Did Obama DESERVE to become president??

[rightwinger]

They haven't done "nothing". The GOP led House has passed quite a bit of legislation and sent it to the Senate. It's Harry Reid that's doing nothing. He's got a stack of GOP bills collecting dust on his desk. Where is your outrage over that?

From what I see the Senate passed a few things themselves and found them languishing in the House. Looks like they all been bad to me.

And what about all of the House bills that Harry Reid won't even allow on the Senate floor for a vote? The Democrats lost the mid-terms, FactFinder...the people giving a mandate to the GOP to act. It's been progressives like Reid who have refused to give ground and work towards a compromise, all the while continuing to point fingers at the other side and accusing them of being "obstructionists". Funny how you can't "see" that.

Republicans have to realize they are still the minority party. As such, they cannot craft legislation that contains poison pills objected to by the majority party. If you include riders like "repeal Obamacare " "trash the EPA" and "build a pipeline for the oil companies" and call them jobs bills your legislation will not go anywhere

 

[Stephanie]

From what I see the Senate passed a few things themselves and found them languishing in the House. Looks like they all been bad to me.

And what about all of the House bills that Harry Reid won't even allow on the Senate floor for a vote? The Democrats lost the mid-terms, FactFinder...the people giving a mandate to the GOP to act. It's been progressives like Reid who have refused to give ground and work towards a compromise, all the while continuing to point fingers at the other side and accusing them of being "obstructionists". Funny how you can't "see" that.

Republicans have to realize they are still the minority party. As such, they cannot craft legislation that contains poison pills objected to by the majority party. If you include riders like "repeal Obamacare " "trash the EPA" and "build a pipeline for the oil companies" and call them jobs bills your legislation will not go anywhere

ok fine. then you Democrats have to realize you all DON'T STILL have total control over congress and have to accept that not ALL your shit bills are just going to SAIL through..
but of course that won't stop you all from whining about how Republicans are...obstructionist, now will it..

 

[Oldstyle]

From what I see the Senate passed a few things themselves and found them languishing in the House. Looks like they all been bad to me.

And what about all of the House bills that Harry Reid won't even allow on the Senate floor for a vote? The Democrats lost the mid-terms, FactFinder...the people giving a mandate to the GOP to act. It's been progressives like Reid who have refused to give ground and work towards a compromise, all the while continuing to point fingers at the other side and accusing them of being "obstructionists". Funny how you can't "see" that.

Republicans have to realize they are still the minority party. As such, they cannot craft legislation that contains poison pills objected to by the majority party. If you include riders like "repeal Obamacare " "trash the EPA" and "build a pipeline for the oil companies" and call them jobs bills your legislation will not go anywhere

The American people didn't want Obamacare...the EPA regulations were such job killers that even the Democrats backed down on some of them...and the pipeline would have created badly needed jobs while lessening our dependence on oil from troubled areas like the Middle East. All the Republicans are doing is what the voters elected them to do...stop Obama's progressive agenda and get this country back on the right track. It's the Democrats that have to realize that they lost the House because the electorate was so unhappy with their policy decisions when they controlled everything. What you call "poison pills" are in fact what the people want. The Dems are too stubborn to admit that 2010 was a referendum on THEIR agenda...and that the people overwhelmingly were against it.

 

[Gagafritz]

You "deserve" to win by virtue of running and winning. If you run and win, you "deserved" it because you made your case to enough people to vote for you.

 

[Oldstyle]

You "deserve" to win by virtue of running and winning. If you run and win, you "deserved" it because you made your case to enough people to vote for you.

You know, that might normally be the case, Gaga...but in 2008 that's not the way things went down. Barack Obama never had to MAKE his case because the Main Stream Media was backing him so overwhelmingly that all he had to do was make vague promises about vague concepts and he was seldom challenged on the validity of his statements. The American people elected a slogan rather than an actual person and they did so because the MSM sold them a bill of goods.

