Tell me again why Barack Obama has been such a bad president

[Chris]

 

[Chris]

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- The Dow Jones Industrial Average rallied Monday as relatively minimal damage from Hurricane Irene and positive economic data lifted market sentiment.

The blue-chip index rose 255 points, or 2.3%, to finish at 11,537 points. The S&P 500 advanced by 33 points, or 2.8%, to close at 1210 and the Nasdaq gained 82 points, or 3.3%, to settle at 2562.
Trading was light with just 3.6 billion shares changing hands on the New York Stock Exchange, after commuting challenges in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene prevented some traders from heading into work. More than 80% of NYSE shares rose while just over 10% fell.
The advance follows the strongest weekly gain for the major U.S. indices in two months last week. Strategists questioned whether it was time to load up on equities.

Dow Shakes Off Hurricane, Closes Up 255 on Light Volume - TheStreet

 

[ClosedCaption]

So, there was nothing you liked about Bush and you weren't afraid to let everyone know about it the entire time he was in office. How is that any different than what those who don't like Obama are doing today?

Because context is important. I can name actual things that scare the shit out of me and I didnt like it. Repubs didnt like Obama, so they find pretend things to be scared of.

I'm sorry, I really don't think you are any different than the Obama haters of today. On the other hand there are some good people who didn't like Bush at all and there are some good people who don't like Obama at all. You and I don't agree in a lot of things, but I have never felt you were unreasonable. I'd put you in the good people category.

Pretend things? You mean like health care reform that had to be passed so that we would know what was in it?

Pretend things like an economy that has been flushed down the toilet and is well on its way to the sewage plant?

There are some wackos out there that won't let the birth certificate scandal go and they will probably still be bitching about it in 2020. But, quite frankly, I think President Obama deserves all the criticism he gets... except for the criticism about his vacation time. There is no President that truly gets a "vacation".

Immie

That healthcare reform was from Pelosi and that was the dumbest shit I'd ever heard and she deserved every bit of criticism she got. The economy is solely Obamas fault but things havent turned around yet. Is that Obamas fault? I dunno, I havent seen him do anything but the stimulus but half of that had tax cuts in it!?!! How long does it take to recover from a Recession / Depression? I dunno.

When Bush was in office all those conservapundits would say he was on a working vacation, now Obama never has a working vacation. He just fucking lays around with his phone off.

And I dont like a lot of the racial overtones to a lot of the attacks either. There, I said it.

 

[Oldstyle]

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- The Dow Jones Industrial Average rallied Monday as relatively minimal damage from Hurricane Irene and positive economic data lifted market sentiment.

The blue-chip index rose 255 points, or 2.3%, to finish at 11,537 points. The S&P 500 advanced by 33 points, or 2.8%, to close at 1210 and the Nasdaq gained 82 points, or 3.3%, to settle at 2562.
Trading was light with just 3.6 billion shares changing hands on the New York Stock Exchange, after commuting challenges in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene prevented some traders from heading into work. More than 80% of NYSE shares rose while just over 10% fell.
The advance follows the strongest weekly gain for the major U.S. indices in two months last week. Strategists questioned whether it was time to load up on equities.

Dow Shakes Off Hurricane, Closes Up 255 on Light Volume - TheStreet

Are you trying to make the argument that Obama is a great President because the stock market went up 255 points today? Come on, Chris...you know better.

 

[Wicked Jester]

This thread is too damn funny......The lib's ALL have their panties in a bunch.

They sure are a surly bunch o' lil' buggers, as they completely fail in their defense of the worst President in US history.

Hey lib's!......Did ya' see Obama re-hired the dude who came up with the "cash for clunkers" fiasco that miserably failed, to be his newest "top economic adviser".

When are you fools going to realize that the man is completely inept, incompetent, and in no way a leader?

The man is bringing back a failure. The man is doubling down on those who have failed this country. And you fools follow bilndly along as he's obviously setting himself up to continue the failure. Following him right over the damn cliff.

The Reverend Jim Jones would have absolutely loved you people.

