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

[Oldstyle]

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 to to war.

You want Bernie Sanders to be our next President? Wow, don't even know how to respond to that one.

As for Bush's "many egregious crimes"? You've been listening to Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann again...haven't you?

 

[mudwhistle]

Is it that hard to check a few facts here and there?

It’s the Obama administration, not the RNC, that said if his stimulus package was passed unemployment would not exceed 8 percent.

Unemployment was already at 8.2% when the stimulus passed, less than a month into his presidency. Romer's projections were based on data that badly underestimated the depth of the recession (which is still coming into focus now). Not that the policy response was sufficiently large enough, even for the problem they thought they were facing--but that's as much a function of the pivot points in Congress as it is Obama's overcautiousness.

It’s Obama who promised to cut the deficit in half.

Deficits have been cut in half:

In CBO’s baseline, cumulative deficits total $3.5 trillion between 2012 and 2021, and by the end of 2021 debt held by the public equals $14.5 trillion, or 61 percent of GDP. That estimate of deficits over the next 10 years is considerably lower than the $6.7 trillion that the agency projected in March.​

It’s Obama who said if we passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the health care cost curve would go down rather than up.

Since the passage of the ACA, Medicare cost growth has fallen markedly. The past two years have in fact seen that curve beginning to bend downward.

What makes this record doubly horrifying is rapid growth is the norm after particularly deep recessions — but under Obama, our recovery has been historically weak.

No, it isn't the norm after deep recessions caused by financial crises: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313270678&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly: Carmen M. Reinhart, Kenneth Rogoff[/ame]


Reading more would be a good first step.

More excuses and false projections from Green Beard.

 

[Conservative]

Is it that hard to check a few facts here and there?

It’s Obama who promised to cut the deficit in half.

Deficits have been cut in half:

In CBO’s baseline, cumulative deficits total $3.5 trillion between 2012 and 2021, and by the end of 2021 debt held by the public equals $14.5 trillion, or 61 percent of GDP. That estimate of deficits over the next 10 years is considerably lower than the $6.7 trillion that the agency projected in March.​

Reading more would be a good first step.

Yes, reading more 'would' be a good idea... especially if you read the paragraph prior to the one you posted...

Deficits and debt over the next 10 years: CBO’s baseline projections incorporate the assumption that current law remains in place so they can serve as a benchmark for policymakers to use in considering possible changes to law. If the recovery continues as CBO expects, and if tax and spending policies unfold as specified in current law, deficits will drop markedly as a share of GDP over the next few years. Under CBO’s baseline projections, deficits fall to 6.2 percent of GDP next year and 3.2 percent in 2013, and they average 1.2 percent of GDP from 2014 to 2021. Those projections incorporate the effects of the deficit reduction measures in the recently enacted Budget Control Act of 2011; they also reflect the sharp increases in revenues that will occur when provisions of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (the 2010 tax act) expire.

That's a lot of if's and assumptions there.

 

[mudwhistle]

President Obama has not at all be a failure.

If he were a Republican every Republican would be wildly cheering his success and pushing to name all sorts of buildings and structures after him.

Ronald Reagan was not only one of the worst presidents in the history of America..he was one of the biggest criminals. He really did commit treason. He really did violate the constitution. He really did break the law. He really did do massive damage to the economy. Yet conservatives hold this man up in the same reverence as the founders of the United States.

It's really quite shocking.

And you really have lost your fricken mind.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

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.

Obama is paid to act like what they believe is real.

He's simply a front-man for their massive scams.

 

[Oldstyle]

Is it that hard to check a few facts here and there?

It’s the Obama administration, not the RNC, that said if his stimulus package was passed unemployment would not exceed 8 percent.

Unemployment was already at 8.2% when the stimulus passed, less than a month into his presidency. Romer's projections were based on data that badly underestimated the depth of the recession (which is still coming into focus now). Not that the policy response was sufficiently large enough, even for the problem they thought they were facing--but that's as much a function of the pivot points in Congress as it is Obama's overcautiousness.



