Obama: Dead in the Water...is it true?

[dcmark]

You are characterizing me incorrectly. You need to go back and do a lot of reading. You'll find your errors. I contend it is the fault of any government official without virtue or who is incompetent or reckless. I've said this numerous times. I don't support anyone from either party who does things that damage America through unconstitutional activity, stifling free enterprise, or denying individual liberty -- or trying to grow big government.

You know what I find remarkable? That people whine and complain and try to make the characterization that you made, but no one can refute one single article with any facts or sources or can provide any current programs that don't hurt/damage/penalize others in the process.

I think that you may have missed the point of my post, -- I take responsibility for that, perhaps I wasn't clear. While what you say may be correct, the fact remains that all of the objects of your tirades (and, yes, they do appear that way to me) seem to be Democrats/liberals. You appear, for example, to blame Obama completely for the situations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. But, as you know, these places weren't problem free on his first day in office. Much of the responsibility would properly be assessed to those who preceded him and the current administration. But your analyses never go that far. You blame the incumbents for everything. In my view, that's simply not accurate.

[dcmark]

Congress attempted to nationalize health care in America at the behest of Obama. That Congress was thrown out 18 months later.

That's the way it's supposed to work. If the voters don't like what's happening, they get regular opportunities to change the governmental leaders.


The economy is roaring in objection to over-reaching regulations and government policies that are stagnating private sector growth.

Or, viewed with a different bias, the economy is roaring (to whatever extent it is) because of the current administration's policies. The current administration has been in for a number of years, now, and the economy is roaring. Proving that it is either because of or in spite of the current administration's policies will both be very difficult.


The deficit continues to increase by the second and is approaching $17 Trillion.

And the deficit wasn't increasing under most or all previous administrations for the past, say, 50 years? And has there been a President in that time, of either major party, who hasn't promised to reduce the deficit? Why single out Obama?


That does not include the deficits of unfunded liabilities (welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, et al) which could be as high as $100 Trillion based on some estimates.

All of which existed long before the current administration came into office.


“I care about one thing and one thing only, and that’s how to use every minute of the 1,276 days remaining in my term to make this country work for working Americans again,” Obama promised in a long speech at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois.

And then he went back to the White House to pack for his vacation.

Please. He's entitled to take time out for vacations, just like you and all other people. While I haven't gone back and counted days, my gut tells me that he has taken less vacation time than some of his predecessors, some of whom were Republicans.

The fact is that Obama isn't substantially better or substantially worse than most of our Presidents have been. The government is working exactly as it is supposed to. The three branches of our government provides the checks and balances for each other as originally envisioned. When the voters don't like what elected officials do, they exercise their right to vote and make changes.

[WBU ALUM]

You are characterizing me incorrectly. You need to go back and do a lot of reading. You'll find your errors. I contend it is the fault of any government official without virtue or who is incompetent or reckless. I've said this numerous times. I don't support anyone from either party who does things that damage America through unconstitutional activity, stifling free enterprise, or denying individual liberty -- or trying to grow big government.

You know what I find remarkable? That people whine and complain and try to make the characterization that you made, but no one can refute one single article with any facts or sources or can provide any current programs that don't hurt/damage/penalize others in the process.

I think that you may have missed the point of my post, -- I take responsibility for that, perhaps I wasn't clear. While what you say may be correct, the fact remains that all of the objects of your tirades (and, yes, they do appear that way to me) seem to be Democrats/liberals. You appear, for example, to blame Obama completely for the situations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. But, as you know, these places weren't problem free on his first day in office. Much of the responsibility would properly be assessed to those who preceded him and the current administration. But your analyses never go that far. You blame the incumbents for everything. In my view, that's simply not accurate.

You speak in generalities. Perhaps you should be specific with a list. For example, where do I blame Obama completely for Iraq and Afghanistan? Or do I blame him for what he's doing or not doing now?

I am well aware that Obama didn't put us there, and I have never said that everything there is his fault. What he does or doesn't do is his fault.

