Good Job Mr. President!

[code1211]

Well he promised to revamp health care and although I think ObamaCare sucks big time, he did keep his promise.
He promised to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan until he found the people who were actually responsible for 9/11 and rained justice down upon them. He did EXACTLY that. Getting OBL was cool too!
He promised to repeal DADT. That was huge.
He promised to get us out of Iraq. That's huge.
He promised to close Git-Mo and by gosh he sure tried. So I give him credit for that, even the the GOP shut him down on it.

Those are just the ones that come to mind off the top of my head.

Keep in mind, I still think he sucks but I'm not a drone so I have no problem with acknowledging the stuff he does right.

Obamacare, sure. Whatever you believe about its effectiveness.

The shift out of Iraq was more or less mandatory at the time of withdrawal. No points awarded there. (And we are still there in a big way) That withdrawal date was scheduled by Bush and the Iraq interim govt.

Justice, under the law, was certainly not served to the criminals alleged to orchestrate 9/11. FAIL. Justice is not assassination. That's actually lawlessness in action.

Repeal of DADT. OK, but he never promised that. And it is quite minor. It affects very few.

Duplicates abound on the next one. We covered that already (and we are not out)

Gitmo is a travesty on his part. No points awarded.

Anything else?

Ah. Didn't realize I was addressing someone who was so thoroughly programmed. got it. No nothing else. I can already predict 90%+ of your opinions on dozens of unrelated issues because seriously, it's not as if you think for yourself.
And no, you can't do the same with me.

I see...

So any disagreement with you must be due to pre-programming and so is not worthy of critical review.

This makes maintaining pre-conceived biases quite easy and must be a valuable time saver for you.

 

[code1211]

Far better we go with Paul Ryan's sorry excuse for an "plan" ... 3/4 of the "cuts" will come from the poorest in our country, gives more tax breaks to the 1% and it will require raising the debt ceiling.

Oh yeah - and it accomplishes nothing.

Doesn't matter because, thanks to the taxpayers, the pubs are on vacation until February. They will call in their filibuster, thus costing us even more. Nothing will get done unless President Obama goes over their (empty) heads.

Why don't the pubs and bags understand this simple fact - that every step forward has happened when our president acted in spite of the Party of Do Nothing Except Vacation and Play Golf?

Or, if you do understand that, why do you say we should continue to pay the Do Nothings to just keep Doing Nothing?

If you want to keep paying them to steal your money - fine. I don't.

I think the problem is that you, and he, don't know which direction is "forward".

 

[Old Rocks]

That's all fine and good but too little too late. Can't wait until Obama gets fired.

Guess you can wait about five more years.

 

[code1211]

Gitmo is a travesty on his part.

Even though he had no choice?

WHAT is WRONG with you people? Yes - he's good. But he's not magic.

If there was no choice, why did he indicate there was a choice?

Is this this deception, stupidity, ignorance or manipulation?

He was crying like a little girl that Gitmo was bad and now it's still there.

Why?

 

[code1211]

Well he promised to revamp health care and although I think ObamaCare sucks big time, he did keep his promise.
He promised to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan until he found the people who were actually responsible for 9/11 and rained justice down upon them. He did EXACTLY that. Getting OBL was cool too!
He promised to repeal DADT. That was huge.
He promised to get us out of Iraq. That's huge.
He promised to close Git-Mo and by gosh he sure tried. So I give him credit for that, even the the GOP shut him down on it.

Those are just the ones that come to mind off the top of my head.

Keep in mind, I still think he sucks but I'm not a drone so I have no problem with acknowledging the stuff he does right.

HE actually promised a single payer system, but if you want to give him credit for Obamacare I won't quibble.

He did concentrate a bit more on Afghanistan, but he is now open to negotiating with the Taliban in order to end the war, even if it means giving them power.

He did not repeal DADT. He actually fought to keep it in court, and lost.

He actually promised to bring all the troops home from Iraq by the summer of 2009, how did that work out again?

It was not the GOP that shut him down on Gitmo, it was his own party. Other than that complete lie I will agree that he gets some credit for trying.

As tangential as it is to the thread topic, I feel obligated to jump in here in discussing the history of DADT. It was not repealed (or declared unconstitutional) by the Supreme Court, as suggested by another poster. And it was repealed by Obama, when he signed into law a bill Congress sent to him after he lobbied them aggressively. As Obama and any number of presidents have stated, that their Justice Departments defend a law does not mean that they endorse it. Obama has said he will defend any law that is not clearly unconstitutional.