We've spent the last three years living with the result of that. Hopefully THIS time around people will have learned enough to ask the tough questions and not accept vague bumper sticker notions like "Change You Can Believe In" as a substitution for real answers to our biggest problems.

 

[Gagafritz]

You "deserve" to win by virtue of running and winning. If you run and win, you "deserved" it because you made your case to enough people to vote for you.

You know, that might normally be the case, Gaga...but in 2008 that's not the way things went down. Barack Obama never had to MAKE his case because the Main Stream Media was backing him so overwhelmingly that all he had to do was make vague promises about vague concepts and he was seldom challenged on the validity of his statements. The American people elected a slogan rather than an actual person and they did so because the MSM sold them a bill of goods.

We've spent the last three years living with the result of that. Hopefully THIS time around people will have learned enough to ask the tough questions and not accept vague bumper sticker notions like "Change You Can Believe In" as a substitution for real answers to our biggest problems.

Doesn't matter. All that is true. But, there was plenty of info out there about the Real Obama if people wanted to take the time to look. But, they didn't want to turn off "Real Housewives" to find out. So, we deserve the govt we have.

 

[Dot Com]

Did Obama DESERVE to become president??

as opposed to McCain & Palin? Absatively Besides there is no training program to be President. All Presidents learn what they don't already know as they go along. Obama is the best CINC in recent memory too. Killed more terrists and deported more illegals than his predecessor
Obama's ICE reports record number of deportations of illegal immigrants - TheHill.com

 

[Gagafritz]

If McCain/Palin would have run and won, they would have "deserved" to win.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Did Obama DESERVE to become president??

as opposed to McCain & Palin? Absatively Besides there is no training program to be President. All Presidents learn what they don't already know as they go along. Obama is the best CINC in recent memory too. Killed more terrists and deported more illegals than his predecessor
Obama's ICE reports record number of deportations of illegal immigrants - TheHill.com

Too bad they are based on past practices set up by Bush

Once all the new Papa Obama rules kick
it will slow down
From Nov 2011 (yours is from Oct 2011)

LA TIMES: Illegal Immigrant Deportations to Slow Way Down as Presidential Election Approches

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) issued this statement yesterday afternoon:

Because deeds always speak louder than words, we applaud the White House and DHS for following through on their commitment to be fair and consistent with their own set priorities. Given that Congress has been unwilling to take action on providing real solutions to recognizing millions without legal status, we welcome the White House intervention and its attempt to keep families together
... We will continue to press Congress to quit stalling on immigration reform for political or party gains.​

----------------------------------------------------


Just like the Iraq war
Papa Obama is living off the success of Bush

--------------------------------------------------

Good news

the American public is not as blind when it comes to Papa Obama

CBS poll: 54% say Obama doesn’t deserve re-election


Associated Press-GfK poll - Majority say Obama should lose election

 

[Neotrotsky]

From what I see the Senate passed a few things themselves and found them languishing in the House. Looks like they all been bad to me.

And what about all of the House bills that Harry Reid won't even allow on the Senate floor for a vote? The Democrats lost the mid-terms, FactFinder...the people giving a mandate to the GOP to act. It's been progressives like Reid who have refused to give ground and work towards a compromise, all the while continuing to point fingers at the other side and accusing them of being "obstructionists". Funny how you can't "see" that.

Republicans have to realize they are still the minority party. As such, they cannot craft legislation that contains poison pills objected to by the majority party. If you include riders like "repeal Obamacare " "trash the EPA" and "build a pipeline for the oil companies" and call them jobs bills your legislation will not go anywhere

Majority
that's a laugh,,,,

Americans don’t just think Papa Obama is a liberal; they also think he’s decidedly to the left of them

Dec 29 2011
US Today Poll: U.S. sees Obama as liberal

On a scale of 1 to 5 -- with 1 being very liberal and 5 being very conservative -- respondents rated themselves as a 3.3 ideologically, slightly to the right of center.