[WBU ALUM]

Congress attempted to nationalize health care in America at the behest of Obama. That Congress was thrown out 18 months later.

That's the way it's supposed to work. If the voters don't like what's happening, they get regular opportunities to change the governmental leaders.

It did, and they did. So what's your point? What I stated was fact. I guess you agree.

The economy is roaring in objection to over-reaching regulations and government policies that are stagnating private sector growth.

Or, viewed with a different bias, the economy is roaring (to whatever extent it is) because of the current administration's policies. The current administration has been in for a number of years, now, and the economy is roaring. Proving that it is either because of or in spite of the current administration's policies will both be very difficult.

Please point out specifically what is roaring successfully. Sources would be nice, too. I have pointed out numerous things in this thread with data and facts that are not roaring. The economy is stagnant or getting worse in the majority of areas. I'm not posting them again. Go read, and then refute them.

The deficit continues to increase by the second and is approaching $17 Trillion.

And the deficit wasn't increasing under most or all previous administrations for the past, say, 50 years? And has there been a President in that time, of either major party, who hasn't promised to reduce the deficit? Why single out Obama?

I never said that no other president operated with a deficit. You're posing straw men rather that refuting the specific information that I provided.

Barack Obama said he would not sign anything that would increase the deficit by one dime. He lied. Repeatedly. Barack Obama has also increased the deficit during his administration that nearly equals or exceeds the first 42 presidents combined. Obama is the current president. I operate in current time. I mentioned that to you in a previous post. He is the one doing the damage now. When that changes, I will scrutinize the next one equally.

That does not include the deficits of unfunded liabilities (welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, et al) which could be as high as $100 Trillion based on some estimates.

All of which existed long before the current administration came into office.

Again, I never said it didn't. I am operating in real time and posting facts, and I never said that Obama was responsible for all of it.

Today, America has more people on Welfare and Disability than EVER in the history of the country. There have been dramatic increases in these numbers since Obama has become president. The numbers are in this thread for you to read. I'm not posting them again.

“I care about one thing and one thing only, and that’s how to use every minute of the 1,276 days remaining in my term to make this country work for working Americans again,” Obama promised in a long speech at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois.

And then he went back to the White House to pack for his vacation.

Please. He's entitled to take time out for vacations, just like you and all other people. While I haven't gone back and counted days, my gut tells me that he has taken less vacation time than some of his predecessors, some of whom were Republicans.

The fact is that Obama isn't substantially better or substantially worse than most of our Presidents have been. The government is working exactly as it is supposed to. The three branches of our government provides the checks and balances for each other as originally envisioned. When the voters don't like what elected officials do, they exercise their right to vote and make changes.

It's not about a vacation. It's about speeches and doing nothing. Since the month Obama took office, he has talked about not sleeping until the American People are back to work. He says it in speech after speech. He trots out that line every time there are negatives knocking at his door. It's how he attempts to relate to "the little guy" while he's growing big government and crushing "the little guy."

All you have done here is compared Obama in general terms to past presidents and tried to make it look like I have blamed Obama for all the ills in America. I have blamed Obama for what he only has done.

If you choose to give Obama a pass on everything, and you think he's about average as presidents go ("Obama isn't substantially better or substantially worse than most of our Presidents have been."), you're entitled to your opinion.

You didn't refute any of my specific criticisms of Obama. You just disagreed with my general assessment of Obama; and in some cases, your disagreement was with things that I never said in an attempt to reframe it to fit your opinions.

[WBU ALUM]

America is closing in on $17 Trillion in debt. The annual deficits now exceed the country's total GDP. And we have this type of cronyism coming within ObamaCare ... the good start.

Sen. Menendez announces $565K 'navigator' grant for Urban League of Hudson County
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2013 ... cart_river

Those who support Barack Obama are rewarded by signing up as phony Obamacare ‘navigators’ that will help herd ignorant and confused Americans into healthcare exchanges.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N J) announced that his state scored $2 million in grants for groups willing to help sign fellow citizens up for Obamacare, including $565,000 for the Urban League of Hudson County.