 

[Oldstyle]

Because context is important. I can name actual things that scare the shit out of me and I didnt like it. Repubs didnt like Obama, so they find pretend things to be scared of.

I'm sorry, I really don't think you are any different than the Obama haters of today. On the other hand there are some good people who didn't like Bush at all and there are some good people who don't like Obama at all. You and I don't agree in a lot of things, but I have never felt you were unreasonable. I'd put you in the good people category.

Pretend things? You mean like health care reform that had to be passed so that we would know what was in it?

Pretend things like an economy that has been flushed down the toilet and is well on its way to the sewage plant?

There are some wackos out there that won't let the birth certificate scandal go and they will probably still be bitching about it in 2020. But, quite frankly, I think President Obama deserves all the criticism he gets... except for the criticism about his vacation time. There is no President that truly gets a "vacation".

Immie

That healthcare reform was from Pelosi and that was the dumbest shit I'd ever heard and she deserved every bit of criticism she got. The economy is solely Obamas fault but things havent turned around yet. Is that Obamas fault? I dunno, I havent seen him do anything but the stimulus but half of that had tax cuts in it!?!! How long does it take to recover from a Recession / Depression? I dunno.

When Bush was in office all those conservapundits would say he was on a working vacation, now Obama never has a working vacation. He just fucking lays around with his phone off.

And I dont like a lot of the racial overtones to a lot of the attacks either. There, I said it.

I don't like racial "tones" in attacks on Obama either but questioning his competence has nothing to do with his skin color. He's been "underwhelming" as a leader and that isn't a racial thing...it's simply an observation. You can blame the healthcare reform fiasco on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and trust me they deserve a healthy portion of it but the bottom line is that Barack Obama as a sitting President is the leader of the Democratic Party and he's ultimately responsible for the legislation that they passed while having that super majority.

And speaking of "tones" my only problem with Barack Obama's vacations is his amazing talent for taking them in a totally tone deaf manner. When the Gulf Coast was hit hard by the oil spill and the region's tourism industry was getting killed, Barack took a vacation in Hawaii. Now I know that's where he grew up and I know he's got friends there but if he'd been paying attention to the needs of the country he would have changed his plans and gone somewhere on the Gulf Coast. Those people down there could have really used the plug a visit from him would have provided. It's the same thing with telling everyone that you're heading off to the Vineyard for a week of golf but when you get back you'll release your new jobs plan. Everyone deserves a vacation but it would have been SO much better for him if he'd done the work on the jobs plan...released it to the public and THEN gone. As for the choice of the Vineyard? Not for nothing but when you've got millions of people out of work and really struggling? Going to a place like Martha's Vineyard and hanging out with the rich and famous isn't doing you any good out in the hinterlands. I don't even want to know how much it costs the taxpayers for a trip like that. It's got to be staggering. Obama should have taken a page out of Bill Clinton's handbook. When he was in trouble before his second term he vacationed in Wyoming instead of doing the Vineyard.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Kinda interesting how the new "direction of the country" polls came out today, and only 19% approve of the direction this country is headed under Obama's leadership.

19%......Isn't that the percentage of americans who deem themselves "very liberal"?

Very telling......Very telling indeed!

 

[rdean]

Republicans are hilarious. Ask them why Obama is a bad president and they give you a list of what they did to fuck up the country.

 

[oreo]

Republicans are hilarious. Ask them why Obama is a bad president and they give you a list of what they did to fuck up the country.

It's must be hard for you to move forward--when you continually look out your rear view mirror?

Obama promised that he would CREATE millions of private sector jobs by borrowing and spending 868 BILLION dollars--that then turned into saving Government workers jobs--that then turned into Nancy Pelosi referring to unemployment checks as "economic stimulus."

Obama didn't know what to do--so he did a carbon copy of FDR--where in the 1930's we actually needed roads and bridges--and what took thousands of men with shovels can now be done today with a couple of heavy equipment operators. What permits were issued overnight in the 1930's now takes years of engineering and design---and what was mostly a workforce of men--is now 1/2 women who typically don't do road and bridge work.

