For those of you who think Obama has not helped create or save jobs...

[Billy000]

Here's the other problem with your numbers, Billy...

They compare what they "think" might have happened with no stimulus compared to what happened with the Obama Stimulus but they don't compare the Obama Stimulus with a stimulus that primed the private sector and let the public sector contract (which if you believe as I do that government is bloated and inefficient, is a good thing). If we'd spent our trillion dollars THAT way how many jobs would have been created instead of temporarily "saved"? If we'd gone THAT way would the President even need to be back asking for Stimulus II or would growth in the private sector have generated significant revenues...enough to pay for the government that we DO need? Just food for thought.

No, what they did was look at the direct affect the stimulus had on the economy. Come on, is it really so hard to believe that Obama created jobs? Is it really? Why do you try to fight the validity of independent analysis? Unless you can find research that disputes these claims, anything criticism you have toward it is unfounded.

If you're giving Obama credit for creating jobs, you also have to give him responsibility for jobs lost.

And going by the UE figures, he's lost more jobs than he's created.

But how do you know that it was Obama that was responsible for the job loss? Do you really think the president is the only economic influence there is.

Think about it.

 

[Oldstyle]

Again, none of you have sources to counter my OP.

Give it up, Billy...nobody is buying the bullshit anymore. Unemployment is around 9%. The stimulus was a trillion dollar Keynesian "science project" by Larry Summers and Christina Romer that failed miserably out in the real world. Why do you think they both abandoned ship and went back to academia? Because the Obama Stimulus worked? Come on...show some common sense...

You really can't handle cognitive dissonance? Look, you can dislike Obama if you want, but to not give him credit for anything is just narrow-minded and stupid.

The problem I have with Barack Obama, Billy...is that I think he's an empty suit. If you don't know what I mean by that, I'll explain. An empty suit is someone who looks and sounds impressive but has no substance. That to me is Obama in a nutshell.

I don't think he has a clue when it comes to crafting legislation. If he did we wouldn't have ended up with ObamaCare...one of the most badly written pieces of legislation in the history of our country. I think other people have always written legislation FOR Barack because when he tried to do it himself it wasn't something that would pass muster.

I think he's got some deeply held views on economics that only work in the Utopia of your local college classrooms and I don't think he's particularly good at surrounding himself with people who could make up for his own ignorance on the subject.

But more than anything else, Billy...I think Obama views business as nothing more than an ATM machine from which he can obtain the capital to fund his progressive projects. He doesn't seem to feel like business people deserve the profits they receive for their hardwork and does everything he can to take profits away from the owners of businesses to give them to the people that HE thinks deserves them.

 

[Billy000]

Give it up, Billy...nobody is buying the bullshit anymore. Unemployment is around 9%. The stimulus was a trillion dollar Keynesian "science project" by Larry Summers and Christina Romer that failed miserably out in the real world. Why do you think they both abandoned ship and went back to academia? Because the Obama Stimulus worked? Come on...show some common sense...

You really can't handle cognitive dissonance? Look, you can dislike Obama if you want, but to not give him credit for anything is just narrow-minded and stupid.

The problem I have with Barack Obama, Billy...is that I think he's an empty suit. If you don't know what I mean by that, I'll explain. An empty suit is someone who looks and sounds impressive but has no substance. That to me is Obama in a nutshell.

I don't think he has a clue when it comes to crafting legislation. If he did we wouldn't have ended up with ObamaCare...one of the most badly written pieces of legislation in the history of our country. I think other people have always written legislation FOR Barack because when he tried to do it himself it wasn't something that would pass muster.

I think he's got some deeply held views on economics that only work in the Utopia of your local college classrooms and I don't think he's particularly good at surrounding himself with people who could make up for his own ignorance on the subject.

But more than anything else, Billy...I think Obama views business as nothing more than an ATM machine from which he can obtain the capital to fund his progressive projects. He doesn't seem to feel like business people deserve the profits they receive for their hardwork and does everything he can to take profits away from the owners of businesses to give them to the people that HE thinks deserves them.

Whether or not you are right or wrong about him being "an empty suit", you can't seem to back it up. You assume that he can't draft effective legislation, but why? We have three branches of government, you know. Haven't you considered that the reason why Republicans (and democrats) have blocked every piece of legislation he's come up with is for political reasons? Contrary to what you may believe, Obama has made a genuine effort to get bipartisan legislation passed. It's not even because he genuinely wants to fix the country, it just makes political sense. Of course the man is going to try and be bi-partisan. What would be stopping him? How else is he going to get re-elected?

How much do you even know about ObamaCare besides what you hear on Fox News? Have you read through it yourself? I doubt it.

 

[Oldstyle]

You really can't handle cognitive dissonance? Look, you can dislike Obama if you want, but to not give him credit for anything is just narrow-minded and stupid.

