The Obama Record is a Record

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 11, 2007
66,820
32,113
2,330
Desert Southwest USA
Gentle Reminder. This thread is in the CDZ

The Obama record is his record no matter how much he and/or his supporters want to get around it. The fifteen items listed below are a summary of his record.

I took the list from Townhall which is by no means an objective source and it is a source I would not use to support a point of view. But the list is a good one to illustrate our President's record in his first term of office.

I wonder if his supporters can dispute that all fifteen items are legitimate? If so, please provide your rationale or legitimate source so we keep this honest.

Others may have some items that need to be added to the list.

The question is, if the list is valid and accepted as the record, why would anybody vote for a second term for Barack Obama?''

Here's the list:

1) Real median household income is down $4300 since Obama took office.

2) The percentage of unemployed workers who've been out of a job for more than a year is over 30%.

3) The country has had the longest streak of +8% unemployment since the Depression under Obama: 39 months and counting.

4) In 2011 under Barack Obama, nearly one out of every seven Americans was on food stamps. That's a 70 percent increase from 2007.

5) Fifty percent of new college graduates are underemployed or unemployed.

6) U.S. home ownership is at a decade long low. So is the number of Americans who say their home is worth more than they paid for it. Home prices are the lowest they've been since 2002.

7) Barack Obama ended NASA's manned space program.

8) Going into this election cycle, Barack Obama had raised more money from Wall Street than any President in history. He has also raised more money from Wall Street than all of the GOP presidential contenders combined in this election cycle.

9) Under Barack Obama's leadership, the last time Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats passed a budget was April 9, 2009.

10) Barack Obama's budget was defeated 414-0 in the House and 99-0 in the Senate.

11) When he was running for President in 2008, Barack Obama pledged not to raise taxes on families making less than 250,000 dollars per year. He broke that promise with the tanning salon tax and with Obamacare, which raises almost 500 billion dollars in new taxes, a significant portion of which would be paid by people making less than 250,000 dollars per year.

12) When Barack Obama took office, gas was $1.95 per gallon. Today gas is $3.72 per gallon.

13) In February of this year, the federal government had a 229 billion dollar deficit. That was the largest deficit in the history of the United States.

14) America lost its AAA credit rating (which it had held since 1917) on Obama's watch despite the fact that Timothy Geithner publicly said there was "no risk" of that happening.

15) Barack Obama added more to the debt in just 38 months than George Bush did in two full terms as President.
15 Facts That Even Obama's Biggest Supporters Should Be Able To Admit Are True - John Hawkins - [page]
 
Last edited:
BUT BUT BUT , XXXXXXX, so his record doesn't matter to me . Will Palin be his choice for VP this time? :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just playing devil's advocate here, but I can think of at least one reason someone might vote for Obama despite those points, assuming all are true : if they consider them not his fault/responsibility. Some might blame the previous administration, perhaps claiming that Obama is the reason the numbers are not worse. Others might say that the president has little direct affect on most of those things. Presidents get credit and blame for many things they should not.

And that's just if the points are not disputed. :)
 
Just playing devil's advocate here, but I can think of at least one reason someone might vote for Obama despite those points, assuming all are true : if they consider them not his fault/responsibility. Some might blame the previous administration, perhaps claiming that Obama is the reason the numbers are not worse. Others might say that the president has little direct affect on most of those things. Presidents get credit and blame for many things they should not.

And that's just if the points are not disputed. :)

If Obama didn't have a super majority that was behind him 100% for his first two years as president, that argument might hold some water. As is though, Obama basically could do whatever he wanted for 2 years with no opposition from republicans and he made it clear to them with his "you lost" comment directly to them.

Loads of blame belongs on congress as well but Obama isn't, by any means, innocent in all this.
 
