'Are You Better Off....'

[jasonnfree]

...everything crashed before Obama took office, remember? We had 8 years of Bush to wreck the economy, can't expect Obama to fix it in less. especially with republicans that declared war on Obam before he even took office. Mitch McConnel even stated their goal, making sure Obama is a one term president. In my opinion we're always better off under Democrats. Nixon, dirty tricks and Watergate, Reagan, Iran Contra, serious stuff, Bush 2, we all know his record. Stick with the party that will do something for ordinary citizens, food stamps, unemployment, soc. security, childrens health insurance, education for all. All these things Republicans hate. Not Republican voters, but the politicians.
How is a vicious vulture capitalist like Romney going to make anything better?

Also, Obama has kept us safe his whole term in office so far. He got Bin Laden also.. Bush? Was in office a few months not counting his one month vacation at his ranch at crawdad, Texas, where he ignored warnings about terrorist attacks. Never even tried to get Bin Laden. Go Democrats Go.

 

[jasonnfree]

I think under Carter we would be well on our way to energy independence. He was doing well until the hostage crisis. I believe, as do others, that Reagan/Bush interfered with the hostage situation to make Carter look bad.

This country is not better off under Obama...Make him a ONE TERM PRESIDENT...let him join Jimma Carter in being known as ONE of the worst

 

[Katzndogz]

obama's policies took a bad situation and made it worse. That's his responsibility.

 

[jasonnfree]

That's a very subjective statement. Is it possible that nobody could have made it better? Things started crashing just before the election. Is it possible also that the war the Republicans declared on Obama helped made it worse? Here's one link.
You could shoot the messenger by saying "ooh Daily Kos" a liberal web site, however if it were a lie, it could have been sued by the republican participants. Another link from huffpo.com about Robert Drapers book. The book has been published and is for sale and as yet no Repubs have denied it. Republican don't want to work for the American people. They're just a wrecking crew.


The Conspiracy to Commit Legislative Constipation | Vanity Fair

Robert Draper Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration

obama's policies took a bad situation and made it worse. That's his responsibility.

 

[jasonnfree]

Vanity Fair, not Daily Kos, although D.K. and many other sites have reported the Republican Conspiracy with unelected team leaders like Frank Luntz.

 

[Wiseacre]

The question about being better off than 4 years ago should be framed within the context of what happened since then and what the president did or didn't do. How'd he do his job, could he have done better? Sure, the country isn't as bad as it was when he took office in January 2009, but has it gotten better after his stewardship had time to become effective? Most economists say the end of a recession comes when the growth in GDP turns positive again, which for us is about June of 2009. I'm okay with saying that the first 5 months or so belong to the Bush admin, after that the responsibility falls to Obama.

I look at the policies implemented and the results since June 2009, and find it unsatisfactory. Democrats don't get to have it both ways, you don't get credit for preventing a depression; if you're going to blame Bush for the first 5 months of 2009 then Bush should also be credited with HIS policies that precluded a depression and a financial collapse. For the democrats to accept credit for one but not blame for the other is disingenuous.

So - are we satisfied enough with what Obama has done since June 2009? By then the recession was officially over, why didn't we get a recovery? History says we shoulda got one, right? We were told the Stimulus Bill would correct the situation and employment would improve; didn't happen. The major issue that should have been fixed wasn't. Still isn't. Nowhere to run on that one.

Obama wanted a Jobs Package, another 450 billion in more spending. But that was a big selling point of the Stimulus Bill, shovel ready jobs just waiting for the bill to get signed. Didn't happen. That's called failure, Obama made a joke out of it, the jobs weren't as shovel-ready as we thought. Well, I ain't laughing, wasn't funny to me. And I'm supposed to trust him with another 450 billion or so? Don't think so.

Ultimately a president has to have some trust from us and the political opposition. I think of lot of it is gone, and it ain't coming back. If you want 4 more years of what we got now, vote for Obama. I doubt he's going to change, and I doubt the GOP will either. No trust.

 

[Katzndogz]

Questions like are you better off than you were four years ago on places like this board is that a lot of people will claim to be better off because it reflects their political position. 23 million people and counting are clearly not better off and that's what will count.

