production increasing for the first time in decades.

In spite of him and because of the private sector on private lands. What specifically are you attributing to Obama for this increase?

o Ousted Muamar Kadaffi at 1/1000 the cost of the Iraq war

The Libyians and Russians ousted him as Obama watched

o Deficit reduced by a then record $207 billion, down 16%, in 2012.
o Deficit reduced by a new record $420 billion, down 37%, in 2013

After he and his fellow Dems raised from $161B to $1,400B, almost 900% and kept it over $1,000B for four years. What exactly are you bragging about here. Still higher than the WORST Bush/Rep deficit. And again prove he supported the measures that brought it about and that YOU supported them.

o Record corporate profits

And you attribute this to Obama because...........?

o Passed health care reform that will provide coverage to tens of millions of Americans

Has not come close to 10 million who did not have coverage, try about 1.8 million at the cost of 9 million losing theirs. This is good why?

o 4 straight years of GDP growth

That is no where near where it should be in an economic recovery and -2.9% first quarter. It GDP increased .0000000000001% your statement would be true wouldn't it? And the economy would be horrible at that rate wouldn't it. Try some context next time.

o Unemployment rate dropped from 10% to 6.1%

Because of people giving jup looking and going on government subsistence, WOW what a jobs program.

o U.S. becomes world's top petroleum and energy producer

See above

o Passed financial regulation reform to prevent another housing bubble fiasco.

That he and his fellow Dems caused and have yet to rectify and making the big banks to big to fail even bigger even more too big to fail. But then I thought Dodd/Franks passed that, what did Obama do?

o Diplomatically coerced Syria to give up WMD without war or loss of single American life

Try Putin and the Russians and "Report: Despite clearing inspection process, Syria still has WMD"
http://www.worldtribune.com/2014/06/30/report-unlikely-syria-gave-chemical-weapons-stockpile/

"Assad’s Secret WMD"
http://news.yahoo.com/assad-secret-...lYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQxOF8x

o Recovered all jobs lost in the worst recession in 80 years

And what Obama policy did that and taking 6 years to do that is a success how?

o Lowest rate of spending increases of any president in modern history

He and his fellow Democrats increased it at the highest rate in modern history and in particular his FY2009 spending increase and then kept it there for the next 4 years.

o On-budget deficit has decreased every full fiscal year he's been in office.

Which of his budgets that were passed did this? And you falsely do not include his FY2009 increase.

o US domestic oil use decreasing

Economic turndowns and pitiful recoveries tend to do that.

o Net creation of millions of people employed despite inheriting a economy losing 700,000+ jobs a month.

See above

 

Producing a surge in growth and revenues which allowed them to balance the budget and produce the surpluses in spite of Clinton.

And of course that surplus was going away as the economy was tanking and going into a recession the first quarter of his term in office. The tax rate cuts were phased in and were not in full effect until 2004 and then revenues surged. If you want to talk about squandering Obama and his fellow Democrats squandered a falling deficit of only $161B turning it into a $1,400B deficit. Now THAT'S squandering by your terms.

 

Well played sir, well played.

 

True, and the deficits reduced but the debt increased.

 

To be honest I do not have much good to say about Obama either but this relates mostly to policies not related to economic. One thing about Economic stuff is one has to consider the impact of background economic conditions.

Obama's numbers have benefited from coming in at the low (during 2008 crash) so increased revenue helped the numbers but it took pretty much the first 4 years for that to kick in.

Bush for example had a bit of a tough go in the first few years of his presidency as the economy was not doing that well . Folks often think Presidents can impact the economy more so than they can. Often the invisible hand steps in (positive or negative) which might be completely out of a Presidents control.

At the end of the day, regardless which side of the isle the leader is from, they will serve the Oligopolies that put them in power. This goes for Congress as well.

We do not have much of a free market in this country any longer. We have a bunch of Oligopolies that run the show an the impact of this is to make slaves of many.

 

Unless the deficit is reduced to zero the debt will continue to increase. I think Clinton started paying down the debt at one point but not by much.

 

All right folks. Step right up and place your bets.

Right now, Obama is at 42%. Will he beat the 22% Bush wound up with? How low will he go?

The race to the bottom is on.

I am not into reading tea leaves to predict the future, but here is a W.A.G.

The BushBama years will be looked on as "The good old days" if all the raging rhetoric of the left and right does not fade away.

In 2003, 22% of Americans said they were "conservatives", and 25% said they were liberal. That left a slight majority of sensible people in the center.

Today, 28% say they are conservatives, and 32% say they are liberals. That leaves 40% in the center.

When the center reaches 33%, we will cross over into territory that was once the domain of 1930s Germany.