This boosting of navigator grant monies from $54 million to $67 million is nothing but a crony cash giveaway to reward Obama’s supporters with taxpayer-funded kickbacks. Also coming out a big winner in the Obamacare navigator cash dash is abortion provider Planned Parenthood which scored $655,000 in grants to help sign Americans up during Obamcare’s grand opening in six weeks. All of this 'navigator' phoniness is just another opportunity fraud and con artists who will exploit mass confusion

And then Planned Parenthood gets their cut ....

DC Obamacare exchange awards $375k grant to Planned Parenthood
http://washingtonexaminer.com/dc-obamac ... le/2534244

Remember when Obama lied to Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and told him that he'd sign an Executive Order to bar ObamaCare funds for abortion? It had to be a lie because EOs cannot supercede law. Stupak had enough votes from the small minority of pro-life Democrats to derail the whole bill over abortion. Obama then promised an Executive Order barring funds for abortionists, which gave Democrats the votes necessary to send the ObamaCare to the White House for Obama’s signature. Stupak retired rather than face angry constituents in November 2010.

How is that EO working out for taxpayers? Not so well in Obama’s other back yard of Washington, DC.

Washington, D.C.’s health insurance exchange has awarded a $375,000 grant to abortion provider Planned Parenthood to help enroll participants in Obamacare, the exchange announced on Tuesday.

As part of its effort to boost enrollment in the exchange created by President Obama’s health care law, the D.C. Health Benefit Exchange doled out $6.4 million to 35 DC-based groups. Those groups include local churches as well as health care and community organizations.

One of the largest awards went to Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington D.C.

“We are excited to create these partnerships with trusted organizations that have deep roots in the communities that make up the District of Columbia,” Diane C. Lewis, chair of the exchange’s executive board, said in a statement.

The full list in DC: http://hbx.dc.gov/release/dc-health-lin ... h-coverage

Funny enough, the GAO (Government Accountability Office) recently opened an investigation into how Planned Parenthood uses the federal funds it already receives.

Government Accountability Office probing Planned Parenthood
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/g ... 95382.html

Spurred by a group of anti-abortion lawmakers, the Government Accountability Office is investigating how Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, and other prominent family planning-related organizations spend public funds, the GAO confirmed Friday.

More than 50 members of Congress had written in February to Comptroller General and GAO head Gene Dodaro asking the office to follow up on a 2010 GAO report that detailed federal monies provided to the groups. …

The request from lawmakers asked the GAO to look into a list of family planning organizations, including Planned Parenthood, Guttmacher, The Population Council and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, and report the amount of federal funding awarded to them and how that funding was distributed. It also seeks a report on “exactly how many women’s health services including family planning services are provided by community health centers and federally qualified health centers, a comprehensive list of these services, and the number of individuals served in each category.”

Though federal funds can’t be used for abortions, they can be used by groups that provide abortions as long as the money pays for other services.

Several supporters of the request hailed the GAO’s decision to investigate.

“Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide abortions clearly benefit from Uncle Sam, but there’s no accounting to prove how they actually use that money,” Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said in a statement. “This GAO report would shine a light on how our tax dollars are being spent.”

There have been recent cases against abortion providers that have fraudulently over-billed Medicaid, and other family planning programs. This is what also spurred the investigation.

Even though Obama signed that EO fooling Stupak, it did nothing to stop the shell game that allows taxpayer dollars to go to the nation’s largest abortion-mill chains. It continues the deceit that federal funds received by PP have nothing to do with the hundreds of thousands of abortions it conducts each year as its core business.

These payouts by the DC ObamaCare exchange show just how badly Stupak and other pro-life Democrats got fooled in exchange for their votes. Stupak was wise to retire. His ignorance humiliated him.

[LilRed]

DC:


Thought you might kick outta dis one...

OBAMA VS BUSH VACATIONS.jpg (18.94 KiB) Viewed 5385 times

And, this one:

presidents vacation time.jpg (39.58 KiB) Viewed 5385 times

The outta balance rightists jes don't get it. Even though only a tiny fraction of our population, (oh, and, lest we forget, growing smaller daily...) they insist on stridency, and use other less savory tactics. They are making fools outta themselves.