 

[Stephanie]

Vanity Fair, not Daily Kos, although D.K. and many other sites have reported the Republican Conspiracy with unelected team leaders like Frank Luntz.

lol, and you believe them

 

[jasonnfree]

Somebody says the president could do better. Who knows. Everything was crazy at the time. . Whose to say what McCain would have done. We do know that republicans actively worked against Obama from day one. Thats a definite. We're safer under Obama. After 3 1/2 years no more 9-11 type actions against us. Another definite. Got Bin Laden. Tremendous plus considering that Bin Laden is what bush took us to war over and spent trillions and he never got Bin Laden and he never found those WMD's. Question is, why change Presidents now. Obama has some experience. Romney does not. So, what about the repubs working against the prez? Think that's not pretty serious stuff?

The question about being better off than 4 years ago should be framed within the context of what happened since then and what the president did or didn't do. How'd he do his job, could he have done better? Sure, the country isn't as bad as it was when he took office in January 2009, but has it gotten better after his stewardship had time to become effective? Most economists say the end of a recession comes when the growth in GDP turns positive again, which for us is about June of 2009. I'm okay with saying that the first 5 months or so belong to the Bush admin, after that the responsibility falls to Obama.

I look at the policies implemented and the results since June 2009, and find it unsatisfactory. Democrats don't get to have it both ways, you don't get credit for preventing a depression; if you're going to blame Bush for the first 5 months of 2009 then Bush should also be credited with HIS policies that precluded a depression and a financial collapse. For the democrats to accept credit for one but not blame for the other is disingenuous.

So - are we satisfied enough with what Obama has done since June 2009? By then the recession was officially over, why didn't we get a recovery? History says we shoulda got one, right? We were told the Stimulus Bill would correct the situation and employment would improve; didn't happen. The major issue that should have been fixed wasn't. Still isn't. Nowhere to run on that one.

Obama wanted a Jobs Package, another 450 billion in more spending. But that was a big selling point of the Stimulus Bill, shovel ready jobs just waiting for the bill to get signed. Didn't happen. That's called failure, Obama made a joke out of it, the jobs weren't as shovel-ready as we thought. Well, I ain't laughing, wasn't funny to me. And I'm supposed to trust him with another 450 billion or so? Don't think so.

Ultimately a president has to have some trust from us and the political opposition. I think of lot of it is gone, and it ain't coming back. If you want 4 more years of what we got now, vote for Obama. I doubt he's going to change, and I doubt the GOP will either. No trust.

 

[Stephanie]

Somebody says the president could do better. Who knows. Everything was crazy at the time. . Whose to say what McCain would have done. We do know that republicans actively worked against Obama from day one. Thats a definite. We're safer under Obama. After 3 1/2 years no more 9-11 type actions against us. Another definite. Got Bin Laden. Tremendous plus considering that Bin Laden is what bush took us to war over and spent trillions and he never got Bin Laden and he never found those WMD's. Question is, why change Presidents now. Obama has some experience. Romney does not. So, what about the repubs working against the prez? Think that's not pretty serious stuff?

The question about being better off than 4 years ago should be framed within the context of what happened since then and what the president did or didn't do. How'd he do his job, could he have done better? Sure, the country isn't as bad as it was when he took office in January 2009, but has it gotten better after his stewardship had time to become effective? Most economists say the end of a recession comes when the growth in GDP turns positive again, which for us is about June of 2009. I'm okay with saying that the first 5 months or so belong to the Bush admin, after that the responsibility falls to Obama.

I look at the policies implemented and the results since June 2009, and find it unsatisfactory. Democrats don't get to have it both ways, you don't get credit for preventing a depression; if you're going to blame Bush for the first 5 months of 2009 then Bush should also be credited with HIS policies that precluded a depression and a financial collapse. For the democrats to accept credit for one but not blame for the other is disingenuous.

So - are we satisfied enough with what Obama has done since June 2009? By then the recession was officially over, why didn't we get a recovery? History says we shoulda got one, right? We were told the Stimulus Bill would correct the situation and employment would improve; didn't happen. The major issue that should have been fixed wasn't. Still isn't. Nowhere to run on that one.

Obama wanted a Jobs Package, another 450 billion in more spending. But that was a big selling point of the Stimulus Bill, shovel ready jobs just waiting for the bill to get signed. Didn't happen. That's called failure, Obama made a joke out of it, the jobs weren't as shovel-ready as we thought. Well, I ain't laughing, wasn't funny to me. And I'm supposed to trust him with another 450 billion or so? Don't think so.

