Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on September 15, 2009, 05:26:41 AM
-
Opinion: So far, Obama's failing miserably
Tags:Barack Obama, Health Care, George W. Bush, Presidency, GM Back to top Listen Print Comment
POLITICO 44
When he ran for president, George W. Bush promised to be a modest reformer at home and a humble representative of the United States on the world stage. The Al Qaeda-organized-and-funded terrorist attacks of eight years ago changed all that. During his presidency, Bush created massive new government bureaucracies, sent troops into two wars and threatened more as part of America’s war on terror.
Barack Obama’s initial approach to the office of the presidency has been as grandiose as Bush’s was restrained. It’s not hard to recall that he ran as a transformative candidate, promising sweeping, though somewhat fuzzy, “change” during the campaign.
For the first several months of his presidency, Obama has labored to deliver on that pledge. He pushed a controversial stimulus bill through Congress to help rev up the economy, turned Bush’s reluctant bailout of Chrysler and General Motors into a giant government auto buyout and appointed a record number of “czars” to help regulate bureaucracies in both public and formerly private sectors.
Then, Step 2. Obama is trying to fundamentally alter the American economy by backing sweeping environmental, labor and health care legislation. He wants to change the way Americans consume energy, unionize and see their doctors.
So far, he’s failing miserably. Consider the following:
• Cap-and-trade legislation had to limp over the finish line in the House of Representatives with the help of a few moderate Republicans, who then caught holy unshirted hell from their constituents. Environmental legislation generally has taken a drubbing in public opinion polls when people consider how costly it is.
• The Employee Free Choice Act may be stripped of its “card check” provision in the Senate, which would effectively do away with secret ballots for unionization elections. Even in its watered-down form —which still includes highly objectionable, mandatory, binding so-called gunpoint arbitration and makes no concessions to employers who don’t want to have to prop up teetering union pensions — it might not pass the Senate. And the leadership of the House has refused to touch it until the other chamber has made up its mind.
• On health care, forget the rage set off by private citizen Sarah Palin tweeting about “death panels.” Forget the misleading talk about whether there will be a “public option.” (The ever-evolving plan is one giant public option, folks.) Forget the angry voters who crowded into the town halls during the August recess. Forget that a number of Democratic senators and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are still not willing to sign on to a bill. Right now, even after Obama’s address to the joint session of Congress last week, it’s possible Democrats don’t even have the votes in the House — where they currently enjoy a 77-seat majority.
It’s entirely possible — nay, likely — that Obama will lose on all three big issues. He’ll probably take that personally. As he has pushed for the passage of his reforms, his public approval ratings have taken a beating, and voters have started to trust the Republicans more than his party on a host of issues.
The question that most political handicappers are considering right now is not “Will Republicans make gains at the midterm elections?” but “How large will those gains be?”
What all this means is, barring some unforeseeable world event, Obama’s will probably not be a historic presidency. He will have some successes and a lot of failures. His opposition won’t roll over, and his party will refuse to go along with his more costly, and thus risky, schemes. He won’t coast to reelection.
So Obama now has the chance to be the sort of president Bush would have been if the World Trade Center towers had not come down. Here’s hoping he makes the best of it.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27134.html#ixzz0RB2vyhHo
________________________ ________________________ ____________
Its the economy stupid!
Not Cap & Trade, Health Care, Card Check, DADT, DOMA, amnesty for illegals, etc.
-
sooooooooooo
The ultra-lib spank bank Politico is now a reliable source - because one of their opinion writers (who happens to run the Reagan-worship Capital Research Group) disses Obama?
33, you cherry pick which websites are right/wrong based upon when you believe them. hey, where's that ABC News website quote of "2 million"... you have a cache link yet?
-
sooooooooooo
The ultra-lib spank bank Politico is now a reliable source - because one of their opinion writers (who happens to run the Reagan-worship Capital Research Group) disses Obama?
33, you cherry pick which websites are right/wrong based upon when you believe them. hey, where's that ABC News website quote of "2 million"... you have a cache link yet?
We went over this many times 240 as far as the numbers go, it was a mistake by the founder of the march. Until the real figures come out, there is no use discussing it.
BTW - tell me what you disagree with in the article?
Card Check?
Cap & Trade?
-
We went over this many times 240 as far as the numbers go, it was a mistake by the founder of the march. Until the real figures come out, there is no use discussing it.