Frankly, I, as are MANY Americans, am real tired of hearing it.

Run, Michelle, run!


ATB

[WBU ALUM]

It's not about a vacation. It's about speeches and doing nothing. Since the month Obama took office, he has talked about not sleeping until the American People are back to work. He says it in speech after speech. He trots out that line every time there are negatives knocking at his door. It's how he attempts to relate to "the little guy" while he's growing big government and crushing "the little guy."

All you have done here is compared Obama in general terms to past presidents and tried to make it look like I have blamed Obama for all the ills in America.

Still not reading, I see.

And it's not about days. Didn't question the days. It's about cost and doing nothing. Again, for those who like to compare the past.



If he worked for the American People as hard as he works for himself and Democrats in fundraising, America would be restored to Economic Liberty and Prosperity.

Obama Is Spending an Unprecedented Amount of Time Fundraising: Scandal?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... al/258526/

Obama works hard for Obama.



Carter - 25 fundraisers in 4 years (6+ per year)
Reagan - 3 in 8 years (less than 0.5 fundraisers per year)
Bush 41 - 24 in 4 years (6 per year)
Clinton - 70 in 8 years (8+ per year in 8 years - less than one per month)
Bush 43 - 86 in 8 years (10+ per year - less than one per month)
Obama - 164 in 4.5 years (32+ per year - 3+ per month)
* At the current pace, Obama will make over 280 fundraisers. Since he's in his second term and doing even less for The People, I predict it will easily top 300 in 8 years in office.

Obama's fundraisers have almost equaled the 5 presidents and 32 years before him in only 4.5 years.

[jackspratt]

And it's not about days. Didn't question the days. It's about cost and doing nothing. Again, for those who like to compare the past. [/color]

And for those who prefer a bit of honesty, rather than tirades, $1.4 billion gets 4 Pinocchios from the Washington Post Fact Check.

The Pinocchio Test

The modern-day White House is certainly an expensive enterprise, and perhaps Bachmann would be on more solid ground if she had framed her concern about presidential perks in a less partisan manner — or if a Republican were president.

But there is big difference between “perks and excess” and security necessary to protect the president. So using the broad $1.4 billion figure is fairly misleading in that context.

Moreover, the money spent on the presidency and the so-called perks she describes appear to be no different for Obama than for Bush or other presidents. It’s absurd to suggest otherwise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

[WBU ALUM]

For those who like to compare ...

When GWB was president, he came under attack by the Washington Post for "a lackadaisical approach to the world's most important day job." Even though the majority of vacation time was spent at his Texas ranch in Crawford or the family home in Maine, the newspaper projected that GWB was going to set a record for being away from DC.

Barack Trayvon Martin Obama vacations in Hawaii, sets up a fantasy golf vacation for himself with Butch Harmon and Tiger Woods, averages more than a vacation a month in 2013, and still has the nerve to say he's looking out for "the little guy." The media is pretty silent about it all. Notice?

GWB spent more time out of DC than Obama, but he wasn't on lavish vacations at the expense of taxpayers, and he wasn't going to three fundraisers a month. In 2005, the Post finally conceded that GWB's vacations were not lavish and that GWB didn't make time for fun.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01703.html

Bush rarely takes the type of vacation one would consider exotic -- or, to some, even appealing ... His notion of relaxation is chopping cedar on his ranch or mountain biking through rough terrain, all in 100-degree-plus temperatures in dusty Texas where crickets are known to roast on the summer pavement. He seems to relish the idea of exposing aides and reporters to the hothouse environment.

Obama travels to Hawaii every winter. The Obama girls have vacationed in the Bahamas with a full Secret Service detail. This all happened when the WH was claiming they could not afford to pay the SS to continue the WH Tours for students on their spring vacations in DC. Yes, the Obamas are Elitists.