Ultimately a president has to have some trust from us and the political opposition. I think of lot of it is gone, and it ain't coming back. If you want 4 more years of what we got now, vote for Obama. I doubt he's going to change, and I doubt the GOP will either. No trust.

the Republicans actively worked against the poor Obama FROM DAY ONE..waaaaa
and it's too bad what Obama wanted, the PEOPLE PUT the Republicans back in the house in 2010 TO STOP the idiot spending the administration was doing...

 

[hortysir]

3rd month of submitting resumes
2nd month of living with family
*shrug*

 

[jasonnfree]

Obviously to you it's no big deal repubs conspiring againt the president with an unelected individual before he even takes office. What are they going on that they need to vow obstruction against anything he does. This is why I call them the wrecking crew. By working against him they're working against the country. Repubs won 2010 because democrats stayed home. This is cyclical and nothing that didn't happen to Bush or Clinton either.

Somebody says the president could do better. Who knows. Everything was crazy at the time. . Whose to say what McCain would have done. We do know that republicans actively worked against Obama from day one. Thats a definite. We're safer under Obama. After 3 1/2 years no more 9-11 type actions against us. Another definite. Got Bin Laden. Tremendous plus considering that Bin Laden is what bush took us to war over and spent trillions and he never got Bin Laden and he never found those WMD's. Question is, why change Presidents now. Obama has some experience. Romney does not. So, what about the repubs working against the prez? Think that's not pretty serious stuff?

The question about being better off than 4 years ago should be framed within the context of what happened since then and what the president did or didn't do. How'd he do his job, could he have done better? Sure, the country isn't as bad as it was when he took office in January 2009, but has it gotten better after his stewardship had time to become effective? Most economists say the end of a recession comes when the growth in GDP turns positive again, which for us is about June of 2009. I'm okay with saying that the first 5 months or so belong to the Bush admin, after that the responsibility falls to Obama.

I look at the policies implemented and the results since June 2009, and find it unsatisfactory. Democrats don't get to have it both ways, you don't get credit for preventing a depression; if you're going to blame Bush for the first 5 months of 2009 then Bush should also be credited with HIS policies that precluded a depression and a financial collapse. For the democrats to accept credit for one but not blame for the other is disingenuous.

So - are we satisfied enough with what Obama has done since June 2009? By then the recession was officially over, why didn't we get a recovery? History says we shoulda got one, right? We were told the Stimulus Bill would correct the situation and employment would improve; didn't happen. The major issue that should have been fixed wasn't. Still isn't. Nowhere to run on that one.

Obama wanted a Jobs Package, another 450 billion in more spending. But that was a big selling point of the Stimulus Bill, shovel ready jobs just waiting for the bill to get signed. Didn't happen. That's called failure, Obama made a joke out of it, the jobs weren't as shovel-ready as we thought. Well, I ain't laughing, wasn't funny to me. And I'm supposed to trust him with another 450 billion or so? Don't think so.

Ultimately a president has to have some trust from us and the political opposition. I think of lot of it is gone, and it ain't coming back. If you want 4 more years of what we got now, vote for Obama. I doubt he's going to change, and I doubt the GOP will either. No trust.

the Republicans actively worked against the poor Obama FROM DAY ONE..waaaaa
and it's too bad what Obama wanted, the PEOPLE PUT the Republicans back in the house in 2010 TO STOP the idiot spending the administration was doing...

 

[Stephanie]

Obviously to you it's no big deal repubs conspiring againt the president with an unelected individual before he even takes office. What are they going on that they need to vow obstruction against anything he does. This is why I call them the wrecking crew. By working against him they're working against the country. Repubs won 2010 because democrats stayed home. This is cyclical and nothing that didn't happen to Bush or Clinton either.

