Defending Obama - The Increasingly Difficult Task

[Synthaholic]

Maybe Obama can look into the fact that we spend more then we take in.
His gesture here is sort of meaningless.

Where was all this concern about the debt when Bush was president, racking it all up?

 

[Synthaholic]

I don't think you'll see many history books that rank Obama below Bush Jnr or Bush Snr.

Bush Senior was fine! No problem, even won his war. (Desert Storm)

It was Bush Jr. that was such a complete disaster.


It is true that so far Obama hasn't messed up quite as bad as George W did, though he has NOT unwound Bush's stupid wars nearly fast enough, and of course Obamacare is just socialism and he'd do a lot more socialism if he weren't blocked constantly by Congress, thank goodness. Obama can't be trusted, but if he is blocked in his socialist ambitions, so far he hasn't done much actual harm. He's perceived as weak abroad, of course, and that may lead to war with NK and Iran, that would be bad.

I guess, if you want to call that a war.

 

[Sactowndog]

Frustration with the two-party system I completely understand - Americans should work hard to have that overthrown as soon as possible.

I also understand frustration with the cynicism of politics in general, and of course Obama is as open to accusation to that as anyone else. Whether the Monsanto Bill is right or wrong I wouldn't like to say, but I certainly understand people feeling concerned about it.

But the two-party system and the cyncism of US politics are not Obama's fault.

I don't think anyone ever accused Obama of that.

He is however the President and a central figure that people can direct their frustrations to. He represents the establishment, and a system that is becoming increasingly infiltrated with special interest monies and corporate influence. I'm no old buck, but I've read a few books in my lifetime and it appears things are getting worse (vs better).

I mean, in the 1990's we saw important banking regulations being ripped apart, paving the way for a Wall Street free for all that ended up collapsing our economy in 2006-2008. The Secretary of Treasury at the time (a former Goldman Sachs Chief) convinced the upper shelves of our Gov't to bail out the banks with US taxpayer money, and that's exactly what they did.

This bailout is still going on today with the Fed buying billions and billions in toxic assets from these banks every single flipping month.

And in comes Obama on his shining horse in 2008, talking about "fat cats" and holding these guys responsible. If he didn't say these things, he might not have gotten elected, but he did and I'm holding him accountable for that.

Not only did he not come through on his promise, he is actually turning out to be one of the laxest Presidents in history when it comes to prosecuting white collar crime - despite after all that's happened in the past 10 years. Yea, folks are upset, and obviously Wall Street has zero incentive to change any of their behavior. What does that mean? More fraud, more profits, and eventually another collapse (quick tidbit: banks still hold $700 trillion + of derivative risk on their books as of last year).

Kids are graduating with $50k in college debt and very few good jobs to chose from. The system is clearly not working very well and needs to be overhauled.

It's come to a boiling point.

.

.

I agree but don't you think the Republican Party shares plenty of the blame?

Case in Point: Carried Interest Exemption

Hedge fund managers take a significant share of their compensation for running the fund as a percentage of the profits. It is a variable compensation plan just like a sales rep would have. So a young hard working sales rep makes 90k trying to support a family and pays 32% marginal tax.

For the Hedge fund manager, he takes 20% of profits which like the sales rep makes up about 2/3's of his income. But unlike the sales rep the Hedge Fund manager has friends in Congress so he counts his income as capital gains and only pays 15% tax on his profits.

This slimy deal has been protected by the Republican Party for years and is one of the things Obama wants to eliminate in exchange for entitlement reform but the Republicans say no.

 

[jasonnfree]

Hello,

I feel like defending Obama is becoming an increasingly difficult task for our country's Democrats. If you still support, just wondering what your rationale is. I'm being 100% genuine here and just want to come to a better understanding.


"Included in the bill is a rider, Section 735, which says federal courts cannot intervene and halt biotech companies from planting and selling GMO goods to the public, even if testing proves them to be potentially hazardous to the greater public. Because the legislation largely shields agriculture giants Monsanto from litigation...