The Child Emperor and his Empress have gone to Martha's Vineyard multiple times while the country was in recession and Americans were struggling to find jobs. Moochelle, a possible 2016 presidential candidate, has taken expensive trips to Spain and a ski trip to Aspen. Obama's 13 vacatons in his first 4 years may have only been for 83 days, but they dwarf other president's vacations in expense. Obama's annual vacations to Hawaii alone have cost taxpayers at least $20 million during his first term. In 2011, Moochelle may have cost taxpayers $10 million on vacations just for her and her daughters. Expense even occurred for local law enforcement in Florida for Obama's fantasy golf outing. They had to pay an over-budget amount of $78,205 for security.

http://blogs.golf.com/presstent/2013/02 ... ostly.html

Past presidents have been content to work from home or to visit less lavish locations and far less expense to the American Taxpayer. GWB was attacked as being lazy and disinterested.

The New American Royalty is never called out for their lavish lifestyle on the backs of American workers who are suffering, and the Royals are never called out for wasting money at a time when the federal government is incurring huge deficits.

[LilRed]

JS:


Very nice. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01703.html).

Another example of why most of us are tired of Teabilly wisdom, whingin, lyin, etc...


I am encouraged that there may be hope for otherwise hopeless Teabillies... From one of their "greatest":

ATB

[LilRed]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/20/world ... ?hpt=hp_t3


'Nuf sed?

[LilRed]

Interesting articles on the current state of opinions on President Obama's "Obamacare"....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/1 ... b=facebook

[urlhttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/ ... halls.html][/url]



ATB

[papaguido]

AM funnies

[LilRed]

I'd say Ocare is a real good start at cleaning up a major national shame.

Great thanks and honor are due Seal Team 6 and President Obama in bringing justice to OBL.


This site checks out facts regarding President Obama. Provides a good balance in checking out President Obama's performance. For those of you who disagree, remember the words of a famous man: "Know thine enemies."

http://ofa.bo/HTrLtt


ATB

[parrot]

I can understand the angst about President Obama.....lots of first term promises, the Bengazi/IRS/NSA episodes.......but when I read about opponents such as Cruz and Bentivolio, and the complete waste of time 40 or so attempts at subverting Obamacare (a law), it makes me truly hope that the Republicans go down in smoke in the next election. It's why I have zero respect for the Tea Party and what they stand for.
I'm all for a swift kick in the pants.......but their line of thinking is completely contrary to what I consider the duty of an elected representative. It may be what some consider their 'cup of tea'...but to me, it's unAmerican.
For what it's worth, Maureen Dowd has taken a fair number of shots at the President of late....., so it's not like she's vying for a free night in Lincoln's bedroom.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opini ... es.html?hp

[papaguido]

Here's some more right wing propaganda

33 Shocking Facts Which Show How Badly The Economy Has Tanked Under Obama

Barack Obama has been running around the country taking credit for an "economic recovery", but the truth is that things have not gotten better under Obama. Compared to when he first took office, a smaller percentage of the working age population is employed, the quality of our jobs has declined substantially and the middle class has been absolutely shredded.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-2 ... nder-obama

[jackspratt]

A blog which totally ignores the Global Financial Crisis certainly fits into the category of "propaganda", of whatever wing.

[gudtymchuk]

Here's some more right wing propaganda

33 Shocking Facts Which Show How Badly The Economy Has Tanked Under Obama

Barack Obama has been running around the country taking credit for an "economic recovery", but the truth is that things have not gotten better under Obama. Compared to when he first took office, a smaller percentage of the working age population is employed, the quality of our jobs has declined substantially and the middle class has been absolutely shredded.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-2 ... nder-obama

Yessir, the Idiot President's economy is doing so well he can now afford to get a few more GI's killed in Syria...

[LilRed]

Naw... WE ain't gonna lose men...

We got, dare I say it, DRONES...

DRONES 2.jpg (5.17 KiB) Viewed 4486 times

And, a fine President wid da courage to use them.

Any critics got a better idea? I haven't heard any... cuz, to quote an OLD friend, "They ain't got nothin...".


ATB

[papaguido]

O'funnies