Somebody says the president could do better. Who knows. Everything was crazy at the time. . Whose to say what McCain would have done. We do know that republicans actively worked against Obama from day one. Thats a definite. We're safer under Obama. After 3 1/2 years no more 9-11 type actions against us. Another definite. Got Bin Laden. Tremendous plus considering that Bin Laden is what bush took us to war over and spent trillions and he never got Bin Laden and he never found those WMD's. Question is, why change Presidents now. Obama has some experience. Romney does not. So, what about the repubs working against the prez? Think that's not pretty serious stuff?

the Republicans actively worked against the poor Obama FROM DAY ONE..waaaaa
and it's too bad what Obama wanted, the PEOPLE PUT the Republicans back in the house in 2010 TO STOP the idiot spending the administration was doing...

well you got all the talking point points down pat, like we haven't heard this a million times, yawn

 

[Wiseacre]

Obviously to you it's no big deal repubs conspiring againt the president with an unelected individual before he even takes office. What are they going on that they need to vow obstruction against anything he does. This is why I call them the wrecking crew. By working against him they're working against the country. Repubs won 2010 because democrats stayed home. This is cyclical and nothing that didn't happen to Bush or Clinton either.

Somebody says the president could do better. Who knows. Everything was crazy at the time. . Whose to say what McCain would have done. We do know that republicans actively worked against Obama from day one. Thats a definite. We're safer under Obama. After 3 1/2 years no more 9-11 type actions against us. Another definite. Got Bin Laden. Tremendous plus considering that Bin Laden is what bush took us to war over and spent trillions and he never got Bin Laden and he never found those WMD's. Question is, why change Presidents now. Obama has some experience. Romney does not. So, what about the repubs working against the prez? Think that's not pretty serious stuff?

the Republicans actively worked against the poor Obama FROM DAY ONE..waaaaa
and it's too bad what Obama wanted, the PEOPLE PUT the Republicans back in the house in 2010 TO STOP the idiot spending the administration was doing...

I didn't see Obama or the Dems showing any inclination to work with the GOP, before or after the 2010 elections. Cooperation and compromise is a two way street, and the dems are every bit as obstructionist as the repubs were. And beyond that, they showed absolutely no leadership, no concern for the country's best interests.

 

[daphillenium]

Obviously to you it's no big deal repubs conspiring againt the president with an unelected individual before he even takes office. What are they going on that they need to vow obstruction against anything he does. This is why I call them the wrecking crew. By working against him they're working against the country. Repubs won 2010 because democrats stayed home. This is cyclical and nothing that didn't happen to Bush or Clinton either.

the Republicans actively worked against the poor Obama FROM DAY ONE..waaaaa
and it's too bad what Obama wanted, the PEOPLE PUT the Republicans back in the house in 2010 TO STOP the idiot spending the administration was doing...

I didn't see Obama or the Dems showing any inclination to work with the GOP, before or after the 2010 elections. Cooperation and compromise is a two way street, and the dems are every bit as obstructionist as the repubs were. And beyond that, they showed absolutely no leadership, no concern for the country's best interests.

Actually a lot of Dems get upset at their own elected officials a lot of the time because they give in too much to republicans to get stuff done. At the DNC this year there was more and more talk about the Dem party finally getting a backbone this year hopefully.

 

[jasonnfree]

Nice answer, talking points, yawn.

Obviously to you it's no big deal repubs conspiring againt the president with an unelected individual before he even takes office. What are they going on that they need to vow obstruction against anything he does. This is why I call them the wrecking crew. By working against him they're working against the country. Repubs won 2010 because democrats stayed home. This is cyclical and nothing that didn't happen to Bush or Clinton either.

the Republicans actively worked against the poor Obama FROM DAY ONE..waaaaa
and it's too bad what Obama wanted, the PEOPLE PUT the Republicans back in the house in 2010 TO STOP the idiot spending the administration was doing...

well you got all the talking point points down pat, like we haven't heard this a million times, yawn

 

[jasonnfree]

He included them on health care reform as much as possible, considering republican politicians don't believe in any programs for ordinary Americans. He appointed fiscal conservatives to a deficit reduction committee. He caved in on extending Bush tax cuts for two more years, going against what his party wanted. He even said all entitlements are on the table. I wonder why Republicans don't embrace this reach across the aisle kind of President trying to please the other side. Look at his appointments. Keeps Gates as Secretary of War. Free trader trade rep. Ron Kirk. Kept the same floozies that were in when the economy crashed. Not one progressive in his cabinet. No confering with the likes of Paul Krugman, Noam Chomsky, or Hugo Chavez but he still gets the title of commie, socialist.
What were the Repubs offering? No new taxes pledges to their spiritual leader, Grover Norquist, a private citizen. That's as bad as conspiring with Frank Luntz to make war on Obama. If I'm missing something sensible the Repubs were trying to do with Obama, I missed it, but let me know.