They perceive Obama to be a 2.3, to the left of center.
Some of the Republican candidates are more aligned with the respondents

When it comes to the president, Gallup reported, "a majority of Americans, 57%, perceive Obama to be liberal, with 23% describing his views as moderate and 15% as conservative."
​

Truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is their worst enemy

 

[madasheck]

And what about all of the House bills that Harry Reid won't even allow on the Senate floor for a vote? The Democrats lost the mid-terms, FactFinder...the people giving a mandate to the GOP to act. It's been progressives like Reid who have refused to give ground and work towards a compromise, all the while continuing to point fingers at the other side and accusing them of being "obstructionists". Funny how you can't "see" that.

Republicans have to realize they are still the minority party. As such, they cannot craft legislation that contains poison pills objected to by the majority party. If you include riders like "repeal Obamacare " "trash the EPA" and "build a pipeline for the oil companies" and call them jobs bills your legislation will not go anywhere

Majority
that's a laugh,,,,

Americans don’t just think Papa Obama is a liberal; they also think he’s decidedly to the left of them

Dec 29 2011
US Today Poll: U.S. sees Obama as liberal

On a scale of 1 to 5 -- with 1 being very liberal and 5 being very conservative -- respondents rated themselves as a 3.3 ideologically, slightly to the right of center.

They perceive Obama to be a 2.3, to the left of center.
Some of the Republican candidates are more aligned with the respondents

When it comes to the president, Gallup reported, "a majority of Americans, 57%, perceive Obama to be liberal, with 23% describing his views as moderate and 15% as conservative."
​

Truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is their worst enemy

Funny, though, that when the right whines about the coverage in the media, they always whine about left-wing bias. The truth has a left-wing bias.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Bias MSM

no doubt

It just speaks well of the American ability to withstand the onslaught of
pro left propaganda

Then again
The dismal failures of Papa Obama may be enough to turn people off
from failed liberal policies

Tough call....

 

[007]

He met the basic requirements..

No he didn't, and when McCain and Clinton both began to bring up all the constitutional problems with obama's eligibility, they and everyone else was told to STFU!

 

[Cammmpbell]

Naive

is not knowing that the Republicans controlled the House and submitted a balanced budget under Clinton

You really need some better sources than those radical leftwing web sites you must be using

Truth is hard for the Left
In fact,
it is their worst enemy

Clinton was a "miracle worker" as long as you overlook two things...1.) He was forced into cutting "his" budgets by the GOP controlled House. I believe at one point he submitted 3 budgets, each one substantially lower before the House would agree to one. Saying he gets credit for that is almost laughable. If he'd had his way we would have passed HillaryCare and REALLY gone into the red. 2) Clinton benefited from the Dot Com Boom. That was the reason he was able to balance the budget. Saying it was that he raised taxes on the wealthy and that we should do so now hoping for the same result is asinine. If he'd raised taxes on the rich without the Dot Com Boom the economy would have sputtered to a halt...just as it will now if you economically challenged progressives get your way.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just what does Clinton or Gingrich or the Congress of those years have to do with today?

He forgot to mention one little fact. The Republicans didn't take over the majority until January 1995. Clinton raised taxes in 1993-94. That's what they don't want you to know...it's the low tax rates that created the deficit. Reagan cut them and borrowed trillions from foreign banks to fund it. Clinton raised taxes and balanced the budget....indeed created $450 billion of surplus. The debt was in line to be completely paid off by 2012 but George W. Bush cut taxes twice using reconciliation to block Democratic oppostition and guess what........doubled the national debt from $5.7 trillion to nearly $12 trillion. It ain't rocket science...if you cut taxes and don't cut spending your ass goes in debt. Republicans have never cut spending not one goddam cent...it's just another lie they tell.

 

[Oldstyle]

You "deserve" to win by virtue of running and winning. If you run and win, you "deserved" it because you made your case to enough people to vote for you.