DC police put the numbers at 60k. I think that's the most real numbers you're gonna get. The organizer found numbers on ABC's website that no one else in America saw. It smells like a lie, and if ACORN's president came out and said he got 30 million people to attend the Obama inauguration (same 20X exaggeration), you'd be throwing pigs blood from the ceiling, screaming about it
BTW - tell me what you disagree with in the article?
I don't disagree with anything actually. I just find it hilarious you suddenly use POLITICO as a legit source, when normally people on the right call it a left-wing J/O page.
-
DC police put the numbers at 60k. I think that's the most real numbers you're gonna get. The organizer found numbers on ABC's website that no one else in America saw. It smells like a lie, and if ACORN's president came out and said he got 30 million people to attend the Obama inauguration (same 20X exaggeration), you'd be throwing pigs blood from the ceiling, screaming about it
I don't disagree with anything actually. I just find it hilarious you suddenly use POLITICO as a legit source, when normally people on the right call it a left-wing J/O page.
Notice not ONE arrest during the march and they left it cleaner then when they got there.Want to compare that to the million man march?Any MSNBC reports on that?
By the way,the "million man march" was exaggerated to the max.NO ONE cares.
-
Notice not ONE arrest during the march and they left it cleaner then when they got there.Want to compare that to the million man march?Any MSNBC reports on that?
By the way,the "million man march" was exaggerated to the max.NO ONE cares.
yeah, I thought it was 400k at the mil man march. What's that have to do with the price of eggs in china? If those organizers lied about the attendance, they are douchebags too. Two wrongs don't make a right.
-
yeah, I thought it was 400k at the mil man march. What's that have to do with the price of eggs in china? If those organizers lied about the attendance, they are douchebags too. Two wrongs don't make a right.
The point is simple.EVERY organiser lies about the success of an event they promote.Ever hear Donald Trump talk?Even his shit stains are a work of art according to him.You act as though its a right wing attempt to skew the news when,in fact,every event has the exact same thing happen.
-
The point is simple.EVERY organiser lies about the success of an event they promote.
Were Malkin and all the other right-wing news sites wrong for not knowing this?
-
Opinion: So far, Obama's failing miserably
Tags:Barack Obama, Health Care, George W. Bush, Presidency, GM Back to top Listen Print Comment
POLITICO 44
When he ran for president, George W. Bush promised to be a modest reformer at home and a humble representative of the United States on the world stage. The Al Qaeda-organized-and-funded terrorist attacks of eight years ago changed all that. During his presidency, Bush created massive new government bureaucracies, sent troops into two wars and threatened more as part of America’s war on terror.
Barack Obama’s initial approach to the office of the presidency has been as grandiose as Bush’s was restrained. It’s not hard to recall that he ran as a transformative candidate, promising sweeping, though somewhat fuzzy, “change” during the campaign.
For the first several months of his presidency, Obama has labored to deliver on that pledge. He pushed a controversial stimulus bill through Congress to help rev up the economy, turned Bush’s reluctant bailout of Chrysler and General Motors into a giant government auto buyout and appointed a record number of “czars” to help regulate bureaucracies in both public and formerly private sectors.
Then, Step 2. Obama is trying to fundamentally alter the American economy by backing sweeping environmental, labor and health care legislation. He wants to change the way Americans consume energy, unionize and see their doctors.
So far, he’s failing miserably. Consider the following:
• Cap-and-trade legislation had to limp over the finish line in the House of Representatives with the help of a few moderate Republicans, who then caught holy unshirted hell from their constituents. Environmental legislation generally has taken a drubbing in public opinion polls when people consider how costly it is.
• The Employee Free Choice Act may be stripped of its “card check” provision in the Senate, which would effectively do away with secret ballots for unionization elections. Even in its watered-down form —which still includes highly objectionable, mandatory, binding so-called gunpoint arbitration and makes no concessions to employers who don’t want to have to prop up teetering union pensions — it might not pass the Senate. And the leadership of the House has refused to touch it until the other chamber has made up its mind.
• On health care, forget the rage set off by private citizen Sarah Palin tweeting about “death panels.” Forget the misleading talk about whether there will be a “public option.” (The ever-evolving plan is one giant public option, folks.) Forget the angry voters who crowded into the town halls during the August recess. Forget that a number of Democratic senators and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are still not willing to sign on to a bill. Right now, even after Obama’s address to the joint session of Congress last week, it’s possible Democrats don’t even have the votes in the House — where they currently enjoy a 77-seat majority.