Where Obama went WRONG is he borrowed--bought and paid for the responsiblity of the economic crisis--in a miserable attempt at trying to micro-manage such a diverse economy. The only thing Obama has done is spend us into oblivion with his flood the basement economic policies. And judging from his recent comments he has no intention of taking a new direction to real economic prosperity.

This country elected someone with absolutely no business experience--a community organizer--most intellectual of all time--and also an economic moron.



" This 868 billion dollar economic stimulus bill will create MILLIONS of private sector jobs and keep unemployment from rising above 8.2%" -Barack Obama. We lost another 4 million JOBS after Obama signed this bill into law 2-1/2 years ago.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you kidding? Obama Care doesn't lower costs. It's going to raise them while at the same time it diminishes the quality of service.

Nonsense. The coverage piece gets all the press, but most of the law is aimed squarely at quality improvement and, ultimately, cost containment.

If they'd really wanted to lower costs they would have included tort reform but that was off the table right from the start because of all the $ that the trial lawyers sent Obama's way during the '08 election.

The reality is that there were no strong advocates for it on either side (which is why the tort reform piece in the final law was simply seed money for state-initiated tort reform pilots). Republicans were unwilling to offer anything in exchange for large-scale tort reform--like, say, votes--and thus it wasn't included.

When Barack Obama informed congressional Republicans last month that he would support a controversial parliamentary move to protect health-care reform from a filibuster in the Senate, they were furious. That meant the bill could pass with a simple majority of 51 votes, eliminating the need for any GOP support. Where, they demanded, was the bipartisanship the President had promised? So, right there in the Cabinet Room, the President put a proposal on the table, according to two people who were present. Obama said he was willing to curb malpractice awards, a move long sought by Republicans that is certain to bring strong opposition from the trial lawyers who fund the Democratic Party.

What, he wanted to know, did the Republicans have to offer in return?

Nothing, it turned out. Republicans were unprepared to make any concessions, if they had any to make. But the encounter did make some Democrats wish they could see more of that kind of presidential engagement on the issue that Obama says is his top legislative priority.​

Why is it you continually ignore the fact that the government insists that costs are not only going to continue to go up under Obamacare, but that they are going to go up at a faster rate than they would without it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you kidding? Obama Care doesn't lower costs. It's going to raise them while at the same time it diminishes the quality of service.

Nonsense. The coverage piece gets all the press, but most of the law is aimed squarely at quality improvement and, ultimately, cost containment.

If they'd really wanted to lower costs they would have included tort reform but that was off the table right from the start because of all the $ that the trial lawyers sent Obama's way during the '08 election.

The reality is that there were no strong advocates for it on either side (which is why the tort reform piece in the final law was simply seed money for state-initiated tort reform pilots). Republicans were unwilling to offer anything in exchange for large-scale tort reform--like, say, votes--and thus it wasn't included.

When Barack Obama informed congressional Republicans last month that he would support a controversial parliamentary move to protect health-care reform from a filibuster in the Senate, they were furious. That meant the bill could pass with a simple majority of 51 votes, eliminating the need for any GOP support. Where, they demanded, was the bipartisanship the President had promised? So, right there in the Cabinet Room, the President put a proposal on the table, according to two people who were present. Obama said he was willing to curb malpractice awards, a move long sought by Republicans that is certain to bring strong opposition from the trial lawyers who fund the Democratic Party.

What, he wanted to know, did the Republicans have to offer in return?

Nothing, it turned out. Republicans were unprepared to make any concessions, if they had any to make. But the encounter did make some Democrats wish they could see more of that kind of presidential engagement on the issue that Obama says is his top legislative priority.​

Your Blind Faith in what Democrats say the bill will do is nice. To bad it is a load of horse shit.

It is not blind faith, he works for them, he is paid to believe.

Or at least post like he believes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You dupes are hilarious. Waivers for unions are so they won't be taxed on their Cadillac plans like the rich will be, and give them time to renegotiate their contracts. Your ignorance is elitist bought off Pubs' weapon against you. There are PLENTY of cost controls in it, and malpractice protections, and the subsidies or medicaid to make it affordable. Poor frightened little MORONS.Turn off the BS!!

