Stuff Republicans say.

[Shadow Wolf]

Yeah, I guess that Obama being a "rock star" was what got him elected, not competence.

What rock star image? He mobilized the youth vote, the Republicans pretty much took care of the minority vote for him, and he forced the Republicans to realize they can't depend on a white majority to pull them through anymore, especially when those born during the past 34 years or so have increasingly turned away from social Conservativism and towards the Democrats or Libertarians. No "rock star" required when you look take the time to look into it.

 

[metis]

Yeah, I guess that Obama being a "rock star" was what got him elected, not competence.

How could he have "competence" being president when he wasn't president in 2008, and it appears that the public though he was competent enough to vote for him versus whom you wanted in 2012.

 

[metis]

And just what has Obama done that you think is such a "good job".

He successfully got passed the ACA that helps many millions of Americans and has helped keep medical costs down. He has tried his best to bring back troops so as they not come home in body-bags, and he has tried to keep us out of unilateral wars whereas we have to shoulder almost the entire burden. He has helped lower the unemployment rate, helped the stock market rebound, and helped do so with little inflation. How much more could have been done if the Pubs actually had tried to help out their fellow Americans.

So, please tell us exactly what have the Republicans done to help much of anything except themselves? It has become quite obvious that they consider their own party to be far more important that the plight of Americans. No, it's not being "conservative"-- it's being self-centered and selfish at the expense of a majority Americans.

 

[esmith]

Second question first - Democrats can filibuster everything in the Senate just like the Republicans are doing now without a majority.

Well not exactly. You do recall the Democrats passed the "Nuclear Option"

As far as his accomplishments, I think In Defense of Obama | Rolling Stone is a good list. One point - I would have liked a better health care law, but passing the REPUBLICAN health care plan over the opposition of the Republican party was a good first step. Sure it's imperfect but given how badly the USA has ranked in health care, it's a start.

Rolling Stone Magazine? Give me a break. Try a unbiased source...which there isn't any.

He also kept us out of a depression. And more - see the article I referenced.

Yeah, with the middle class losing and the top 1% gaining. Highest real unemployment (U6) in the past 20 years. ( Source U6 Unemployment Rate | MacroTrends). A steadily falling middle income average (source By the Numbers: The Incredibly Shrinking American Middle Class | BillMoyers.com) Highest number people on food stamps. (source Food Stamps Charts). And this is only the domestic policies, you really don't want to get into his foreign policy fubars.

 

[metis]

Yeah, with the middle class losing and the top 1% gaining. Highest real unemployment (U6) in the past 20 years. ( Source U6 Unemployment Rate | MacroTrends). A steadily falling middle income average (source By the Numbers: The Incredibly Shrinking American Middle Class | BillMoyers.com) Highest number people on food stamps. (source Food Stamps Charts). And this is only the domestic policies, you really don't want to get into his foreign policy fubars.

And you honestly think this is mainly Obama's fault?

 

[Revoltingest]

And you honestly think this is mainly Obama's fault?

I need to butt in....
If Obama is to be credited for all that appears positive, then why is he not responsible
for the negative? In fact, it's more complex than who is prez at any point in time.
Our economic malaise was a long time coming, with bi-partisan support for poor
public policies leading to it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I need to butt in....
If Obama is to be credited for all that appears positive, then why is he not responsible
for the negative? In fact, it's more complex than who is prez at any point in time.
Our economic malaise was a long time coming, with bi-partisan support for poor
public policies leading to it.

But who here has said that he isn't responsible for the negatives on his watch? I'm fine with the fact that he took on the negetive responsibilities of the previous administration and has been able to turn many of those negetives into positives and continues to do so. No one is giving a pass on his foul ups.

 

[Revoltingest]

But who here has said that he isn't responsible for the negatives on his watch?

What isn't said speaks so loudly.

I'm fine with the fact that he took on the negetive responsibilities of the previous administration and has been able to turn many of those negetives into positives and continues to do so.

You're still blaming Bush & giving Obama credit for solving that which isn't solved.
Those 2 look so similar to me.