Deficits have been cut in half:

In CBO’s baseline, cumulative deficits total $3.5 trillion between 2012 and 2021, and by the end of 2021 debt held by the public equals $14.5 trillion, or 61 percent of GDP. That estimate of deficits over the next 10 years is considerably lower than the $6.7 trillion that the agency projected in March.​

Since the passage of the ACA, Medicare cost growth has fallen markedly. The past two years have in fact seen that curve beginning to bend downward.

What makes this record doubly horrifying is rapid growth is the norm after particularly deep recessions — but under Obama, our recovery has been historically weak.

No, it isn't the norm after deep recessions caused by financial crises: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313270678&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly: Carmen M. Reinhart, Kenneth Rogoff[/ame]


Reading more would be a good first step.

More excuses and false projections from Green Beard.

Hold on...Obama's promise in '09 was that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Why are you bringing up CBO projections for ten years from now? Unless you know something I don't then Obama's first term ends following the 2012 elections and he's not only failed to cut the deficit in half he's actually increased it substantially.

As for your Medicare curve bending "downwards"? I beg to differ. If you look at your graph the curve is still going up not bending down. The best you could say is that it isn't going up at as steep an angle as before...which is a long ways from something going down.

And then there is Romer and the unemployment numbers. Yes, she substantially misjudged the size of the problem. But how do you miss by the numbers that they missed by? Romer was saying the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8% and it went up over 10%. That's not a little oopsie...that's a full fledged OH SHIT! Gotta love your dogged contention that more stimulus would have brought the unemployment numbers down. Funny how Germany spent far less on stimulus than we did, yet they are back to the same unemployment numbers as before the recession hit.

 

[sitarro]

Right like he was going to stroll off the 18th green and tell the SEALS, CIA, SPECOPS community, the American people and the world ....."No" when they had OBL in the cross hairs.

He had no choice ...once they found OBL he HAD to green light the mission.I still don't understand why or how he is being given such praise for this.Isn't this what he was supposed to do.

It's a lot like the Captain from U.S. Airways that put that Airbus into the Hudson...... what other choice did he have, put it into a bunch of buildings? He basically landed it in the water, the same thing every other pilot would have done. O'Bama had no choice and I believe Hillary told him that she would kick his fag ass if he didn't man up and give the green light. He should have ordered a drone strike on that wreckage that the Chinese now know everything about...... you know, the top secret stealth helicopter that was only partially destroyed in the crash.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

You are just repeating things I have already said in this thread... get your own material please.

Immie

 

[Greenbeard]

from the article I linked to...

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).

Oy, don't they teach kids about derivatives in school anymore? You were talking about a rate of increase--a one-year bump in the rate at which national health spending rises, attributable to an influx of newly-insured folks. Total spending at the end of the decade will be slightly higher because of that temporary increase in the rate of growth (that's how derivatives work) but that's not the same as implying the increased growth rate is a permanent fixture, as opposed to being a number specific to the year 2014.

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.

To repeat: 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). That is, they ignored most of the cost containment and quality improvement pieces of the law--i.e. the majority of the law--in favor of examining only the impact of the coverage pieces. And that's fine, there are good reasons to do that; however, that does have the side effect of confusing folks like yourself.

These projections remain subject to substantial uncertainty given the variable nature of future economic trends and a lack of historical experience for many Affordable Care Act health system reforms. Moreover, “supply-side” impacts of the Affordable Care Act, such as changes in provider behavior in reaction to an influx of newly insured patients, remain highly uncertain and are not estimated at this time.​

As I mentioned, there's already some preliminary evidence (well, and open admissions from certain providers that this is the case) that provider behavior is already beginning to change in favor of new care processes to cut costs. The impacts of these changes would not be captured in an analysis like the CMS actuaries'.

The sky still isn't falling, Chicken Little.

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

Is the CMS actuaries' paper not the basis for everything you've stated thus far? I'm referring to the actual source, not second-hand discussions of it. And yes, due in large part to the ACA's tax treatment of employer-sponsored coverage, at the end of the forecast window they see the start of "a slowdown in the growth of health services, health insurance premiums, and health spending overall."