You know, that might normally be the case, Gaga...but in 2008 that's not the way things went down. Barack Obama never had to MAKE his case because the Main Stream Media was backing him so overwhelmingly that all he had to do was make vague promises about vague concepts and he was seldom challenged on the validity of his statements. The American people elected a slogan rather than an actual person and they did so because the MSM sold them a bill of goods.

We've spent the last three years living with the result of that. Hopefully THIS time around people will have learned enough to ask the tough questions and not accept vague bumper sticker notions like "Change You Can Believe In" as a substitution for real answers to our biggest problems.

Doesn't matter. All that is true. But, there was plenty of info out there about the Real Obama if people wanted to take the time to look. But, they didn't want to turn off "Real Housewives" to find out. So, we deserve the govt we have.

We got the government we have because the MSM has fundamentally forgotten that a democratic republic can't funtion when the people don't have access to unbiased information on which to base their vote. Over the last forty years the Press seems to have come to the conclusion that "they" are more intelligent than the average American and that "they" should be the deciders of policy and who gets to implement it. The problem is that the MSM is not representative of the American electorate and we end up with policies being put forth that the voters don't want because the liberal bias of the MSM distorts things to such an extent that progressives like Nancy, Harry and Barack think they have a mandate to make radical changes to America when judging from the 2010 mid-terms the voters never wanted radical changes they just wanted the government to get it's act together and get spending under control.

 

[Oldstyle]

Clinton was a "miracle worker" as long as you overlook two things...1.) He was forced into cutting "his" budgets by the GOP controlled House. I believe at one point he submitted 3 budgets, each one substantially lower before the House would agree to one. Saying he gets credit for that is almost laughable. If he'd had his way we would have passed HillaryCare and REALLY gone into the red. 2) Clinton benefited from the Dot Com Boom. That was the reason he was able to balance the budget. Saying it was that he raised taxes on the wealthy and that we should do so now hoping for the same result is asinine. If he'd raised taxes on the rich without the Dot Com Boom the economy would have sputtered to a halt...just as it will now if you economically challenged progressives get your way.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just what does Clinton or Gingrich or the Congress of those years have to do with today?

He forgot to mention one little fact. The Republicans didn't take over the majority until January 1995. Clinton raised taxes in 1993-94. That's what they don't want you to know...it's the low tax rates that created the deficit. Reagan cut them and borrowed trillions from foreign banks to fund it. Clinton raised taxes and balanced the budget....indeed created $450 billion of surplus. The debt was in line to be completely paid off by 2012 but George W. Bush cut taxes twice using reconciliation to block Democratic oppostition and guess what........doubled the national debt from $5.7 trillion to nearly $12 trillion. It ain't rocket science...if you cut taxes and don't cut spending your ass goes in debt. Republicans have never cut spending not one goddam cent...it's just another lie they tell.

What you neglect to mention is that the Dot Com Boom ended the year before W. took office. The reason that Clinton was able to balance the budget was because of the huge amounts of revenue that were flowing into the Federal coffers because of the Dot Com Boom. You're now suggesting we do a math equation to arrive at a desired answer...1+1+1=3 except you're leaving out one of the numbers that makes up that equation. If you subtract the Dot Com Boom revenues from Clinton's economic policies...which is what we would be doing NOW with tax raises in a weak economy...then instead of the answer you're looking for...you're going to get a completely different one. THAT is the reason why even liberal economists like Romer cautioned against raising taxes on anyone.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Clinton was a "miracle worker" as long as you overlook two things...1.) He was forced into cutting "his" budgets by the GOP controlled House. I believe at one point he submitted 3 budgets, each one substantially lower before the House would agree to one. Saying he gets credit for that is almost laughable. If he'd had his way we would have passed HillaryCare and REALLY gone into the red. 2) Clinton benefited from the Dot Com Boom. That was the reason he was able to balance the budget. Saying it was that he raised taxes on the wealthy and that we should do so now hoping for the same result is asinine. If he'd raised taxes on the rich without the Dot Com Boom the economy would have sputtered to a halt...just as it will now if you economically challenged progressives get your way.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just what does Clinton or Gingrich or the Congress of those years have to do with today?