So keep it up, idiots. You may soon be able to break the greatest country the world has ever known. All for ego and money.

Pathetic! What a generation of complicit fools. I hope I won't be here to see it.

 

He post his boiler plate, non-linked, nonsense so regularly I keep a copy of my response in a text file. His rebuttal will be of no substance claiming the data is correct went it's his use of it that is specious.

 

Ahhh get the facts straight. Reagan requested less spending every year in office than Congress authorized and they failed to pass all the rescission he submitted. The fact is even with that the deficits, after we got through the horrible economic mess he inherited, fell dramatically and had they passed his budgets and rescission would have fallen to under $100B his last three years in office. Bush41 made the mistake of agreeing the Democrats "give us a tax increase and then we will cut spending" so again the Dems drove the higher deficits when they refused to then cut spending. Bush43 came into office during a slowdown/recession and the 9/11 so the already falling surplus was going away no matter who was elected. He and the Republicans held the deficit to a one year peak of $400B during that economic downturn and then in after the tax rate cuts went into full effect after 2003 revenues began to soar and with spending restraints the deficit fell to $161B. THEN the Democrats including Obama took over the budget and in two years drove the deficit up to $1,400B, that was NOT a Bush deficit.

Clinton's tax rate increase slowed the growth of tax revenues in the strong recovery he inherited, it was the Gingrich/Kasich budgets and tax cuts, which he opposed, that brought about the balanced budget and surplus. Obama and the Dems increased the deficit to $1,400B and the only reason it has fallen is because of a very slow recovery and sequestration. And the deficit is still 50% higher than the worst Bush43 deficit. Obama has submitted no budgets that cut the deficit, heck none of his have been passed and he has certainly not pressed the Dems in the Senate to cut spending and lower the deficits in fact they are posed to ballon back up to over $1,000 again.

- - - Updated - - -

The media bias between the two is enough to account for a +30% at least for Obama.

 

Only in the Tulip patch do your suppositions hold true. That happy place in your mind where life is beautiful all the time and reality corresponds to all your beliefs and no independent validation of those beliefs is required.

 

Your inability to refute the facts noted.

 

You have presented no facts that validate your claim so there is nothing to refute. Your claim that a Republican controlled Senate "forced" Reagan to rack up huge deficits is laughable.

It is foolish to try and reason with blind partisanship.

 

The poster is not making excuses for OBAMA-The poster is listing pertinent information
Sure there are people who didn't vote for OBAMA,"BUT" the majority "DID" that's how our system works(,just in case you did'nt know!)
If you mean he is taking sides against ANTI-ANTI-ANTI-then you would have a point-but,you didn't say that specifically!
So,you are taking a poll of 1000 people to justify your opinion as the right one-STELLAR---Gotta love how the GOP & BAGGERS don't follow polls until they think they have a winner-How pathetic(ask Karl Rove on that one)
Now,why do you think "NOT" a single GOP voted for OBAMACARE?
The
GOP has even voted against their "own" proposed legislation to try to obstruct POTUS OBAMA--now,you want to talk about pathetic,let's start there.( I remember one instance where Claire McCaskill got a crink in her neck at a hearing,where her head snapped back in such surprise -where a GOP Senator voted against his own proposal)
Show me that drawer full of GOP HCR proposals that Senator Reid has-cause,all I hear is " repeal & replace",but with what? The GOP has been asked repeatedly this question----"STILL WAITIN"
So,we have a POTUS that" refused "to kick the Health Care issue down the road any more-he is helping millions,OBAMACARE is working-----& he is getting villified for doing a good thing for all the American people----mmmmm wonder why that is?
I have had the opportunity lately to use my new OBAMACARE---Impressed with the "in network price reduction"-impressed with the lower premiums & lower deductible-impressed with the quality of care,impressed with the technology of having all medical information linked-having more time spent with my DR.----So,your assumption of OBAMACARE being a 100% disaster is being proved false--just sayin--- Thank-you OBAMA for taking a bad situation & making it 100 times 'Better"

 

Obama is pathetic. Boehner's stunt won't go anywhere, but you can rest assured Obama will leave the White House the same way Bush did - the crowd will be cheering for his replacement, not for his legacy.

 

I agree with one thing you said,which is, " Boehner's stunt won't go anywhere"!
Have a question for you---Why do "WE" even have to play these "stunt" games?
And as far as OBAMA'S legacy goes---Why don't we wait to find out ,as, unless you are a phychic-which I'm pretty certain your not!!!!
I'm ok with POTUS OBAMA for the next 2 years & am going to be really excited(if Hillary runs) to help elect our "FIRST" "Woman" POTUS & a Democrat to boot!!