The repeal of DADT was an historic accomplishment, and the single person most responsible was Barack Obama.

Obama seems to pick and choose which laws he will defend.

 

[code1211]

I'm skeptical of this streamlining proposal. I don't think it's bad, but I'm not sure how much it will accomplish. Some of the things that make me skeptical about it:

1) This is an election year proposal that seems to have a clear political motive. That suggests that the White House is not necessarily proposing it because it is good policy.

2) One of the motives given for the bill is the direct savings in eliminating redundancy. These are quite small, compared to the total budget, and the degree to which they are emphasized suggests that the more indirect benefits aren't appreciably larger.

3) Even if what Obama is proposing is genuinely meritorious, Congress may well block or dilute it.

4) Previous reorganizations have often proven ineffective. For instance, the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has, in retrospect, created a largely ineffective layer of bureaucracy.

If Congress increased the impact by about 1000 times, this might be worth considering.

 

[Full-Auto]

HE actually promised a single payer system, but if you want to give him credit for Obamacare I won't quibble.

He did concentrate a bit more on Afghanistan, but he is now open to negotiating with the Taliban in order to end the war, even if it means giving them power.

He did not repeal DADT. He actually fought to keep it in court, and lost.

He actually promised to bring all the troops home from Iraq by the summer of 2009, how did that work out again?

It was not the GOP that shut him down on Gitmo, it was his own party. Other than that complete lie I will agree that he gets some credit for trying.

As tangential as it is to the thread topic, I feel obligated to jump in here in discussing the history of DADT. It was not repealed (or declared unconstitutional) by the Supreme Court, as suggested by another poster. And it was repealed by Obama, when he signed into law a bill Congress sent to him after he lobbied them aggressively. As Obama and any number of presidents have stated, that their Justice Departments defend a law does not mean that they endorse it. Obama has said he will defend any law that is not clearly unconstitutional.

The repeal of DADT was an historic accomplishment, and the single person most responsible was Barack Obama.

Obama seems to p;ice and choose which laws he likes.

Understatement.

 

[Seawytch]

President Obama ran on streamlining government.

Restructure and streamline USAID

 

[code1211]

President Obama ran on streamlining government.

Restructure and streamline USAID

You seem to think that what he says in one forum is what he intends to do.

If he ran on streamlining government and immediately increased the size of Government workers by about 6.5%, he's either on drugs or just a bit insane.

How does any streamlining include increasing the inefficiency by about 10 times?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

President Obama ran on streamlining government.

Restructure and streamline USAID

How has he done on that promise?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Obama wants congress to give him more power... Yeppie!!

Committee News - News - Joint Economic Committee Republicans[/url]

More funds to piss away at OUR expense.

This son-Of-A-Bitch is in for a fight.

Okay so let me get this straight. Jroc and T are against reducing the size of government.

I'm sure this has NOTHING to do with the fact that Obama is doing it!

Unreal. I mean I predicted exactly this but well, it's still funny to see!

 

[Stephanie]

Obama wants congress to give him more power... Yeppie!!

Committee News - News - Joint Economic Committee Republicans[/url]

More funds to piss away at OUR expense.

This son-Of-A-Bitch is in for a fight.

Okay so let me get this straight. Jroc and T are against reducing the size of government.

I'm sure this has NOTHING to do with the fact that Obama is doing it!

Unreal. I mean I predicted exactly this but well, it's still funny to see!

Where does it say he is reducing Government?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Obamacare, sure. Whatever you believe about its effectiveness.

The shift out of Iraq was more or less mandatory at the time of withdrawal. No points awarded there. (And we are still there in a big way) That withdrawal date was scheduled by Bush and the Iraq interim govt.

Justice, under the law, was certainly not served to the criminals alleged to orchestrate 9/11. FAIL. Justice is not assassination. That's actually lawlessness in action.

Repeal of DADT. OK, but he never promised that. And it is quite minor. It affects very few.

Duplicates abound on the next one. We covered that already (and we are not out)

Gitmo is a travesty on his part. No points awarded.

Anything else?

Ah. Didn't realize I was addressing someone who was so thoroughly programmed. got it. No nothing else. I can already predict 90%+ of your opinions on dozens of unrelated issues because seriously, it's not as if you think for yourself.
And no, you can't do the same with me.

I see...

So any disagreement with you must be due to pre-programming and so is not worthy of critical review.

This makes maintaining pre-conceived biases quite easy and must be a valuable time saver for you.