...after more than 250,000 people signed a petition asking the White House to intervene and ensure the bill was not passed, Pres. Obama nonetheless approved it last week"


Time to rethink Obama? The above is blatantly against the best interests of US Citizens.




Top senator apologizes for 'Monsanto Protection Act' after public outrage ? RT USA



.

Hard to defend some of the things Obama does, and he wasn't my first choice for democrat prez. He continuously takes right turns but looking at ryan/romney, I figured Obama would be better. I still think I'm right about how bad those two would have been. I especially didn't like romney traveling to meet Israeli leaders with his money man Adelson. Romney brought it right out in the open who controls him. Obama's slicker about who controls him, but it's not his base and he's not a socialist or even a liberal by any stretch, as he proved by never mentioning single payer and instead gave us Obamacare.

 

[Sallow]

I don't think you'll see many history books that rank Obama below Bush Jnr or Bush Snr.

Bush Senior was fine! No problem, even won his war. (Desert Storm)

It was Bush Jr. that was such a complete disaster.


It is true that so far Obama hasn't messed up quite as bad as George W did, though he has NOT unwound Bush's stupid wars nearly fast enough, and of course Obamacare is just socialism and he'd do a lot more socialism if he weren't blocked constantly by Congress, thank goodness. Obama can't be trusted, but if he is blocked in his socialist ambitions, so far he hasn't done much actual harm. He's perceived as weak abroad, of course, and that may lead to war with NK and Iran, that would be bad.

I guess, if you want to call that a war.

It was a war..and it was done brilliantly.

Same with Panama.

I didn't agree with either. But in terms of planning, execution and outcomes?

Flawless.

 

[Synthaholic]

Bush Senior was fine! No problem, even won his war. (Desert Storm)

It was Bush Jr. that was such a complete disaster.


It is true that so far Obama hasn't messed up quite as bad as George W did, though he has NOT unwound Bush's stupid wars nearly fast enough, and of course Obamacare is just socialism and he'd do a lot more socialism if he weren't blocked constantly by Congress, thank goodness. Obama can't be trusted, but if he is blocked in his socialist ambitions, so far he hasn't done much actual harm. He's perceived as weak abroad, of course, and that may lead to war with NK and Iran, that would be bad.

I guess, if you want to call that a war.

It was a war..and it was done brilliantly.

Same with Panama.

I didn't agree with either. But in terms of planning, execution and outcomes?

Flawless.

It's easy to look good when the enemy lays down their weapons and surrenders by the hundreds at a time in the desert.

It's only a war when both sides are fighting to win.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Hello,

I feel like defending Obama is becoming an increasingly difficult task for our country's Democrats. If you still support, just wondering what your rationale is. I'm being 100% genuine here and just want to come to a better understanding.


"Included in the bill is a rider, Section 735, which says federal courts cannot intervene and halt biotech companies from planting and selling GMO goods to the public, even if testing proves them to be potentially hazardous to the greater public. Because the legislation largely shields agriculture giants Monsanto from litigation...

...after more than 250,000 people signed a petition asking the White House to intervene and ensure the bill was not passed, Pres. Obama nonetheless approved it last week"


Time to rethink Obama? The above is blatantly against the best interests of US Citizens.




Top senator apologizes for 'Monsanto Protection Act' after public outrage ? RT USA



.

The only rational defense of Obama since he announced his plan to appoint Timothy Geithner to a position that did not involve Geither being tied to a post and horsewhipped is this:

Your Honor, President Barack Hussein Obama, Lord and Master over the Nutballs and President of the United States, is not a filthy god damned nutball. IF it please the court, Mr Obama doesn't appear to be much of anything, but at least there is that.
​

 

[jwoodie]

I'm still waiting to hear some POSITIVE defense of Obama...