Just playing devil's advocate here, but I can think of at least one reason someone might vote for Obama despite those points, assuming all are true : if they consider them not his fault/responsibility. Some might blame the previous administration, perhaps claiming that Obama is the reason the numbers are not worse. Others might say that the president has little direct affect on most of those things. Presidents get credit and blame for many things they should not.

And that's just if the points are not disputed. :)

A valid observation, EXCEPT that the previous administration had nothing to do with whether this administration did or did not pass a budget, had absolutely nothing to do with legislation passed by this administration, and did not spend a dime that this administration has spent. Inheriting a crappy economy is one thing--Reagan certainly did in 1981--but making good or bad choices in how to deal with it are the responsibility of the current administration and nobody else.
 
Just playing devil's advocate here, but I can think of at least one reason someone might vote for Obama despite those points, assuming all are true : if they consider them not his fault/responsibility. Some might blame the previous administration, perhaps claiming that Obama is the reason the numbers are not worse. Others might say that the president has little direct affect on most of those things. Presidents get credit and blame for many things they should not.

And that's just if the points are not disputed. :)

If Obama didn't have a super majority that was behind him 100% for his first two years as president, that argument might hold some water. As is though, Obama basically could do whatever he wanted for 2 years with no opposition from republicans and he made it clear to them with his "you lost" comment directly to them.

Loads of blame belongs on congress as well but Obama isn't, by any means, innocent in all this.

Congress can make no law that the President does not sign off on. And, though this President doesn't always see it that way, the President is not supposed to make any law that Congress does not first approve. So yes, President Obama and Congress could have accomplished a great deal in the first two years when the Democrats enjoyed huge majorities in both the House and Senate. But instead they passed only legislation that has caused or exacerbated many of the fifteen items on that list, and they failed to pass legislation that could have addressed many or most of the others.

It simply isn't washing with most thinking people anymore, that if the Republicans failed to act when Bush had a GOP majority, and/or when there was a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, that it was the Republicans and Bush's fault. And if the Democrats fail to act when they have a Democratic majority and a Democrat in the White House, it is still the Republican's and Bush's fault.
 
Last edited:
Presidents don't affect the economy for the most part. About the only thing some presidents could do is inspire confidence in the hopes of stimulating spending through optimism. But when a candidate says something positive, generally they are blasted for being out of touch! But don't let Obama bashers and Romney supporters stand in the way of this fact. This is one of the reasons I'm not voting for Romney because I don't think he can make much of a difference except perhaps in hurting the middle class (which is where most of us are).

Does the president actually influence the economy?

...
Dubner: Look, personally, I have no horse in any race -- I dislike both political parties about equally. But here's the thing: We're heading into a presidential campaign now that is likely to focus on the economy, and rightly so. And I'm here to tell you and your listeners that of all the areas in which the president's influence is overrated, the economy is probably No. 1.

I'd like you here to listen to Austan Goolsbee, who's a former chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.

Austan Goolsbee: I think the world vests too much power -- certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general -- for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
...

And...from a separate article...

The President's Effect on the Economy: Less than you'd think...

The two most significant ways that a President can affect the economy is through taxes and government spending. Although, most of that power resides with Congress and the President merely lends a signature at the end of the process to make the proposal law. The President can and will state his opinion on such matters, but ultimate responsibility for fiscal policy is Congress’ alone. Thus, while the President has enormous influence over fiscal policy, Congress is the ultimate authority.

...
 
Last edited:
Just playing devil's advocate here, but I can think of at least one reason someone might vote for Obama despite those points, assuming all are true : if they consider them not his fault/responsibility. Some might blame the previous administration, perhaps claiming that Obama is the reason the numbers are not worse. Others might say that the president has little direct affect on most of those things. Presidents get credit and blame for many things they should not.

And that's just if the points are not disputed. :)

If Obama didn't have a super majority that was behind him 100% for his first two years as president, that argument might hold some water. As is though, Obama basically could do whatever he wanted for 2 years with no opposition from republicans and he made it clear to them with his "you lost" comment directly to them.