The waivers are not for the union members who get cadilac plans, it is for the non union employees of unions who get paid minimum wage and have substandard health plans.

Thanks for playing though.

(Yes, I know that most union employees are also union members, and that they generally make more than minimum wage. I just used hyperbole to indicate how stupid warsaw is. They waivers are aimed at the fact that employees of unions do not have plans that meet the new guidelines for plans under Obamacare. Anyone with an IQ above the freezing point of water in Celsius knows that.)

 

[MikeK]

I voted for Obama and I'm not sorry because the alternative was McCain.

But in my view Obama has turned out to be a bad president for one very important reason -- he allowed the Bush Administration to walk away with impunity in spite of their many egregious crimes. What that serious misfeasance does is forego the critical deterrent an investigation and prosecutions would have ensured. The absence of deterrent ensures that future Executive administrations will perform with similar disregard for the law and for the best interests of the Nation.

Also, Obama's willingness to appoint some of those who actively participated in the destruction of the Economy, namely Summers, Geithner and Paulson, to posts which affect the Economy in critical ways shows him to be a Wall Street puppet.

Obama's management style is two tiny steps forward for every giant step backward. I am quite frankly tired of his bullshit and I wish the DNC would give us another candidate for 2012. Someone like Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown or Elizabeth Warren. Someone who is willing to do the things that need to be done.

Obama's main concern is his future after leaving Office and for that reason he carefully avoids stepping on the wrong toes. In that regard he is analogous to a general who is unwilling to go to war.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lakota- you are also misled on this. They NEVER would be able to pass single payer- get real.

I never said they COULD pass it. I still believe single-payer (Medicare for all) is best. Government runs Medicare better than private insurance companies - even with the fraud and abuse - which doesn't come from recipients.

Why do people keep spouting that like it is the truth? The government does not run Medicare better than any private system, what they do is report the administrative costs as a percentage of total spending. Since Medicare spends more money because of that waste and fraud you mentioned, and because everyone in Medicare is older, and therefore less healthy, than private plans, that number is smaller than the percentage private plans spend on administrative costs.

If we compare cost per patient we see that administrative costs per beneficiary is actually almost 50% higher than what private insurers spend. Not even a Progressive can use those figures to argue that the government is more efficient than private companies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I humbly point you to this post...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/4069788-post125.html

showing that you're full of shit on this claim.

And yet your source clearly points out:

Also, the Affordable Care Act mandates an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans starting in 2018; costs of employer-sponsored health insurance plans that exceed $10,200 for an individual employee or $27,500 for dependent coverage will be subject to a 40 percent tax. Consequently, many plans that exceed the taxable threshold are expected to provide enrollees incentives to enroll in plans with lower premiums and higher cost-sharing requirements. The effect is likely to be a slowdown in the growth of health services, health insurance premiums, and health spending overall. As a result, in our projection both premiums and the use of health services are expected to grow more slowly in 2018 than in the absence of this provision

Limiting the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance is a blunt instrument, but was always projected to be one of the largest drags on rising national health expenditures in the ACA.

You reference an increase in the growth rate of national health expenditures in 2014 without noting that it's clearly identified in the paper as a single-year bump attributable to tens of millions of people gaining coverage for the first time, not a permanent fixture of the health care landscape (that is, the growth rate falls back to earth the following year).

The actuaries' paper does not--and should not--forecast the spending impact of the various cost/quality reforms in the ACA (though forecasts of their effects are not hard to come by). Yet there's already some preliminary evidence (well, and open admissions from certain providers that this is the case) that providers are already cutting costs in anticipation of the implementation of these reforms.

The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.

Yet the government still disagrees.

Amazing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wasn't aware that private insurance companies were running Medicare. ?

Private insurance companies are responsible for about a quarter of Medicare and, contrary to predictions, the privatized portion of Medicare has turned out to be substantially more expensive than traditional Medicare. The silver lining is that they provided the cushions from which hundreds of billions of unnecessary expenditures could be fished out and put toward valuable care.