 

[KevinWestern]

Hello,

I feel like defending Obama is becoming an increasingly difficult task for our country's Democrats. If you still support, just wondering what your rationale is. I'm being 100% genuine here and just want to come to a better understanding.


"Included in the bill is a rider, Section 735, which says federal courts cannot intervene and halt biotech companies from planting and selling GMO goods to the public, even if testing proves them to be potentially hazardous to the greater public. Because the legislation largely shields agriculture giants Monsanto from litigation...

...after more than 250,000 people signed a petition asking the White House to intervene and ensure the bill was not passed, Pres. Obama nonetheless approved it last week"


Time to rethink Obama? The above is blatantly against the best interests of US Citizens.




Top senator apologizes for 'Monsanto Protection Act' after public outrage ? RT USA



.

I'm not used to this level of dishonesty from you, Kevin. Is it desperation?


ETA: OOPS! I was confusing you with Kevin Kennedy. Perhaps this IS your regular level of dishonesty.

Hello, thanks for adding so much to this discussion Synth. You seem like the person who likes to bicker for the sake of bickering vs actually trying to foster a healthy discussion with people of different viewpoints.

Total lack of attempt at engaging in a respectful or meaningful manner... congrats.

Anyways, if you're going to insult me then at the very least try to back up some of your claim. How is the topic dishonest? Did I link to a fake article, and did Obama never sign the bill?


.

 

[KevinWestern]

Hello,

I feel like defending Obama is becoming an increasingly difficult task for our country's Democrats. If you still support, just wondering what your rationale is. I'm being 100% genuine here and just want to come to a better understanding.


"Included in the bill is a rider, Section 735, which says federal courts cannot intervene and halt biotech companies from planting and selling GMO goods to the public, even if testing proves them to be potentially hazardous to the greater public. Because the legislation largely shields agriculture giants Monsanto from litigation...

...after more than 250,000 people signed a petition asking the White House to intervene and ensure the bill was not passed, Pres. Obama nonetheless approved it last week"


Time to rethink Obama? The above is blatantly against the best interests of US Citizens.




Top senator apologizes for 'Monsanto Protection Act' after public outrage ? RT USA



.

I tend to be independent but I am curious how you can fault Obama for that provision? Is he supposed to shut down the entire Ag department over one provision he doesn't like. There is much not to like about Obama but trying to lay this at his feet instead of the home state Senator to Monsanto that stuffed this rider into the bill says more about you than Obama.

Hey, it's a point, but has Obama been an anti-Monsanto President? Didn't he recently appoint Michael Taylor (former Monsanto exec) to a top spot within the FDA?

And you know what, I don't accept that Obama has to sign this document despite the rider. We have checks and balances for a very good reason, and I think it's his job to be on the lookout for us. If there's a provision that seriously threatens the health and safety of our nation, and/or a provision that was clearly pushed through by Senators/Representatives that are bought by corporations (and have an ulterior agenda), than it's up to the President to reject the document. I mean, is that too much to ask?

Isn't that why we have the President sign this in the first place? Why even bother?

.

.

 

[KevinWestern]

Frustration with the two-party system I completely understand - Americans should work hard to have that overthrown as soon as possible.

I also understand frustration with the cynicism of politics in general, and of course Obama is as open to accusation to that as anyone else. Whether the Monsanto Bill is right or wrong I wouldn't like to say, but I certainly understand people feeling concerned about it.

But the two-party system and the cyncism of US politics are not Obama's fault.

I don't think anyone ever accused Obama of that.

He is however the President and a central figure that people can direct their frustrations to. He represents the establishment, and a system that is becoming increasingly infiltrated with special interest monies and corporate influence. I'm no old buck, but I've read a few books in my lifetime and it appears things are getting worse (vs better).