No one is giving a pass on his foul ups.

Silence about them has the same effect.

 

[metis]

But who here has said that he isn't responsible for the negatives on his watch? I'm fine with the fact that he took on the negetive responsibilities of the previous administration and has been able to turn many of those negetives into positives and continues to do so. No one is giving a pass on his foul ups.

Agreed. In most economic areas, the pres has only a limited effect, and the general rule of thumb is that it takes about three years before a particular economic impact may be felt. However, there are exceptions to the rule, such as both Bush's and Obama's actions with the banks and the American auto manufacturers. If they had both not been "bailed out", we could be very much in the economic pits right now.

But what does beg the question is how much further our economy may have recovered if the "Party of No" had actually cooperated more, and we'll never really know the answer to that question. What is so pathetic was how many Pubs had photo-opts with ribbon-cutting ceremonies for the stimulus-package projects that they voted against.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What isn't said speaks so loudly.

But it doesn't negate what I said. Many of us have been critical of the administration on various issues.

You're still blaming Bush & giving Obama credit for solving that which isn't solved.
Those 2 look so similar to me.

Are you "inferring" the way you accuse others? Where did I blame "Bush"? I cited the lack of responsibility of the previous administration. Nothing n my comment was about Bush directly and nothing in my comment was historically inaccurate....There was in fact a lack of responsibility in the previous administration that was inherited by the incoming administration which they had to deal with. Since much more needs to be done I in no way said that we are back "whole" but I'm OK with many of those negatives being turned into positives under this administraton.

Silence about them has the same effect.

You're "inferring" again. There are numerous threads here at RF where myself and others have brought up or commented on the foul ups of the administration.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Agreed. In most economic areas, the pres has only a limited effect, and the general rule of thumb is that it takes about three years before a particular economic impact may be felt. However, there are exceptions to the rule, such as both Bush's and Obama's actions with the banks and the American auto manufacturers. If they had both not been "bailed out", we could be very much in the economic pits right now.

But what does beg the question is how much further our economy may have recovered if the "Party of No" had actually cooperated more, and we'll never really know the answer to that question. What is so pathetic was how many Pubs had photo-opts with ribbon-cutting ceremonies for the stimulus-package projects that they voted against.

Agreed..!!!

 

[Revoltingest]

But it doesn't negate what I said. Many of us have been critical of the administration on various issues.

The many who aren't silent are still largely silent.
An example is Obama being given a pass for what Snowden has exposed.
Many will agree with me about Snowden's proper action, but won't call
Obama's responsibility for the surveillance state & persecution of Snowden.

Are you "inferring" the way you accuse others? Where did I blame "Bush"?

You did this in your 12:37pm post.
Some inferences are more accurate than others.
Is this a reference to the time I vigorously defended Obama's right to free speech,
& you bizarrely inferred that I opposed it? I remember "opposite day" quite well.

I cited the lack of responsibility of the previous administration. Nothing n my comment was about Bush directly and nothing in my comment was historically inaccurate....There was in fact a lack of responsibility in the previous administration that was inherited by the incoming administration which they had to deal with. Since much more needs to be done I in no way said that we are back "whole" but I'm OK with many of those negatives being turned into positives under this administraton.

The "previous administration" was not Bush's?

You're "inferring" again. There are numerous threads here at RF where myself and others have brought up or commented on the foul ups of the administration.

Isolated criticism does not remove a recurring theme of supporting Obama & blaming Bush.
I don't see the significant differences between them that you do. And then, we have Congress
as a larger player in what unfolds before us. Where you might view politics as being about
the party nominally in charge at the time of events in question, I see a larger system with
a phase lag in effects, so blame will be widely cast.

 

[Alceste]

And just what has Obama done that you think is such a "good job". As far as your comment that if non-Democrat wins in 2016 the Democrats should sabotage and frustrate that person.....if a non-Democrat wins the Presidency what gives you the idea that Democrats would have control over one or both legislative branches of Congress.

He didn't invade Iran. The next republican president very probably will.