Apparently you missed the post where I stated it was wrong of me to do that and apologized to Takeastepback...

 

[IndependntLogic]

More funds to piss away at OUR expense.

This son-Of-A-Bitch is in for a fight.

Okay so let me get this straight. Jroc and T are against reducing the size of government.

I'm sure this has NOTHING to do with the fact that Obama is doing it!

Unreal. I mean I predicted exactly this but well, it's still funny to see!

Where does it say he is reducing Government?

The Original Post and oh, topic of the entire thread...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The suggestion is a good one, and it needs to be vetted by both sides.

Those who oppose it because they don't like it as Obama's idea are cretins.

So were those who opposed good Bush ideas simply because they were Bush ideas.

SNIP

No need to rebut a false analogy.

 

[Stephanie]

Okay so let me get this straight. Jroc and T are against reducing the size of government.

I'm sure this has NOTHING to do with the fact that Obama is doing it!

Unreal. I mean I predicted exactly this but well, it's still funny to see!

Where does it say he is reducing Government?

The Original Post and oh, topic of the entire thread...

it said, stream lining it..

 

[IndependntLogic]

Where does it say he is reducing Government?

The Original Post and oh, topic of the entire thread...

it said, stream lining it..

Okay I guess you don't understand. The way he proposes streamlining the government is by reducing it. There are six layers to the commerce department that all do essentially the same thing. He has proposed eliminating five of them. That would reduce the size of government.
Sorry, thought that was pretty obvious and really hadn't considered the possibility that streamlining would be thought of any other way.

So it's funny. He's talking about reducing duplicitous government - the mantra of all things Conservative and Libertarian - and both groups have criticized him on this very thread.

Think about it. A DEMOCRAT proposing a reduction in the size of government! I mean obviously it's not going to solve every problem all at once. Duh. But it's a start! And what if other Dems picked up on this trend???
How on Earth can ConservaRepubLitarians criticize this???
Well, there IS the fact that Obama has proposed it.

And the SBA thing could be FANTASTIC!!

 

[Full-Auto]

The Original Post and oh, topic of the entire thread...

it said, stream lining it..

Okay I guess you don't understand. The way he proposes streamlining the government is by reducing it. There are six layers to the commerce department that all do essentially the same thing. He has proposed eliminating five of them. That would reduce the size of government.
Sorry, thought that was pretty obvious and really hadn't considered the possibility that streamlining would be thought of any other way.

So it's funny. He's talking about reducing duplicitous government - the mantra of all things Conservative and Libertarian - and both groups have criticized him on this very thread.

Think about it. A DEMOCRAT proposing a reduction in the size of government! I mean obviously it's not going to solve every problem all at once. Duh. But it's a start! And what if other Dems picked up on this trend???
How on Earth can ConservaRepubLitarians criticize this???
Well, there IS the fact that Obama has proposed it.

And the SBA thing could be FANTASTIC!!

He picked a fight, nothing else. If he were serious he would have addressed the entire 300 billion or so in redundancy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Original Post and oh, topic of the entire thread...

it said, stream lining it..

Okay I guess you don't understand. The way he proposes streamlining the government is by reducing it. There are six layers to the commerce department that all do essentially the same thing. He has proposed eliminating five of them. That would reduce the size of government.
Sorry, thought that was pretty obvious and really hadn't considered the possibility that streamlining would be thought of any other way.

So it's funny. He's talking about reducing duplicitous government - the mantra of all things Conservative and Libertarian - and both groups have criticized him on this very thread.

Think about it. A DEMOCRAT proposing a reduction in the size of government! I mean obviously it's not going to solve every problem all at once. Duh. But it's a start! And what if other Dems picked up on this trend???
How on Earth can ConservaRepubLitarians criticize this???
Well, there IS the fact that Obama has proposed it.

And the SBA thing could be FANTASTIC!!

No, the way he proposes streamlining it is to bring a bunch of different tasks under on department. This will, theoretically, save us about $300,000 a year. As I said earlier, there is at least one potential problem because he wants to merge the USTR into a larger agency . That actually has some pretty heavy duty, and bipartisan, opposition because the USTR is one of the few things the government does right. It is small, and responsive, and making it part od a large bureaucracy that is also responsible for enforcing trade agreements is a bad idea.

I noticed that he did not propose actually laying off anyone, or did I miss that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Quantam Windbag argues for massive government. He says he is a right winger, but he is arguing for progressive left wing big government.