Thread: We Agree Obama is Doing a Shit Job

If this had been the Bush administration, the US would no doubt have responded by invading Syria.

The air strikes seem to have been a success, turning around the advance of Gaddafi's troops, and we have a real western coalition this time- US, UK, & EU. Read and weep neo-cons.

Whilst of course staunch Republicans will always say "We agree President [insert Democrat] is doing a shit job", the yawning dearth of talent they have available to run for President speaks volumes. A lot can change in politics, and a strong contender may yet emerge, but at this stage Obama seems a shoe-in as a second termer.

One of the big differences is the Iraq War was authorized by Congress...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

Who does have the authority to declare war? Have these people who do have the power announced why they are fighting, what the outcome will be and when it will be time to stop the illegal war in Libya.

The UN.

Why do presidents try to dance? They always look ridiculous.

Agree. The only presidents who knew how to dance were Jelzin and Bush.

What a total dick, eh? Obama Releases Statement on Jerusalem Terrorist Bus Bombing – Talks About Palestinian Victims.

The far leftard president released a statement today following the bus station bombing in Jerusalem today. He talked about Palestinian victims.

“The United States calls on the groups responsible to end these attacks at once and we underscore that Israel, like all nations, has a right to self-defense,” he said. “We also express our deepest condolences for the deaths of Palestinian civilians in Gaza yesterday. We stress the importance of calm and urge all parties to do everything in their power to prevent further violence and civilian casualties.”

Here’s more on those innocent Palestinians Obama was talking about.

On Tuesday, IDF forces responded to projectiles fired at Israeli territory from the northern Gaza Strip. The attack took place in the afternoon when projectiles were fired toward the area of the Sha’ar Hanegev Regional Council. In response, IDF forces fired mortars to the point from which rockets were launched resulting in the injury of uninvolved civilians. Among them was the boy taken for medical treatment in Israel today.


Unbelievable...

HARRIS POLL: Obama Would Lose to Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani. The way things are going, by fall 2012 he’d lose to any name you want to pull out of the phone book. One thing interesting re the poll is that the real bad news for Obama is that while 92% of the people aren’t familiar with Thaddeus McCotter (77% don’t even know who he is at all), 43% would still vote for him over Obama.

Originally Posted by sabang

at this stage Obama seems a shoe-in as a second termer.

Granted the Republicans do not have a strong candidate, but as it stands Obama doesn't stand a chance of getting re-elected. He's lost a considerable number of independents. He's lost a good portion of white women. The youth won't bother to vote in 2012 because Obama is no longer hip.

People have seen through Obama. They know he's a fraud. If he hadn't sold himself as a savoir, if he hadn't said, "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal", if he hadn't so outrageously taken advantage of young peoples' naivete and if he hadn't so outrageously taken advantage of young peoples' hopes, then the youth would be more forgiving. They wouldn't consider him a fraud. They'd just consider him another lying politician. But given that he is a fraud the youth won't bother to support him in the same numbers as they did in 2008.

He's going to lose unless he can manage to get some of his stink onto the Republicans. Debbie Wasserman, the head of the DNC, said Obama and the Democrats own this economy. It stinks. The 2011 GDP numbers have been revised. Growth in the second quarter is at 1.3 percent. The first quarter was revised down to a deathbed .4 percent.

Originally Posted by attaboy

Obama and the Democrats own this economy. It stinks.

Like they created it all by themselves? Who the fck's gonna own "this economy" next? Because it AINT gonna get any better...wait 'til we hear "the next one's" pathetic song and dance...

They are actually bulldozing brand new houses because the banks cannot afford to keep them standing...so, brilliantly, once they are all razed, the remaining house values will rise because of the old 'supply and demand.'
Fcking mindboggling...

There is always the scotsman George Brown who allegedly saved the world in 08.

Originally Posted by BaitongBoy

Originally Posted by attaboy

Obama and the Democrats own this economy. It stinks.

Like they created it all by themselves? Who the fck's gonna own "this economy" next? Because it AINT gonna get any better...wait 'til we hear "the next one's" pathetic song and dance...

Originally Posted by attaboy

Debbie Wasserman, the head of the DNC, said Obama and the Democrats own this economy.

CNN's Ed Henry: "My question is at what point does your party own the economy? Is it 3 years after the President took office? Four years? Five to 10 years? Ten to 15 years? At what point do you take ownership?"

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "I think we are clearly responsible for … Uh, uh, I'm going to take ownership right now because we began to turn the economy around."

At this point in time, according to President Obama, given his stimulus package, the US should have an unemployment rate of 6 1/2%. Now is the reason unemployment is not at 6 1/2% Bush's fault? Bush told Obama what to do? It's Bush's fault? All of it?