 

[esmith]

He didn't invade Iran. The next republican president very probably will.

Speculation is just as bad as hindsight.

 

[tytlyf]

Yeah, with the middle class losing and the top 1% gaining. Highest real unemployment (U6) in the past 20 years. ( Source U6 Unemployment Rate | MacroTrends).

Stop voting republican if you want to see the middle class start thriving. As far as the U6 unemployment, that award goes to Bush.

A steadily falling middle income average (source By the Numbers: The Incredibly Shrinking American Middle Class | BillMoyers.com)

Another reason I don't vote republican. They aren't the party of the middle class.

Highest number people on food stamps. (source Food Stamps Charts).

Yep, as I've mentioned, want less people on public assistance? Raise the fed minimum wage (stagnant)

 

[freethinker44]

How many people even assume that most Christians are terrorist?

I've been saying it for years.

Fundies are like the Christian Taliban, and moderates enable them. By themselves, fundamentalists don't have the numbers to achieve anything politically, but because moderate Christians keep voting in these ultra-conservative, ultra-religious extremists they've been able to pretty much take over half of the government.

 

[Revoltingest]

While I'd like to vote against him, it's not worth moving there.

Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, described Snowden’s actions “not as one of patriotism but potentially a felony” in a message on his Twitter account. Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, said Snowden’s leak of classified information constitutes “treason.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com House, Senate Republicans Demand Snowden's Arrest, Prosecution
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
​

 

[esmith]

Stop voting republican if you want to see the middle class start thriving. As far as the U6 unemployment, that award goes to Bush.(/quote)
Can't read charts I see.

Another reason I don't vote republican. They aren't the party of the middle class.

Then why is it that for the past 10 years has the tops 10% have had the most gains in income. Answer.....the stock market

Yep, as I've mentioned, want less people on public assistance? Raise the fed minimum wage (stagnant)

So increasing the wage of 4.3% of hourly wage earners is going to really help the economy?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The many who aren't silent are still largely silent.
An example is Obama being given a pass for what Snowden has exposed.
Many will agree with me about Snowden's proper action, but won't call
Obama's responsibility for the surveillance state & persecution of Snowden.

Not everyone is going to be upset over the same thing at the same time and I recall many being upset and speaking out over this. I believe congress wrote and passed some bills about the situation and it was bipartisan.

You did this in your 12:37pm post.
Some inferences are more accurate than others.

Where did I mention "Bush's" name? You specifically said I was blaiming "Bush" yet my post didn't contain his name at all......which means your inference was wrong.

Is this a reference to the time I vigorously defended Obama's right to free speech,
& you bizarrely inferred that I opposed it? I remember "opposite day" quite well.

Why are you backpeddling and bringing up something that has nothing to do with you saying I was blaming Bush when I NEVER mentioned the man's name....??????

The "previous administration" was not Bush's?

What are you even talking about.

Isolated criticism does not remove a recurring theme of supporting Obama & blaming Bush.

But I never mentioned Bush by name. When I said (previous administration) it was in reference to the overall decisions and policies. You brought up Bush....not me...

I don't see the significant differences between them that you do.

So what. This has been obvious for a while now. We all see the similarities between the two but we can also see some obvious differences. This is a known fact with every administration.

 

[freethinker44]

So increasing the wage of 4.3% of hourly wage earners is going to really help the economy?

You wouldn't be raising the wage of just 4.3% of workers, you would be raising the wage of everyone who gets paid below the intended increase. For example, if we increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour we wouldn't be just boosting 4.3% of earners, we would be boosting nearly 40% of earners.

So it depends on what we are raising the wage to. $8.00 per hour? No, that would neither help the economy nor the people getting the increase. $15.00 per hour? Yes, giving 40% of the workforce a livable wage would absolutely help the economy.

Think of it like "trickle up economics". It's sort of like trickle down economics except since the money would be going to the poor instead of the wealthy nearly all of it would be immediately reinvested in local economies rather than a percentage of it invested globally and the rest hoarded.