It’s entirely possible — nay, likely — that Obama will lose on all three big issues. He’ll probably take that personally. As he has pushed for the passage of his reforms, his public approval ratings have taken a beating, and voters have started to trust the Republicans more than his party on a host of issues.
The question that most political handicappers are considering right now is not “Will Republicans make gains at the midterm elections?” but “How large will those gains be?”
What all this means is, barring some unforeseeable world event, Obama’s will probably not be a historic presidency. He will have some successes and a lot of failures. His opposition won’t roll over, and his party will refuse to go along with his more costly, and thus risky, schemes. He won’t coast to reelection.
So Obama now has the chance to be the sort of president Bush would have been if the World Trade Center towers had not come down. Here’s hoping he makes the best of it.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27134.html#ixzz0RB2vyhHo
________________________ ________________________ ____________
Its the economy stupid!
Not Cap & Trade, Health Care, Card Check, DADT, DOMA, amnesty for illegals, etc.
3333 - do you agree with this article?
-
I agree that Obama's priorities and agenda are really screwed up and that if he continues to push his three main things as outlines in this article he will be a miserable failure.
If he gets his head out of his ass, reads a econ 101 book, and fixes the economy through free market principles, he will succeed, and we all will, as the article indicates.
-
I agree that Obama's priorities and agenda are really screwed up and that if he continues to push his three main things as outlines in this article he will be a miserable failure.
If he gets his head out of his ass, reads a econ 101 book, and fixes the economy through free market principles, he will succeed, and we all will, as the article indicates.
you're aware the article is critical of Obama for not doing more to pass the agenda which you're opposed to right?
-
No, its about his main three issues not being popular, not being paid for, and having no real support by the Senate and Congress.
-
you're aware the article is critical of Obama for not doing more to pass the agenda which you're opposed to right?
HA!
-
you're aware the article is critical of Obama for not doing more to pass the agenda which you're opposed to right?
From the article:
As he has pushed for the passage of his reforms, his public approval ratings have taken a beating, and voters have started to trust the Republicans more than his party on a host of issues.
________________________ ________________________ _____
From that statement, how do you come to the conclusion that the author is accusing Obama of not pudhing hard enough?
-
No, its about his main three issues not being popular, not being paid for, and having no real support by the Senate and Congress.
you know what, in retrospect I kind of agree with you. The American people did not give the Dems White House and a majority in Congress so they could sit around and try to reconcile with the Repubs or even with conservative Dems in their own party. When the Repubs were in office they treated the Dems like dog shit and didn't waste any energy trying to consider or in incorporate their point of view. Shit, Tom DeLay spent most of his time intimidating members of his own party into voting the party line (a favorite tactic was basically flat out extortion of threatening to support a challenger in the Republican primary).
I agree with Van Jones that Repubs knew how be ASSHOLES and push through their agenda (that's what the asshole comment was about - if was a fucking compliment).
Obama needs to learn to be an asshole and he needs to learn it soon. Teabaggers/Birthers and 333 types will never approve of anything he does so he needs to stop trying to be their friends and he needs to be an asshole with the Dems who road his coat-tails into office and are now not willing to carry water to fulfill his agenda.
-
The minute Obama called people like me "bitter clingers", that was it. You are right, I will NEVER SUPPORT his agenda.
If we are attacked by a terrorist or some crap like that, I will support any efforts he takes to get retribution, etc, however, as far as cap & tax, card check etc, you are right, I will NEVEr be on board for that.
-
you know what, in retrospect I kind of agree with you. The American people did not give the Dems White House and a majority in Congress so they could sit around and try to reconcile with the Repubs or even with conservative Dems in their own party. When the Repubs were in office they treated the Dems like dog shit and didn't waste any energy trying to consider or in incorporate their point of view. Shit, Tom DeLay spent most of his time intimidating members of his own party into voting the party line (a favorite tactic was basically flat out extortion of threatening to support a challenger in the Republican primary).
I agree with Van Jones that Repubs knew how be ASSHOLES and push through their agenda (that's what the asshole comment was about - if was a fucking compliment).
Obama needs to learn to be an asshole and he needs to learn it soon. Teabaggers/Birthers and 333 types will never approve of anything he does so he needs to stop trying to be their friends and he needs to be an asshole with the Dems who road his coat-tails into office and are now not willing to carry water to fulfill his agenda.
You are missing one point here, If the POTUS and congress just decide to "go it alone" and push all this shit through and it fucks the country up, which it will , they are left holding the bag. They can't say it was bi-partisan, they own it and they know it will cost them for the next 20 years.