I mean, in the 1990's we saw important banking regulations being ripped apart, paving the way for a Wall Street free for all that ended up collapsing our economy in 2006-2008. The Secretary of Treasury at the time (a former Goldman Sachs Chief) convinced the upper shelves of our Gov't to bail out the banks with US taxpayer money, and that's exactly what they did.

This bailout is still going on today with the Fed buying billions and billions in toxic assets from these banks every single flipping month.

And in comes Obama on his shining horse in 2008, talking about "fat cats" and holding these guys responsible. If he didn't say these things, he might not have gotten elected, but he did and I'm holding him accountable for that.

Not only did he not come through on his promise, he is actually turning out to be one of the laxest Presidents in history when it comes to prosecuting white collar crime - despite after all that's happened in the past 10 years. Yea, folks are upset, and obviously Wall Street has zero incentive to change any of their behavior. What does that mean? More fraud, more profits, and eventually another collapse (quick tidbit: banks still hold $700 trillion + of derivative risk on their books as of last year).

Kids are graduating with $50k in college debt and very few good jobs to chose from. The system is clearly not working very well and needs to be overhauled.

It's come to a boiling point.

.

.

I agree but don't you think the Republican Party shares plenty of the blame?

Case in Point: Carried Interest Exemption

Hedge fund managers take a significant share of their compensation for running the fund as a percentage of the profits. It is a variable compensation plan just like a sales rep would have. So a young hard working sales rep makes 90k trying to support a family and pays 32% marginal tax.

For the Hedge fund manager, he takes 20% of profits which like the sales rep makes up about 2/3's of his income. But unlike the sales rep the Hedge Fund manager has friends in Congress so he counts his income as capital gains and only pays 15% tax on his profits.

This slimy deal has been protected by the Republican Party for years and is one of the things Obama wants to eliminate in exchange for entitlement reform but the Republicans say no.

The Republicans are just as much to blame as the Democrats.

I don't side with either one and try to evaluate each politician as a person vs a Party.

.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Probably the only affirmative defense of Obama is the only defense that matters:

US voters chose Obama over a man who damaged more lives than he benefited.

It was the smartest vote America had made since 2008.

That is all that matters at this point.

 

[KevinWestern]

Probably the only affirmative defense of Obama is the only defense that matters:

US voters chose Obama over a man who destroyed more money for more people than he made for himself. It was the smartest vote America had made in four years.

That is all that matters at this point.

Hey, I wasn't a fan of Romney and agree that he wouldn't of been much better.

However, this does not give Obama a free pass from criticism.

I'm asking folks to examine Obama, and I think it might be kind of deflecting to bring up other individuals like Romney. He didn't sign this bill, after all.

Lots of folks are very, very trusting of Obama and sort of give him a license to do whatever he wants. Isn't that a bit dangerous? We must always be questioning, and that's the point of this thread.

.

 

[MikeK]

Hello,

I feel like defending Obama is becoming an increasingly difficult task for our country's Democrats. If you still support, just wondering what your rationale is. I'm being 100% genuine here and just want to come to a better understanding.

[...]

While I must support Obama in opposition to any Republican (corporatist) I completely agree with your assessment.

To begin with, Obama was not my first choice. Kucinich was. But I voted for him and I continue to regard him as an improvement over Bush, which really isn't saying much.

My opinion of Obama started off with a measure of distrust, which has increased with regular increments. I now regard him as little more than a slick, self-serving bullshit artist who cannot be trusted and who clearly is cooperatively in the pocket of the One Percent.

He's another whore and once the Democrats wake up to who and what he is the future of Black politicians in America will be set back several decades.

 

[FA_Q2]

Hello,

I feel like defending Obama is becoming an increasingly difficult task for our country's Democrats. If you still support, just wondering what your rationale is. I'm being 100% genuine here and just want to come to a better understanding.


"Included in the bill is a rider, Section 735, which says federal courts cannot intervene and halt biotech companies from planting and selling GMO goods to the public, even if testing proves them to be potentially hazardous to the greater public. Because the legislation largely shields agriculture giants Monsanto from litigation...