As for your Medicare curve bending "downwards"? I beg to differ. If you look at your graph the curve is still going up not bending down. The best you could say is that it isn't going up at as steep an angle as before...which is a long ways from something going down.

I hate to break it to you, but barring some sort of catastrophic drop in national income, health spending is always going to monotonically increase. What we're interested in is the rate at which health spending grows, particularly as it compares to GDP growth. Slower growth in health expenditures--"bending the cost curve"--is the goal of any cost containment proposal, not introducing some kind of deflationary epoch in the health sector.

 

[MikeK]

You want Bernie Sanders to be our next President? Wow, don't even know how to respond to that one.

Obviously you don't. So you didn't.

As for Bush's "many egregious crimes"? You've been listening to Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann again...haven't you?

Yes. I've listened to Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore -- and others who refute the lies which the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others daily pump into the minds of those who are made oblivious to the damage done to America since 1980 by corporatist puppets who have infested our government like termites in a log home.

My original comment refers to crimes of the Bush Administration, not only Bush, himself. It refers to criminals beginning with Bush but includes Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, Addington, Perle, Rumsfeld, Powell, et. al. And in case you didn't know it, conspiracy to promote and execute an unprovoked military aggression against a sovereign nation is a crime. So is conspiring to expose an active CIA intelligence operation (Brewster/Jennings in Iran) for the purpose of spitefully compromising an individual operative, Valerie Plame. And it's a crime under International Law to authorize the torture of suspected enemy agents and military captives -- which increases the prospect of our own agents and captured military personnel being subjected to similar treatment.

And you may rest assured that if proper investigations had been conducted and prosecutions commenced the information developed would uncover a range of criminal conduct that would make Watergate seem trivial by comparison. And if you don't know that it's because you've been effectively brainwashed and have become a blinded partisan loyalist.

Too bad. Because you're obviously intelligent enough to know better.

 

[Conservative]

As I mentioned, there's already some preliminary evidence (well, and open admissions from certain providers that this is the case) that provider behavior is already beginning to change in favor of new care processes to cut costs.

As stated previously...

Health Insurance Companies Say That They Plan To Raise Premiums Significantly Because Of The New Health Care Reform Law

Health insurance companies across the United States are announcing that health insurance premiums are going to go up substantially. Why? Well, many of these health insurance companies are openly admitting that they are raising rates because of the mandates contained in Barack Obama's new health care reform law.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the following are just some of the health insurance companies that have announced rate hikes that are at least partially attributed to Obamacare....

*Aetna says that the extra benefits that the new health care reform law is forcing it to cover are behind rate increases for new individual plans of 5.4% to 7.4% in California and 5.5% to 6.8% in Nevada.

*Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon claims that the cost of providing additional benefits under Obamacare will account for 3.4% of a 17.1% premium rise for small employers.

*Celtic Insurance claims that half of a whopping 18% health insurance premium increase it is seeking comes from complying with mandates in the new health care law.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

You are just repeating things I have already said in this thread... get your own material please.

Immie

Material? I call it truth

 

[Immanuel]

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.

You are just repeating things I have already said in this thread... get your own material please.

Immie

Material? I call it truth

So would I since I said it before you.

Although, I did not stoop to calling people that I disagree with racists as you did here:

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

I was kind of shocked when you went there. I had to make sure it was not TDM to whom I was conversing for a moment. But then except for the typo of the missing apostrophe it was spelled correctly so I knew better.

On the other hand, I don't like the racial overtones either. I get kind of pissed at people that are on my side about this issue. But, quite frankly, I keep my mouth shut about it, because I feel like it eggs the jerks on when others confront them about it. Better to just ignore the stupidity and move on, if you ask me. Edit: You sure as hell are not going to change their minds by calling them racists.

Immie

 

[ClosedCaption]

You are just repeating things I have already said in this thread... get your own material please.

Immie

Material? I call it truth

So would I since I said it before you.

Although, I did not stoop to calling people that I disagree with racists as you did here:

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

I was kind of shocked when you went there. I had to make sure it was not TDM to whom I was conversing for a moment. But then except for the typo of the missing apostrophe it was spelled correctly so I knew better.