-
The minute Obama called people like me "bitter clingers", that was it. You are right, I will NEVER SUPPORT his agenda.
If we are attacked by a terrorist or some crap like that, I will support any efforts he takes to get retribution, etc, however, as far as cap & tax, card check etc, you are right, I will NEVEr be on board for that.
you mean that quote before the election which I think was about clinging to guns and religion
you felt he was talking to you there?
-
you mean that quote before the election which I think was about clinging to guns and religion
you felt he was talking to you there?
I am not a religious person, but I take the Bill of Rights very serious, as Dear Leader does not. He is a POS who look down on everyone and really has never done damn thing in his life to hold such views.
This MARXIST wants us all to let go of the consitution and freedom so he can enact his MARXIST goals and impose the NannyState on us.
No thanks Straw.
-
You are missing one point here, If the POTUS and congress just decide to "go it alone" and push all this shit through and it fucks the country up, which it will , they are left holding the bag. They can't say it was bi-partisan, they own it and they know it will cost them for the next 20 years.
you mean like Bush OWNS the failures of 911, the Iraq and Afghanistan war and the near financial destruction of this country
ok - I see your point but if Obama's agenda is a success then he'll be the sole owner of that too
it's a matter of doing what you believe.
If Obama didn't think his agenda was going to be good for the country then he shouldn't have run.
If he believes it will be good for the country then he should push it through and stop wasting time appealing to people who will never compromise and ONLY want him to fail.
-
I am not a religious person, but I take the Bill of Rights very serious, as Dear Leader does not. He is a POS who look down on everyone and really has never done damn thing in his life to hold such views.
This MARXIST wants us all to let go of the consitution and freedom so he can enact his MARXIST goals and impose the NannyState on us.
No thanks Straw.
ok well I guess you're just a bitter person then.
I mean why else would you be offended by "bitter clingers" (by the way - how about the real quote instead of the usual mangled paraphrase)
-
you mean like Bush OWNS the failures of 911, the Iraq and Afghanistan war and the near financial destruction of this country
ok - I see your point but if Obama's agenda is a success then he'll be the sole owner of that too
it's a matter of doing what you believe.
If Obama didn't think his agenda was going to be good for the country then he shouldn't have run.
If he believes it will be good for the country then he should push it through and stop wasting time appealing to people who will never compromise and ONLY want him to fail.
________________________ ________________________ __
We dont live in a dictatorship you fool.
We have three branches of govt, not a King.
If Obama's agenda was so good, surely even his own party would support it?
-
ok well I guess you're just a bitter person then.
I mean why else would you be offended by "bitter clingers" (by the way - how about the real quote instead of the usual mangled paraphrase)
Let's see- looking down on people who value the 2nd amendment?
Why would anyone be upset over that right?
-
__________________________________________________
We dont live in a dictatorship you fool.
We have three branches of govt, not a King.
If Obama's agenda was so good, surely even his own party would support it?
most of his party does support him.
he needs to completely ignore Repubs and reign in the pussies in his own party who were happy to ride his coat-tails when they were running for election/re-election.
-
Let's see- looking down on people who value the 2nd amendment?
Why would anyone be upset over that right?
33, you rich NYer...
I lived in a trailer park 5 years ago.
YES YES YES people who live there DO cling to their guns and religion, and they're plenty pissed off about it. Everybody has a gun, many on their porch, cause they aren't safe there. Many of them die young, cause they're poor and healthcare is terrible, so they are praying a lot more than people who are rich and plan on seeing 80+.
I grew up in the projects, lived in a trailer park until 17, then again in my late 20s. YES I know what poor people think. Guns and God, you bet your ass they hold those close.
-
most of his party does support him.
he needs to completely ignore Repubs and reign in the pussies in his own party who were happy to ride his coat-tails when they were running for election/re-election.
So stop bitching. The dems have a huge majority in both house and the WH.
If Obama's agenda was so good, why is the dem party not willing to ram this through as you want?
-
33, you rich NYer...
I lived in a trailer park 5 years ago.
YES YES YES people who live there DO cling to their guns and religion, and they're plenty pissed off about it. Everybody has a gun, many on their porch, cause they aren't safe there. Many of them die young, cause they're poor and healthcare is terrible, so they are praying a lot more than people who are rich and plan on seeing 80+.
I grew up in the projects, lived in a trailer park until 17, then again in my late 20s. YES I know what poor people think. Guns and God, you bet your ass they hold those close.
Which is their rights under the 1st and 2nd amendment.