...after more than 250,000 people signed a petition asking the White House to intervene and ensure the bill was not passed, Pres. Obama nonetheless approved it last week"


Time to rethink Obama? The above is blatantly against the best interests of US Citizens.




Top senator apologizes for 'Monsanto Protection Act' after public outrage ? RT USA



.

I tend to be independent but I am curious how you can fault Obama for that provision? Is he supposed to shut down the entire Ag department over one provision he doesn't like. There is much not to like about Obama but trying to lay this at his feet instead of the home state Senator to Monsanto that stuffed this rider into the bill says more about you than Obama.

Hey, it's a point, but has Obama been an anti-Monsanto President? Didn't he recently appoint Michael Taylor (former Monsanto exec) to a top spot within the FDA?

And you know what, I don't accept that Obama has to sign this document despite the rider. We have checks and balances for a very good reason, and I think it's his job to be on the lookout for us. If there's a provision that seriously threatens the health and safety of our nation, and/or a provision that was clearly pushed through by Senators/Representatives that are bought by corporations (and have an ulterior agenda), than it's up to the President to reject the document. I mean, is that too much to ask?

Isn't that why we have the President sign this in the first place? Why even bother?

.

.

You don’t have to look at this bill alone though TBH. Just because this was a rider is rather meaningless.

The patriot act, the NDAA, Obamacare (no matter where you are on this he forced the use of insurance companies which was counter to what the left envisioned) the CPA (creating permanent bank bailout funds) and on and on and on.

Obama has essentially been Bush over again with a different foreign policy

 

[KevinWestern]

I tend to be independent but I am curious how you can fault Obama for that provision? Is he supposed to shut down the entire Ag department over one provision he doesn't like. There is much not to like about Obama but trying to lay this at his feet instead of the home state Senator to Monsanto that stuffed this rider into the bill says more about you than Obama.

Hey, it's a point, but has Obama been an anti-Monsanto President? Didn't he recently appoint Michael Taylor (former Monsanto exec) to a top spot within the FDA?

And you know what, I don't accept that Obama has to sign this document despite the rider. We have checks and balances for a very good reason, and I think it's his job to be on the lookout for us. If there's a provision that seriously threatens the health and safety of our nation, and/or a provision that was clearly pushed through by Senators/Representatives that are bought by corporations (and have an ulterior agenda), than it's up to the President to reject the document. I mean, is that too much to ask?

Isn't that why we have the President sign this in the first place? Why even bother?

.

.

You don’t have to look at this bill alone though TBH. Just because this was a rider is rather meaningless.

The patriot act, the NDAA, Obamacare (no matter where you are on this he forced the use of insurance companies which was counter to what the left envisioned) the CPA (creating permanent bank bailout funds) and on and on and on.

Obama has essentially been Bush over again with a different foreign policy

Funny you bring up the NDAA, because I was very confused on how Obama handled the infamous "indefinite detention" provision.

At first he said "I'm not signing the NDAA because of it" and made everyone think he was going to veto the bill (Nov 2011). Then he said "I have to sign because I need to get our military funded" (which I was fine with, as I thought it made sense at the time).

But when that specific provision was challenged six months later by a district judge and ruled Unconstitutional, why did Obama swoop in to appeal that ruling?

One would think (by his previous actions/statements) he would be fine with this portion being challenged; after all, he was 'against' this outlier rider, and the military had its funding at this point. Really fucking weird (and I ask people with different viewpoints to chime in here..).

That really opened up my eyes...


.

 

[jwoodie]

Probably the only affirmative defense of Obama is the only defense that matters:

US voters chose Obama over a man who damaged more lives than he benefited.

It was the smartest vote America had made since 2008.

That is all that matters at this point.

You think that is an affirmative defense???