On the other hand, I don't like the racial overtones either. I get kind of pissed at people that are on my side about this issue. But, quite frankly, I keep my mouth shut about it, because I feel like it eggs the jerks on when others confront them about it. Better to just ignore the stupidity and move on, if you ask me. Edit: You sure as hell are not going to change their minds by calling them racists.

Immie

Wait, how can we both say that we dont like the racial overtones but you only accuse me of calling them racist? Either we both did or we both didnt, right?

 

[Immanuel]

Material? I call it truth

So would I since I said it before you.

Although, I did not stoop to calling people that I disagree with racists as you did here:

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

I was kind of shocked when you went there. I had to make sure it was not TDM to whom I was conversing for a moment. But then except for the typo of the missing apostrophe it was spelled correctly so I knew better.

On the other hand, I don't like the racial overtones either. I get kind of pissed at people that are on my side about this issue. But, quite frankly, I keep my mouth shut about it, because I feel like it eggs the jerks on when others confront them about it. Better to just ignore the stupidity and move on, if you ask me. Edit: You sure as hell are not going to change their minds by calling them racists.

Immie

Wait, how can we both say that we dont like the racial overtones but you only accuse me of calling them racist? Either we both did or we both didnt, right?

No, you called them racists. I called them stupid. But, I didn't stoop to calling them racists. I said that I ignored them. I guess we both did in that respect.

Immie

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

10 Reasons Obama is a bad President

1. The recession of 2008
2. 9/11
3. The war in Iraq
4. The war in Afghanistan
5. Farm subsidies
6. Letting his wife use the Secret Service
7. Asserting command of the Air Force with no Constitutional authority
8. Being born - or not
9. Failure to be able to predict the results of weather events to 100% accuracy
10. He plays golf

 

[Immanuel]

10 Reasons Obama is a bad President

1. The recession of 2008
2. 9/11
3. The war in Iraq
4. The war in Afghanistan
5. Farm subsidies
6. Letting his wife use the Secret Service
7. Asserting command of the Air Force with no Constitutional authority
8. Being born - or not
9. Failure to be able to predict the results of weather events to 100% accuracy
10. He plays golf

Number 10 just makes him an evil person. He plays golf and because of my back, I can't play anymore.

The rest is just hogwash and I have to say that I think you could have come up with a stab at better humor than that.

But, don't ask me too, my jokes suck even more than your attempt did.

Immie

 

[Toro]

What makes this record doubly horrifying is rapid growth is the norm after particularly deep recessions — but under Obama, our recovery has been historically weak.

No, it isn't the norm after deep recessions caused by financial crises: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313270678&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly: Carmen M. Reinhart, Kenneth Rogoff[/ame]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This.

Great book. Explains why we are in the mess we are in, and why traditional policies won't get us out.

 

[Conservative]

It's really quite simple, Betty...Barack Obama was elected to fix the economy, create jobs and reform health care. It's obvious at this point that he doesn't know how to fix the economy or create jobs...and his health care reform that he did get passed? It doesn't lower costs and will bankrupt the nation within 20 years. He's a bad President because he's an incompetent executive who has surrounded himself with equally incompetent subordinates.

what is ur instant fix for the US or the world in fact?

Oldstyle didn't promise to cut the national debt in half in his first term... Obama did.

What is the current National Debt, as compared to when Obama took office?

And the little clitwhistle Sallow negs me for this. Typical little pussy.

Little fuckwad can't handle the truth.

 

[Greenbeard]

As I mentioned, there's already some preliminary evidence (well, and open admissions from certain providers that this is the case) that provider behavior is already beginning to change in favor of new care processes to cut costs.

As stated previously...

Health Insurance Companies Say That They Plan To Raise Premiums Significantly Because Of The New Health Care Reform Law

I say that providers are starting to rethink and redesign care processes to cut costs and you retort with an article blaming 1.3% and 2% of the costs of a couple of individual market Aetna plans on richer benefits? Turing test fail?