He forgot to mention one little fact. The Republicans didn't take over the majority until January 1995. Clinton raised taxes in 1993-94. That's what they don't want you to know...it's the low tax rates that created the deficit. Reagan cut them and borrowed trillions from foreign banks to fund it. Clinton raised taxes and balanced the budget....indeed created $450 billion of surplus. The debt was in line to be completely paid off by 2012 but George W. Bush cut taxes twice using reconciliation to block Democratic oppostition and guess what........doubled the national debt from $5.7 trillion to nearly $12 trillion. It ain't rocket science...if you cut taxes and don't cut spending your ass goes in debt. Republicans have never cut spending not one goddam cent...it's just another lie they tell.

Of course

The 1997 Tax Cut (Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997): The Economy Unleashed
In 1997, the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton.



Another uninformed leftist pushing an agenda
You really need some better leftist websites
or stop getting all your news from the MSM.



The US has a spending problem
exacerbated by Papa Obama and the Left

Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.


Truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is their worst enemy

 

[Cammmpbell]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just what does Clinton or Gingrich or the Congress of those years have to do with today?

He forgot to mention one little fact. The Republicans didn't take over the majority until January 1995. Clinton raised taxes in 1993-94. That's what they don't want you to know...it's the low tax rates that created the deficit. Reagan cut them and borrowed trillions from foreign banks to fund it. Clinton raised taxes and balanced the budget....indeed created $450 billion of surplus. The debt was in line to be completely paid off by 2012 but George W. Bush cut taxes twice using reconciliation to block Democratic oppostition and guess what........doubled the national debt from $5.7 trillion to nearly $12 trillion. It ain't rocket science...if you cut taxes and don't cut spending your ass goes in debt. Republicans have never cut spending not one goddam cent...it's just another lie they tell.

What you neglect to mention is that the Dot Com Boom ended the year before W. took office. The reason that Clinton was able to balance the budget was because of the huge amounts of revenue that were flowing into the Federal coffers because of the Dot Com Boom. You're now suggesting we do a math equation to arrive at a desired answer...1+1+1=3 except you're leaving out one of the numbers that makes up that equation. If you subtract the Dot Com Boom revenues from Clinton's economic policies...which is what we would be doing NOW with tax raises in a weak economy...then instead of the answer you're looking for...you're going to get a completely different one. THAT is the reason why even liberal economists like Romer cautioned against raising taxes on anyone.

No dammit....you're blind as a bat. Reagan was the first president to ever cut taxes for the wealthy and borrow money to fund it. He and Bush's daddy quadrupled the national debt. Cinton raised taxes and made thing work again the way they were before. With surpluses projected all the way to the outyears that idiot George Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 and for the first time in the history of this great republic began to borrow from Communist Chinese banks. Then he proceeded to double the national debt from $5.7 to nearly $12 trillion. It's the low tax rates for the wealthy and continuing to spend like there's no tomorrow that has gotten us into this mess. Every goddam bit by the Republicans beginning in 1981.

 

[Stephanie]

I don't care how many people think Obama "deserved" to be President..

The only thing that matters today is the Majority of people doesn't think the Obama "deserves" to be reelected..

lets just make sure we make that come true that in 2012

 

[Cammmpbell]

I don't care how many people think Obama "deserved" to be President..

The only thing that matters today is the Majority of people doesn't think the Obama "deserves" to be reelected..

lets just make sure we make that come true that in 2012

You just keep on thinking that. There are red states and blue states and a do en scenarios involving the electoral college and guess what...........Obama will win nine of them. Get used to Mr. Obama because your Republican funny farm has done everything they could to make him look bad and the worst looking people in Washington right now are Republicans.