Loads of blame belongs on congress as well but Obama isn't, by any means, innocent in all this.

Congress can make no law that the President does not sign off on. And, though this President doesn't always see it that way, the President is not supposed to make any law that Congress does not first approve. So yes, President and Obama could have accomplished a great deal in the first two years when the Democrats enjoyed huge majorities in both the House and Senate. But instead they passed only legislation that has caused or exacerbated many of the fifteen items on that list, and they failed to pass legislation that could have addressed many or most of the others.

It simply isn't washing with most thinking people anymore, that if the Republicans failed to act when Bush had a GOP majority, and/or when there was a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, that it was the Republicans and Bush's fault. And if the Democrats fail to act when they have a Democratic majority and a Democrat in the White House, it is still the Republican's and Bush's fault.

That is of course untrue. Congress CAN over ride a Presidential veto.
 
If Obama didn't have a super majority that was behind him 100% for his first two years as president, that argument might hold some water. As is though, Obama basically could do whatever he wanted for 2 years with no opposition from republicans and he made it clear to them with his "you lost" comment directly to them.

Loads of blame belongs on congress as well but Obama isn't, by any means, innocent in all this.

Congress can make no law that the President does not sign off on. And, though this President doesn't always see it that way, the President is not supposed to make any law that Congress does not first approve. So yes, President and Obama could have accomplished a great deal in the first two years when the Democrats enjoyed huge majorities in both the House and Senate. But instead they passed only legislation that has caused or exacerbated many of the fifteen items on that list, and they failed to pass legislation that could have addressed many or most of the others.

It simply isn't washing with most thinking people anymore, that if the Republicans failed to act when Bush had a GOP majority, and/or when there was a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, that it was the Republicans and Bush's fault. And if the Democrats fail to act when they have a Democratic majority and a Democrat in the White House, it is still the Republican's and Bush's fault.

That is of course untrue. Congress CAN over ride a Presidential veto.

But the President is still on record as agreeing to or not agreeing to the legislation. He has to be given opportunity to do that even if Congress does override his veto.

Obama's record does not include Congress overriding his veto on anything, and the legislation passed on his watch ALL has his signature of approval on it. It is part of his record.
 
it is interesting to me that no one has disputed the record as presented. that said, as to the why:

i believe to be primarily political, rather than expedient or logical. there are numerous people firmly entrenched in both parties who will vote for an R or a D regardless of record or anything else. those in the middle, often called 'independents' are the ones who can swing the vote, because, more often than not, those are the people that vote, not based on party affiliation, rather, with their minds.

so there will the inevitable - bush's fault, romney will do worse etc... rarely do i see people actually discuss romney's tenure as governor of MA. if they did, they would see he actually governed very well.
 
it is interesting to me that no one has disputed the record as presented. that said, as to the why:

i believe to be primarily political, rather than expedient or logical. there are numerous people firmly entrenched in both parties who will vote for an R or a D regardless of record or anything else. those in the middle, often called 'independents' are the ones who can swing the vote, because, more often than not, those are the people that vote, not based on party affiliation, rather, with their minds.

so there will the inevitable - bush's fault, romney will do worse etc... rarely do i see people actually discuss romney's tenure as governor of MA. if they did, they would see he actually governed very well.

I searched for quite some time, last night, to be able to say that very thing but couldn't.

Mitt's approval ratings were an abysmal 30% by the end of his term.

He did have a good record with job creation and, honestly, that's what I care about.
I don't care any more about his tax returns than Obama cared about Geitner's.
I don't care that he's a Mormon any more than I care what religion Obama, or any other Presidents', is/was.

Jobs

Budget

Debt

Deficit

In that order.

I've seen what Obama can do in those areas.
No thank you.
:eusa_hand:
 
Gentle Reminder. This thread is in the CDZ

The Obama record is his record no matter how much he and/or his supporters want to get around it. The fifteen items listed below are a summary of his record.