The problem I have with Barack Obama, Billy...is that I think he's an empty suit. If you don't know what I mean by that, I'll explain. An empty suit is someone who looks and sounds impressive but has no substance. That to me is Obama in a nutshell.

I don't think he has a clue when it comes to crafting legislation. If he did we wouldn't have ended up with ObamaCare...one of the most badly written pieces of legislation in the history of our country. I think other people have always written legislation FOR Barack because when he tried to do it himself it wasn't something that would pass muster.

I think he's got some deeply held views on economics that only work in the Utopia of your local college classrooms and I don't think he's particularly good at surrounding himself with people who could make up for his own ignorance on the subject.

But more than anything else, Billy...I think Obama views business as nothing more than an ATM machine from which he can obtain the capital to fund his progressive projects. He doesn't seem to feel like business people deserve the profits they receive for their hardwork and does everything he can to take profits away from the owners of businesses to give them to the people that HE thinks deserves them.

Whether or not you are right or wrong about him being "an empty suit", you can't seem to back it up. You assume that he can't draft effective legislation, but why? We have three branches of government, you know. Haven't you considered that the reason why Republicans (and democrats) have blocked every piece of legislation he's come up with is for political reasons? Contrary to what you may believe, Obama has made a genuine effort to get bipartisan legislation passed. It's not even because he genuinely wants to fix the country, it just makes political sense. Of course the man is going to try and be bi-partisan. What would be stopping him? How else is he going to get re-elected?

How much do you even know about ObamaCare besides what you hear on Fox News? Have you read through it yourself? I doubt it.

Actually, Billy...if I say something here I'm quite ready to back it up.

You ask why I say he can't draft effective legislation? I point you to his legislative record. As an Illinois State Senator exactly zero of the bills he sponsored in his first two years were passed. That's a big O-fer. It wasn't until he went to Emile Jones...the black Godfather of Chicago politics and begged for help that he suddenly became a legislative "whiz". The difference between before and after was that Jones took bills that other Democrats had worked long and hard on and GAVE them to Obama to sign onto as his own. As Jones remarked to a Chicago newspaper reporter about Obama..."Watch me make a US Senator."

Then let's examine his legislative record once he reached the US Senate. Once again he was allowed to "piggy back" on the bills of other Democrats because after his Democratic National Convention speech he was viewed as an up and coming "star" of the party. A star that couldn't write a bill to save his life...but a star none the less.

Now you could "really" impress me, Billy if you could show me a bill that Barack Obama wrote. Good luck on that... It's like trying to find all the articles he wrote while he was on the Harvard Law Review...or all the scholarly works he wrote while he was teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Good luck finding those as well...

Yes, you're right that Republicans have tried to block most of his agenda for "political reasons"...but more importantly they blocked Obama's agenda because they felt he was proposing bad policy that would ultimately cause the country harm. That's what they are THERE for in the first place. Obama wanted Cap & Trade legislation. The Republicans opposed it. Why? Because it would have cost hundreds of thousands of jobs...the very same reason the Blue Dog Democrats opposed Cap & Trade.

As for Obama trying to pass bi-partisan legislation? Where exactly did that take place? Oh, I grant you that he TALKS about bi-partisan cooperation but he follows those speeches up with declarations that he'll veto any bill that the Republican Congress sends him that he doesn't like. If he were REALLY interested in bi-partisan legislation he'd tell Harry Reid and the Democrats over in the Senate to bring some of the Republican bills now sitting in limbo to the floor so they could be voted on. You can't reach a compromise with the other side when you won't allow their proposals to be discussed on the floor and that's what's been going on since the Democrats lost their super majorities in the mid term elections.

 

[Billy000]

The problem I have with Barack Obama, Billy...is that I think he's an empty suit. If you don't know what I mean by that, I'll explain. An empty suit is someone who looks and sounds impressive but has no substance. That to me is Obama in a nutshell.

I don't think he has a clue when it comes to crafting legislation. If he did we wouldn't have ended up with ObamaCare...one of the most badly written pieces of legislation in the history of our country. I think other people have always written legislation FOR Barack because when he tried to do it himself it wasn't something that would pass muster.

I think he's got some deeply held views on economics that only work in the Utopia of your local college classrooms and I don't think he's particularly good at surrounding himself with people who could make up for his own ignorance on the subject.

But more than anything else, Billy...I think Obama views business as nothing more than an ATM machine from which he can obtain the capital to fund his progressive projects. He doesn't seem to feel like business people deserve the profits they receive for their hardwork and does everything he can to take profits away from the owners of businesses to give them to the people that HE thinks deserves them.