How long does the new guy keep showing up for work and saying, "It's not my fault. It's my predecessor's fault." How long would any boss in any business put up with a new employee saying that? Especially, if the new employee had just spent $862 billion of the company's cash to turn the business around? And then the new employee asks for more billions of dollars because the initial $862 billion wasn't enough. Doesn't he have any responsibility? Doesn't he own the new project initiated by $862 billion dollars of spending?

When does Obama do his job and state the progress he has made, when does he state the plan he has put in place, when does he report what he is doing and when does he quit pointing the finger at his predecessor?

How soon on the job does he do his job and stop blaming someone else? In the case of the POTUS, it's called the Office of the President, there's a tradition of continuity, from George Washington to Barack Obama. The country continues on when the previous president leaves the Office of the President. The new President takes the reigns he is passed, granted Bush fk'd things up with the help of the rest of the federal government.

Obama wanted the job. He's got the job. Do your job. Quit pointing to the past. You're the President of the United States of America fer chrissakes. It's the most prestigious job in the world. You wanted it. It comes as is with responsibilities. You're whining about how things weren't perfect for you when you were passed the reigns? It's not fair! He could be doing so much better if the country had been in better shape for him!

Grow up. Fill the shoes. The President of the United States doesn't continuously blame the previous administration. That's the media's job. They remind us. You're the President. You're part of the continuity from George Washington to Barack Obama.

"We need to buck up people here," Obama said. "That's what nurses do. It's time for us to buck up the Congress. We need to get this done. These nurses are on board. The American people are on board. It's up to us now."

Yeah, buck up, Mr. President. Do you need the nurses?



Poor Barack, if only things had been perfect for him he'd be doing so much better.

You don’t see this every day…
Democrats are enforcing a filibuster on their own legislation.

Senate Republicans want a 60-vote threshold for a debt-limit bill to pass the chamber, but it’s actually Democrats who are enforcing the filibuster on their own legislation, insisting on delaying a vote until 1 a.m. Sunday morning.
Republicans offered to let the vote happen Friday night, just minutes after the chamber voted to halt a House Republican bill. All sides expect Democrats’ bill will fail too, and the GOP said senators might as well kill both at the same time so that negotiations could move on to a compromise.
“We would be happy to have that vote tonight,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republicans’ leader, offered.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid objected, even though the vote would occur on his own bill. He instead said the chamber would have to run out the full procedural clock, which means a vote in the early hours Sunday morning.
He said he would be willing to move up the vote if Republicans didn’t insist on a 60-vote threshold, which has become traditional for big, controversial items to pass the Senate. But the GOP held firm on that demand, so Mr. Reid said he would insist on the full process, which he said would show the country that Republicans were being obstructionist.


Democrats enforce filibuster against their own debt bill - Washington Times


The country is in the very best of hands...

S&P Executive: It Could Take Up To 18 Years To Fix The Damage Obama Has Done To U.S. Economy

John Chambers, the chairman of Standard & Poor’s sovereign debt ratings, on Sunday estimated that it could take between 9 and 18 years for the nation to regain its AAA credit rating.Chambers said the credit agency could further downgrade the national rating depending on whether President Obama and congressional leaders can agree on reducing the deficit.
Chambers said “it could take a while” for the U.S. to regain its perfect credit rating.


S&P executive says it could take over a decade to restore US credit rating - TheHill.com


If Obama isn't thrown out like a piece of trash he is in 2012, America will definitely be a 4th-world country...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

S&P Executive: It Could Take Up To 18 Years To Fix The Damage Obama Has Done To U.S. Economy

Oh, really?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

John Chambers, the chairman of Standard & Poor’s sovereign debt ratings, on Sunday estimated that it could take between 9 and 18 years for the nation to regain its AAA credit rating

Booner if you ever get the urge to work again, there is a job waiting for you at Fox.

Obama Increased Inflation-Adjusted National Debt More In 4 Days Last Week Than The Entire 1950s Decade



What a guy, eh?

"In just four days last week, President Barack Obama’s administration increased the national debt by more in inflation-adjusted dollars than the administrations of Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower increased the national debt over the entire decade of the 1950s.At the start of business on Tuesday, Aug. 2, according to the Daily Treasury Statement, the national debt subject to the legal limit was $14.293975 trillion. Obama signed legislation that day lifting the limit by as much as $2.4 trillion — with an initial and immediate increase in the limit of $400 billion. By the close of business on Friday, Aug. 5, according to the Daily Treasury Statement, the national debt subject to the limit had grown to $14.536130 trillion.
Over just four days, the debt had jumped $242.155 billion.
By contrast, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, over the ten-year period from the end of fiscal 1950 to the end of fiscal 1960, the national debt grew from approximately $257.36 billion to approximately $286.33 billion — an increase of approximately $28.97 billion.


Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, $28.97 billion in 1960 dollars equals $220.92 billion in 2011 dollars."


Obama Increased Debt More in 4 Days Than Truman and Eisenhower Did in 10 Years | CNSnews.com

^ Nice tie.