Do you think that could possibly be because the government expanded eligibility for the Part C plans to rural areas, and that those plans offer better benefits than regular Medicare? Or do you simply want us to believe it is because the government is more efficient?

Not everyone is as stupid as warsaw.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I wasn't aware that private insurance companies were running Medicare. ?

Private insurance companies are responsible for about a quarter of Medicare and, contrary to predictions, the privatized portion of Medicare has turned out to be substantially more expensive than traditional Medicare. The silver lining is that they provided the cushions from which hundreds of billions of unnecessary expenditures could be fished out and put toward valuable care.

Do you think that could possibly be because the government expanded eligibility for the Part C plans to rural areas, and that those plans offer better benefits than regular Medicare? Or do you simply want us to believe it is because the government is more efficient?

Not everyone is as stupid as warsaw.

Democrats believe you are - not only that but they will steal every last breath from you..

You see communism wasn't successful because they weren't in charge of it - Mao, Stalin and Hitler were and they're smarter than those guys.

Just remember nanny state Nancy has everything in control and when she finds out what's in the bill she will support it...

 

[Lakhota]

Wingnuts are scary...

 

[Conservative]

Actually, my story was in FORBES. Where do you get your nonsense? You ass?

The fact you cant counter my information proves what a macro moron you really are. A legend in your own, tiny little mind.

What the democrats are really looking for. The perfect Taxpayer.

Oh, another moron...and your Forbes article contradicts you and agrees with me,dickweed. LOL!!

"You reference an increase in the growth rate of national health expenditures in 2014 without noting that it's clearly identified in the paper as a single-year bump attributable to tens of millions of people gaining coverage for the first time, not a permanent fixture of the health care landscape (that is, the growth rate falls back to earth the following year)."

you really suck at this, you know?

from the article I linked to...

ObamaCare increases Medicaid spending by over 20 percent in 2014 and will bring the program’s total enrollment to 75.6 million people. Over the next eight years, the law increases Medicaid expenditures by a whopping $700 billion.

While the article mentions 2014, and some associated increases, those increases do not simple go away after 2012. It CLEARLY shows that after 2014, Medicade expenditures alone will be $700 billion over the following 8 years (not a single year bump, dick breath).

Remember his oft-repeated statement that his plan would “cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.” As the CBO rightly explained, premiums will rise by $2,100.

That's an increase, moron.

Researchers estimate that health care spending will grow an average of 5.8% per year through 2020.

That too, is an increase, dip shit.


So, the Forbes piece does NOT agree with your asinine assertion that Obamacare controls costs. It drastically increases them. Even a pea brained, mouth breathing clitwhistle like you should be able to do basic math.

 

[Conservative]

I humbly point you to this post...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/4069788-post125.html

showing that you're full of shit on this claim.

And yet your source clearly points out:

Also, the Affordable Care Act mandates an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans starting in 2018; costs of employer-sponsored health insurance plans that exceed $10,200 for an individual employee or $27,500 for dependent coverage will be subject to a 40 percent tax. Consequently, many plans that exceed the taxable threshold are expected to provide enrollees incentives to enroll in plans with lower premiums and higher cost-sharing requirements. The effect is likely to be a slowdown in the growth of health services, health insurance premiums, and health spending overall. As a result, in our projection both premiums and the use of health services are expected to grow more slowly in 2018 than in the absence of this provision

Limiting the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance is a blunt instrument, but was always projected to be one of the largest drags on rising national health expenditures in the ACA.

You reference an increase in the growth rate of national health expenditures in 2014 without noting that it's clearly identified in the paper as a single-year bump attributable to tens of millions of people gaining coverage for the first time, not a permanent fixture of the health care landscape (that is, the growth rate falls back to earth the following year).

The actuaries' paper does not--and should not--forecast the spending impact of the various cost/quality reforms in the ACA (though forecasts of their effects are not hard to come by). Yet there's already some preliminary evidence (well, and open admissions from certain providers that this is the case) that providers are already cutting costs in anticipation of the implementation of these reforms.

The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.

Um, no... my source doesn't say anything like that.

Here is the article I linked to...
Counting Up ObamaCare's Health Cost Inflation - Forbes