Obviously to you it's no big deal repubs conspiring againt the president with an unelected individual before he even takes office. What are they going on that they need to vow obstruction against anything he does. This is why I call them the wrecking crew. By working against him they're working against the country. Repubs won 2010 because democrats stayed home. This is cyclical and nothing that didn't happen to Bush or Clinton either.

the Republicans actively worked against the poor Obama FROM DAY ONE..waaaaa
and it's too bad what Obama wanted, the PEOPLE PUT the Republicans back in the house in 2010 TO STOP the idiot spending the administration was doing...

I didn't see Obama or the Dems showing any inclination to work with the GOP, before or after the 2010 elections. Cooperation and compromise is a two way street, and the dems are every bit as obstructionist as the repubs were. And beyond that, they showed absolutely no leadership, no concern for the country's best interests.

 

[Wiseacre]

He included them on health care reform as much as possible, [False!] considering republican politicians don't believe in any programs for ordinary Americans. He appointed fiscal conservatives to a deficit reduction committee. [And then ignored it.] He caved in on extending Bush tax cuts for two more years, going against what his party wanted. [Wasn't that during the lame duck session, when he still had a majority in the Senate and the House? Somebodyin his party must've wanted it.] He even said all entitlements are on the table. [Oh yeah, right. Anybody who believes that also believes in the tooth fairy.] I wonder why Republicans don't embrace this reach across the aisle kind of President trying to please the other side. [What a load of nonsense, do you not listen to what the man has been saying for the past 4 years? Nothing but bashing and finger pointing. That's your idea of reaching across the aisle?] Look at his appointments. Keeps Gates as Secretary of War. [First, we don't have a Sec'y of War, it's called the Defense Dept. And I don't think Gates was all that political.] Free trader trade rep. Ron Kirk. Kept the same floozies that were in when the economy crashed. Not one progressive in his cabinet. [Really? Kinda doubt that. Hillary Clinton comes to mind. What about Stephen Cho? Did you notice some of his czar appointments? Like Van Jones?] No confering with the likes of Paul Krugman, Noam Chomsky, or Hugo Chavez but he still gets the title of commie, socialist. You think Obama deserves credit for not confering with these bozos?

What were the Repubs offering? No new taxes pledges to their spiritual leader, Grover Norquist, a private citizen. That's as bad as conspiring with Frank Luntz to make war on Obama. If I'm missing something sensible the Repubs were trying to do with Obama, I missed it, but let me know.

Obviously to you it's no big deal repubs conspiring againt the president with an unelected individual before he even takes office. What are they going on that they need to vow obstruction against anything he does. This is why I call them the wrecking crew. By working against him they're working against the country. Repubs won 2010 because democrats stayed home. This is cyclical and nothing that didn't happen to Bush or Clinton either.

I didn't see Obama or the Dems showing any inclination to work with the GOP, before or after the 2010 elections. Cooperation and compromise is a two way street, and the dems are every bit as obstructionist as the repubs were. And beyond that, they showed absolutely no leadership, no concern for the country's best interests.

The repubs passed all kinds of bills, all of which died on Reid's desk. When did the Senate actually try to work something out, when did the dems pass something in the Senate, when was their last budget? Neither they nor Obama ever negotiated in good faith, it was always the typical democrat ploy, give us a tax hike now and we'll promise to cut spending later. Lies, always lies.

 

[copsnrobbers]

I'm worse off.

mee too.....

 

[midcan5]

Anyone who can argue that the republicans worked fairly with Obama lives in a bubble so dense reality cannot enter. The same situation occurred when William Jefferson Clinton was elected. It was almost as if the republicans felt entitled to the presidency after Reagan? Reagan democrats gave the false impression they were not paying attention. But they finally did pay attention. The entire Clinton presidency became one of investigation after investigation. Millions were spent getting to that blue dress. The money was not for the betterment of the nation but to remove an obstacle to power. Same with Obama, only worse this time as money now has gained new life and a new strength from republican judicial selections. Judges matter folks, pay attention.

But all is not lost, even Fox media sees flaws in Romney Ryan today, that is a sort of miracle. This piece is from Alabama, jeez maybe the South will rise again?

'Alabama Voices: America is better off with Obama' Alabama Voices: America is better off with Obama | The Montgomery Advertiser | montgomeryadvertiser.com