I took the list from Townhall which is by no means an objective source and it is a source I would not use to support a point of view. But the list is a good one to illustrate our President's record in his first term of office.

I wonder if his supporters can dispute that all fifteen items are legitimate? If so, please provide your rationale or legitimate source so we keep this honest.

Others may have some items that need to be added to the list.

The question is, if the list is valid and accepted as the record, why would anybody vote for a second term for Barack Obama?''

Here's the list:

1) Real median household income is down $4300 since Obama took office.

2) The percentage of unemployed workers who've been out of a job for more than a year is over 30%.

3) The country has had the longest streak of +8% unemployment since the Depression under Obama: 39 months and counting.

4) In 2011 under Barack Obama, nearly one out of every seven Americans was on food stamps. That's a 70 percent increase from 2007.

5) Fifty percent of new college graduates are underemployed or unemployed.

6) U.S. home ownership is at a decade long low. So is the number of Americans who say their home is worth more than they paid for it. Home prices are the lowest they've been since 2002.

7) Barack Obama ended NASA's manned space program.

8) Going into this election cycle, Barack Obama had raised more money from Wall Street than any President in history. He has also raised more money from Wall Street than all of the GOP presidential contenders combined in this election cycle.

9) Under Barack Obama's leadership, the last time Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats passed a budget was April 9, 2009.

10) Barack Obama's budget was defeated 414-0 in the House and 99-0 in the Senate.

11) When he was running for President in 2008, Barack Obama pledged not to raise taxes on families making less than 250,000 dollars per year. He broke that promise with the tanning salon tax and with Obamacare, which raises almost 500 billion dollars in new taxes, a significant portion of which would be paid by people making less than 250,000 dollars per year.

12) When Barack Obama took office, gas was $1.95 per gallon. Today gas is $3.72 per gallon.

13) In February of this year, the federal government had a 229 billion dollar deficit. That was the largest deficit in the history of the United States.

14) America lost its AAA credit rating (which it had held since 1917) on Obama's watch despite the fact that Timothy Geithner publicly said there was "no risk" of that happening.

15) Barack Obama added more to the debt in just 38 months than George Bush did in two full terms as President.
15 Facts That Even Obama's Biggest Supporters Should Be Able To Admit Are True - John Hawkins - [page]

Been looking at my signature? :D
 
it is interesting to me that no one has disputed the record as presented. that said, as to the why:

i believe to be primarily political, rather than expedient or logical. there are numerous people firmly entrenched in both parties who will vote for an R or a D regardless of record or anything else. those in the middle, often called 'independents' are the ones who can swing the vote, because, more often than not, those are the people that vote, not based on party affiliation, rather, with their minds.

so there will the inevitable - bush's fault, romney will do worse etc... rarely do i see people actually discuss romney's tenure as governor of MA. if they did, they would see he actually governed very well.

I've been around the block a few times that I don't ask people to prove a negative. It is tough finding evidence that somebody didn't do something that he or she is accused of doing. It's a bit easier to find evidence that somebody else did it and our preferred 'culprit' is not mentioned.

But it is usually easy to find evidence that somebody did do something or that there is credible evidence for a stated fact. And because I think there is credible evidence for everything stated as fact on that list, probably nobody has found anything to use to dispute the list.
 
Gentle Reminder. This thread is in the CDZ

The Obama record is his record no matter how much he and/or his supporters want to get around it. The fifteen items listed below are a summary of his record.

I took the list from Townhall which is by no means an objective source and it is a source I would not use to support a point of view. But the list is a good one to illustrate our President's record in his first term of office.

I wonder if his supporters can dispute that all fifteen items are legitimate? If so, please provide your rationale or legitimate source so we keep this honest.

Others may have some items that need to be added to the list.

The question is, if the list is valid and accepted as the record, why would anybody vote for a second term for Barack Obama?''

Here's the list:

1) Real median household income is down $4300 since Obama took office.