Why should they be looked down upon for that?
-
Which is their rights under the 1st and 2nd amendment.
Why should they be looked down upon for that?
Did he look down on them?
What exactly did he say, and why did it piss them off?
-
you mean like Bush OWNS the failures of 911, the Iraq and Afghanistan war and the near financial destruction of this country
ok - I see your point but if Obama's agenda is a success then he'll be the sole owner of that too
it's a matter of doing what you believe.
If Obama didn't think his agenda was going to be good for the country then he shouldn't have run.
If he believes it will be good for the country then he should push it through and stop wasting time appealing to people who will never compromise and ONLY want him to fail.
I'm not going to get into the wars at this point, but the policies that have lead to the near financial destruction of the country started long before GWB was POTUS, I would go back as far as Nixon, some would go back to FDR.
No one is exactly sure what the POTUS believes, he speaks in vague generalities.
How is cap and trade good for the country?
How is card check good for the country?
How is a government run healthcare system good for the country?
All these questions remain un answered by the POTUS, he gives speaches and says nothing.
When it comes right down to it, the government answers to us, not the other way around. People are speaking out and the Politicians in their ivory towers don't know what to do, how dare the surfs question them.
-
So stop bitching. The dems have a huge majority in both house and the WH.
If Obama's agenda was so good, why is the dem party not willing to ram this through as you want?
because they don't have a hive-mind like Republicans and the Dem leaders (Pelosi, Reid) suck and need to be replaced.
-
because they don't have a hive-mind like Republicans and the Dem leaders (Pelosi, Reid) suck and need to be replaced.
Well, contact your reps and speak your mind like I do.
Notice how I contacted all my repas about Acorn like many others, and whola, the Senate defunded ACORN.
I even posted the letter I wrote to Schumer and Gillibrand.
-
I'm not going to get into the wars at this point, but the policies that have lead to the near financial destruction of the country started long before GWB was POTUS, I would go back as far as Nixon, some would go back to FDR.
No one is exactly sure what the POTUS believes, he speaks in vague generalities.
How is cap and trade good for the country?
How is card check good for the country?
How is a government run healthcare system good for the country?
All these questions remain un answered by the POTUS, he gives speaches and says nothing.
When it comes right down to it, the government answers to us, not the other way around. People are speaking out and the Politicians in their ivory towers don't know what to do, how dare the surfs question them.
why ignore the war?
Bush ignored all the warnings that led to 911 and then chose to invade a country that had nothing to do with it while letting Osama get away.
He's owns that 100%. Shit, let's take a page from 333 and say 100000%
I'm undecided at this point on Cap & Trade
Card Check or Employee Free Choice Act? - the Free Choice act would make it more difficult for employers to intimidate workers who want join unions
Govt Run Healthcare? - well Medicare is not actually government run health care (the means of production is not owned by the government) but it works pretty damn well - no pre-existing conditions, see whatever doctor you'd like, etc..
-
why ignore the war?
Bush ignored all the warnings that led to 911 and then chose to invade a country that had nothing to do with it while letting Osama get away.
He's owns that 100%. Shit, let's take a page from 333 and say 100000%
I'm undecided at this point on Cap & Trade
Card Check or Employee Free Choice Act? - the Free Choice act would make it more difficult for employers to intimidate workers who want join unions
Govt Run Healthcare? - well Medicare is not actually government run health care (the means of production is not owned by the government) but it works pretty damn well - no pre-existing conditions, see whatever doctor you'd like, etc..
I'm not ignoring the war, just didn't want to get the topic derailed. But if you want to go there fine, I can say that Clinton ignored all the warning signs to, like the 93 WTC, Kobar Towers, USS cole, embassies in africa and the list goes on. What did Clinton do to stop Al Queda?
Bush owns the wars, he made the decision. But to say any country in the ME doesn't in some way give support to terrorist organizations is naive at best.
Cap and Trade is bullshit, how is destroying what little manufacturing we have left in the country good for it?
Card Check is a union scam
Medicare covers a small percentage of the population about 14% and it is estimated to cost some 500 billion a year by 2012, how much is covering 100% of the population going to cost? Yeah maybe it makes everyone feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but the US cannot afford it.
-
What all this means is, barring some unforeseeable world event, Obama’s will probably not be a historic presidency. He will have some successes and a lot of failures. His opposition won’t roll over, and his party will refuse to go along with his more costly, and thus risky, schemes. He won’t coast to reelection.
I agree with this.