I agree that Obama is doing a shit job actually. But the GOP controlled Congress is doing an even shittier job- not that this Thai expat matters, but US public opinion Polls say the same thing. He's as weak as jelly- he should have overrode the dysfunctional, squabbling Congress and handled the situation by decree, something even the farcical Bush Presidency was willing to do.

Anyway, follow the money- and the market rout speaks for itself. Somehow, I don't think the Right will be celebrating their Pyrrhic 'victory'- they've just lost a big slice of their main god, Mammon. The US people certainly aren't, but they don't get to speak 'til election time.

Obama is not doing the necessary reforms,

and him taking back the old Bush dream team in the US Treasury and at the White House is a big let down

what kind of deal with the devil he did ?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Obama is not doing the necessary reforms,

and him taking back the old Bush dream team in the US Treasury and at the White House is a big let down

what kind of deal with the devil he did ?

Yes, it was sad to see the same ol' Wall St. group that had been in and out of government before and in and out of the banks, before en up in BO's admin.

As far a 'necessary reforms' US Postuses are very controlled.

Wall Street runs Washington.

the Military Industrial Complex runs the potus.

Big Pharm runs Congress.

He caters to both - it shouldn't be this way.

Unfortunately the Dem's are just as much in the pocket of vested interests as the GOP- they just happen though to have a more acceptable and equitable social agenda.

The American people don't really have all that much democratic choice. Even a Potus with an enlightened agenda would just be stifled by the Houses of Congress, and the interests that control it.

Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare mandate | Reuters



"(Reuters) - President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law suffered a setback on Friday when an appeals court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require all Americans to buy insurance or face a penalty.

The U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, ruled 2 to 1 that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but it unanimously reversed a lower court decision that threw out the entire law.

The legality of the individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Opponents have argued that without the mandate, which goes into effect in 2014, the entire law falls.

The law, adopted by Congress in 2010 after a bruising battle, is expected to be a major political issue in the 2012 elections as Obama seeks another term. All the major Republican presidential candidates have opposed it.

Obama has championed the individual mandate as a major accomplishment of his presidency and as a way to try to slow the soaring costs of healthcare while expanding coverage to the more than 30 million Americans without it.

The White House voiced confidence the law would be upheld. "We strongly disagree with this decision and we are confident it will not stand," Obama aide Stephanie Cutter said in a statement.

Because it conflicts with another appeals court ruling that upheld the law, the Supreme Court is expected to take it up during its term that begins in October with a ruling possible just months before the November 2012 presidential election.

Legal experts said it was impossible to predict how the high court will rule but agreed that it may be a close vote by nine ideologically divided justices, with moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy as the possible swing vote.

SPLIT DECISION

Twenty-six states together had challenged the mandate, arguing that Congress had exceeded its authority by imposing such a requirement. But the Obama administration had argued it was legal under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

A federal judge in Florida sided with the states and struck down the entire law, leading the administration to appeal.

A divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit found that it did not pass muster under that clause or under the power of Congress to tax. The administration has said the penalty for not buying healthcare coverage is akin to a tax.

"This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them repurchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," the majority said in its 207-page opinion.

That opinion was jointly written by Judges Joel Dubina, who was appointed to the appeals court by Republican President George H.W. Bush, and by Frank Hull, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

REPUBLICANS AGAINST IT

Republicans have sought to undercut or repeal the healthcare law at every level of government -- in federal court, in the state legislatures and in the U.S. Congress.

The decision contrasts with one by the U.S. Appeals Court for the 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, which had upheld the individual mandate as constitutional. That case has already been appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, has yet to rule on a separate challenge by the state of Virginia. A federal judge in that state had ruled the mandate unconstitutional as well.

Either side could ask the full 11th Circuit court to reconsider the decision or go straight to the Supreme Court. The Justice Department said it was weighing its options.

"Today we have prevailed in preventing Congress from infringing on the individual liberty protected by the U.S. Constitution," Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said.

The 11th Circuit did not agree that the entire Obama healthcare law should be tossed out. Many provisions are already being implemented, including allowing children to stay on their parents' health insurance plan until age 26 and banning lifetime coverage limits.

Further, the Obama administration on Friday issued new incentives for states and people to participate in health insurance exchanges, including tax credits and funding grants for the states.

The Obama administration did win some support from the appeals court for the individual mandate. One of the three judges, Stanley Marcus, dissented from the majority opinion in his own 84-page opinion.

The majority "has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy," wrote Marcus, also a Clinton appointee to the appeals court.

He also cited a past opinion about Congress' broad power by the possible Supreme Court swing vote, Justice Kennedy.

Cutter from the White House said that without the individual mandate, healthcare premiums could go up as much as 20 percent. America's Health Insurance Plans, the trade group for the industry, said repealing the individual mandate would cause "significant disruption and skyrocketing costs." "