2) The percentage of unemployed workers who've been out of a job for more than a year is over 30%.

3) The country has had the longest streak of +8% unemployment since the Depression under Obama: 39 months and counting.

4) In 2011 under Barack Obama, nearly one out of every seven Americans was on food stamps. That's a 70 percent increase from 2007.

5) Fifty percent of new college graduates are underemployed or unemployed.

6) U.S. home ownership is at a decade long low. So is the number of Americans who say their home is worth more than they paid for it. Home prices are the lowest they've been since 2002.

7) Barack Obama ended NASA's manned space program.

8) Going into this election cycle, Barack Obama had raised more money from Wall Street than any President in history. He has also raised more money from Wall Street than all of the GOP presidential contenders combined in this election cycle.

9) Under Barack Obama's leadership, the last time Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats passed a budget was April 9, 2009.

10) Barack Obama's budget was defeated 414-0 in the House and 99-0 in the Senate.

11) When he was running for President in 2008, Barack Obama pledged not to raise taxes on families making less than 250,000 dollars per year. He broke that promise with the tanning salon tax and with Obamacare, which raises almost 500 billion dollars in new taxes, a significant portion of which would be paid by people making less than 250,000 dollars per year.

12) When Barack Obama took office, gas was $1.95 per gallon. Today gas is $3.72 per gallon.

13) In February of this year, the federal government had a 229 billion dollar deficit. That was the largest deficit in the history of the United States.

14) America lost its AAA credit rating (which it had held since 1917) on Obama's watch despite the fact that Timothy Geithner publicly said there was "no risk" of that happening.

15) Barack Obama added more to the debt in just 38 months than George Bush did in two full terms as President.
15 Facts That Even Obama's Biggest Supporters Should Be Able To Admit Are True - John Hawkins - [page]

Oh Fire, and I had such high hoopes...

1) Biggest economic downturn since the great depression and it began BEFORe he took office.

2) See answer #1

3) And 29 straight months of private sector job growth.

4) See answer #1

5) See answer #1

6) Housing bubble. See answer #1

7) Nasa manned space program as redundant and wasted money.

8) And?

9) Double standard nonsense

10) Barack Obama's budget was defeated 414-0 in the House and 99-0 in the Senate.

Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.

Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate - Washington Times

In other words, the Republicans put something up THEY called the Obama budget and voted against it. The Democrats voted against it because it was a bullshit politcal ploy.


11) Tanning salon tax? Serious? Who cares?

12)

Gas prices under Bush went to $4.21 a gallon and was over $3.00 a gallon most of his last term in office.The only reason gas was at $1.85 when President Obama took office is because of the economic crash which greatly reduced demand and the crash effected all countries not just the US.


mmm-71352565023.jpeg


Gas prices were $4.21 a Gallon under Bush- So why is Obama to Blame for Gas Prices today ?


13) See answer #1

14) "The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed,"

BBC News - US loses AAA credit rating after S&P downgrade
In other words Republican obstructionism caused the downgrade.

15) Barack Obama added more to the debt in just 38 months than George Bush did in two full terms as President.

And this one is un-fucking-believable. The fucking authors SOURCE for this lie is HIMSELF!!!!!! Take a look at the author at the top of the page and then click the link. NO ONE sources THEMSELVES and has a shread of credibility remaining.

But lets look at his claim anyway...Shall we?

debt+changes+under+bush+obama.jpg


OOOOOOOOHHH ooops! Guess we can set aside Mr John I source myself and someone named TexasSparkles Hawkins as a reliable source HUH?
 
it is interesting to me that no one has disputed the record as presented. that said, as to the why:

i believe to be primarily political, rather than expedient or logical. there are numerous people firmly entrenched in both parties who will vote for an R or a D regardless of record or anything else. those in the middle, often called 'independents' are the ones who can swing the vote, because, more often than not, those are the people that vote, not based on party affiliation, rather, with their minds.

so there will the inevitable - bush's fault, romney will do worse etc... rarely do i see people actually discuss romney's tenure as governor of MA. if they did, they would see he actually governed very well.