 

[MikeK]

Candidate Obama rather deviously enlisted the support of millions of marijuana legalization advocates by clearly and deceptively conveying the impression that he was friendly to their cause. When interviewed on the subject of marijuana use he readily admitted that he ". . . inhaled -- frequently!" But shortly after being elected, when he was asked about his position on marijuana legalization he responded contemptuously, refusing to even discuss the issue, which as yet he hasn't done.

He also did a good job of convincing the voting public that he intended to "seek justice" in matters regarding the Iraq invasion and related apparent criminal actions. But as President he appointed a wooden Indian as Attorney General whose primary focus is on civil rights issues. Not only has Obama retained a number of the conspirators in the Bush crime family he has gone well out of his way to deflect any attempt to investigate the activities of what appears to be the worst criminal regime in the history of the U.S. Presidency. For this reason I personally consider Obama to be culpable in all of the Bush Administration's crimes.

In spite of the fact that Obama has repeatedly promised to defend Social Security against any benefit reductions as an alternative to raising taxes on upper income levels, he not only has canceled two Social Security Cost-Of-Living-Adjustments (COLAs), he recently proposed permanantly eliminating them.

I will maintain that Obama is better than Bush, which is like saying gonorrhea is better than syphilis, but at the bottom line Obama is just one more lying, self-serving politician who happens to be as slick as the average Broadway pimp. And as far as any hope for the future where our terminally corrupted political system is concerned, in my opinion nothing short of revolutionary political action is capable of effecting meaningful and positive change. I'm talking about sweeping no less than 80% of the existing Congress out of office, but considering the divisive nature of the American electorate there is little to no chance of that ever happening.

"We have met the enemy -- and it is us." (Pogo)

 

[Sactowndog]

Hello,

I feel like defending Obama is becoming an increasingly difficult task for our country's Democrats. If you still support, just wondering what your rationale is. I'm being 100% genuine here and just want to come to a better understanding.


"Included in the bill is a rider, Section 735, which says federal courts cannot intervene and halt biotech companies from planting and uselling GMO goods to the public, even if testing proves them to be potentially hazardous to the greater public. Because the legislation largely shields agriculture giants Monsanto from litigation...

...after more than 250,000 people signed a petition asking the White House to intervene and ensure the bill was not passed, Pres. Obama nonetheless approved it last week"


Time to rethink Obama? The above is blatantly against the best interests of US Citizens.




Top senator apologizes for 'Monsanto Protection Act' after public outrage ? RT USA



.

I tend to be independent but I am curious how you can fault Obama for that provision? Is he supposed to shut down the entire Ag department over one provision he doesn't like. There is much not to like about Obama but trying to lay this at his feet instead of the home state Senator to Monsanto that stuffed this rider into the bill says more about you than Obama.

Hey, it's a point, but has Obama been an anti-Monsanto President? Didn't he recently appoint Michael Taylor (former Monsanto exec) to a top spot within the FDA?

And you know what, I don't accept that Obama has to sign this document despite the rider. We have checks and balances for a very good reason, and I think it's his job to be on the lookout for us. If there's a provision that seriously threatens the health and safety of our nation, and/or a provision that was clearly pushed through by Senators/Representatives that are bought by corporations (and have an ulterior agenda), than it's up to the President to reject the document. I mean, is that too much to ask?

Isn't that why we have the President sign this in the first place? Why even bother?

.

.

To not sign the bill would have significantly harmed the Ag economy at a point the economy was already weak. He really had little choice at that point. Better to ask why Harry Reid allowed that into the bill and didn't introduce an amendment to strip it out. Our ask Senators Berg, Blunt, McConnell and Nelson who were prime recipients of Monsanto cash. Or the House Leadership who all received Monsanto checks and were likely responsible for the amendment. The problem is people like you don't understand the system and blame Obama for something over which he has little control.

 

[Katzndogz]

Any defense of obama has to be met with incredulity. obama is to be endured like any other disease.