What I find interesting is that ROMNEY wont talk about his record as Mass Governor. Guess all that raising taxes and passing universal health care ( with a mandate ) wont play well with his base huh?
 
To Vidi re the budget dispute:

Here is what your own link said if you put it into its full context:

Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no Democrats took up.

The full context is soooo important when you're using somebody's words to dispute something. To cherry pick the portion that supports a different point of view is. . . .well. . . .disingenuous if not downright dishonest.

The statement re gas prices placed no blame on either President. The statement was what the gas price was when Obama took office and what it is now. That's pretty cut and dried. You can make any kind of excuse for that you wish to or try to make Bush look worse, and perhaps that would even be legitimate, but the fact is the price in January 2009 and the price now was the sole content of the statement, and it is the Obama record. Can Obama make a case justifying the increase? In the Bush administration, you start with a fugre, get a sharp spike in the aftermath of Katrina when a huge number of our offshore rigs were damaged or disabled, and then ended with a number lower han it was when his administration began. So all that has to be part of the debate too if you want to use Bush as a justification for gas prices under Obama.

I'll be back in a bit with the national debt figures that should not be difficult to find. And all the other stuff is really irrelevant to whether the debt increased more under Bush. Or under Obama. And THAT was sole content of the statement in the list.
 
Last edited:
To Vidi re the budget dispute:

Here is what your own link said if you put it into its full context:

Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no Democrats took up.

The full context is soooo important when you're using somebody's words to dispute something. To cherry pick the portion that supports a different point of view is. . . .well. . . .disingenuous if not downright dishonest.

The statement re gas prices placed no blame on either President. The statement was what the gas price was when Obama took office and what it is now. That's pretty cut and dried. You can make any kind of excuse for that you wish to or try to make Bush look worse, and perhaps that would even be legitimate, but the fact is the price in January 2009 and the price now was the sole content of the statement, and it is the Obama record. Can Obama make a case justifying the increase? In the Bush administration, you start with a fugre, get a sharp spike in the aftermath of Katrina when a huge number of our offshore rigs were damaged or disabled, and then ended with a number lower han it was when his administration began. So all that has to be part of the debate too if you want to use Bush as a justification for gas prices under Obama.

I'll be back in a bit with the national debt figures that should not be difficult to find. And all the other stuff is really irrelevant to whether the debt increased more under Bush. Or under Obama. And THAT was sole content of the statement in the list.

The full context of the article doesnt matter. I chose the opart that answered the point. The point was that it was 414-0 and 50-0 meaning even the democrats didnt vote for it.

My answer was WHY they didnt. THATS context. Not some bullshit challenge offered by Sessions.

As to gas prices... Theres SO MUCH wrong with just that ONE point that I could spend the entire weekend debunking it. But as I have a life to lead...

If you know anything about gas prices, you know that stat is a bullshit stat used for one purpose only, to blame Obama for the rise in gas prices, when the DIP in gas prices was only because of a HUGE decrease in demand due to the world recession.

Now answer this:

How does the President have control over gas prices? Does he control the prodcution of oil in Saudi Arabia? Iran?

No? None you say?

Then just as the high gas prices in Bushs time had no bearing on Bush, neither does the dip and subsiquent return to the normal price have anything to do with Obama.

Cmon Fox! Youre better than the asshole author of this blatantly biased blog. Not ONE of his points stands up to actual scrutiny.

Im very disappointed in you.
 
Last edited:
Oh and You want to talk about cherry picking? REALLY? While defending the cherry picked 1.95 price stat?

The HONEST question is: Where have gas prices been? and what are they now? Not, hey guess what, there was a HUGE unnatural drop in gas prices right as Obama took office and then they went back to normal. Lets blast him for it!
 

Forum List

Back
Top