Whether or not you are right or wrong about him being "an empty suit", you can't seem to back it up. You assume that he can't draft effective legislation, but why? We have three branches of government, you know. Haven't you considered that the reason why Republicans (and democrats) have blocked every piece of legislation he's come up with is for political reasons? Contrary to what you may believe, Obama has made a genuine effort to get bipartisan legislation passed. It's not even because he genuinely wants to fix the country, it just makes political sense. Of course the man is going to try and be bi-partisan. What would be stopping him? How else is he going to get re-elected?

How much do you even know about ObamaCare besides what you hear on Fox News? Have you read through it yourself? I doubt it.

Actually, Billy...if I say something here I'm quite ready to back it up.

You ask why I say he can't draft effective legislation? I point you to his legislative record. As an Illinois State Senator exactly zero of the bills he sponsored in his first two years were passed. That's a big O-fer. It wasn't until he went to Emile Jones...the black Godfather of Chicago politics and begged for help that he suddenly became a legislative "whiz". The difference between before and after was that Jones took bills that other Democrats had worked long and hard on and GAVE them to Obama to sign onto as his own. As Jones remarked to a Chicago newspaper reporter about Obama..."Watch me make a US Senator."

Then let's examine his legislative record once he reached the US Senate. Once again he was allowed to "piggy back" on the bills of other Democrats because after his Democratic National Convention speech he was viewed as an up and coming "star" of the party. A star that couldn't write a bill to save his life...but a star none the less.

Now you could "really" impress me, Billy if you could show me a bill that Barack Obama wrote. Good luck on that... It's like trying to find all the articles he wrote while he was on the Harvard Law Review...or all the scholarly works he wrote while he was teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Good luck finding those as well...

Yes, you're right that Republicans have tried to block most of his agenda for "political reasons"...but more importantly they blocked Obama's agenda because they felt he was proposing bad policy that would ultimately cause the country harm. That's what they are THERE for in the first place. Obama wanted Cap & Trade legislation. The Republicans opposed it. Why? Because it would have cost hundreds of thousands of jobs...the very same reason the Blue Dog Democrats opposed Cap & Trade.

As for Obama trying to pass bi-partisan legislation? Where exactly did that take place? Oh, I grant you that he TALKS about bi-partisan cooperation but he follows those speeches up with declarations that he'll veto any bill that the Republican Congress sends him that he doesn't like. If he were REALLY interested in bi-partisan legislation he'd tell Harry Reid and the Democrats over in the Senate to bring some of the Republican bills now sitting in limbo to the floor so they could be voted on. You can't reach a compromise with the other side when you won't allow their proposals to be discussed on the floor and that's what's been going on since the Democrats lost their super majorities in the mid term elections.

You really like my name, don't you?

You may be half right about his political prowess as a senator. The facts here can be left open to interpretation, however:

http://factcheck.org/2008/09/obamas-legislative-record/

I do think, however, if he was such an incompetant president, the truth would have outed by now. I guess we will wait and see.

EDIT: Posted wrong link -- oops.

 

[Oldstyle]

Whether or not you are right or wrong about him being "an empty suit", you can't seem to back it up. You assume that he can't draft effective legislation, but why? We have three branches of government, you know. Haven't you considered that the reason why Republicans (and democrats) have blocked every piece of legislation he's come up with is for political reasons? Contrary to what you may believe, Obama has made a genuine effort to get bipartisan legislation passed. It's not even because he genuinely wants to fix the country, it just makes political sense. Of course the man is going to try and be bi-partisan. What would be stopping him? How else is he going to get re-elected?

How much do you even know about ObamaCare besides what you hear on Fox News? Have you read through it yourself? I doubt it.

Actually, Billy...if I say something here I'm quite ready to back it up.

You ask why I say he can't draft effective legislation? I point you to his legislative record. As an Illinois State Senator exactly zero of the bills he sponsored in his first two years were passed. That's a big O-fer. It wasn't until he went to Emile Jones...the black Godfather of Chicago politics and begged for help that he suddenly became a legislative "whiz". The difference between before and after was that Jones took bills that other Democrats had worked long and hard on and GAVE them to Obama to sign onto as his own. As Jones remarked to a Chicago newspaper reporter about Obama..."Watch me make a US Senator."

Then let's examine his legislative record once he reached the US Senate. Once again he was allowed to "piggy back" on the bills of other Democrats because after his Democratic National Convention speech he was viewed as an up and coming "star" of the party. A star that couldn't write a bill to save his life...but a star none the less.

Now you could "really" impress me, Billy if you could show me a bill that Barack Obama wrote. Good luck on that... It's like trying to find all the articles he wrote while he was on the Harvard Law Review...or all the scholarly works he wrote while he was teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Good luck finding those as well...

Yes, you're right that Republicans have tried to block most of his agenda for "political reasons"...but more importantly they blocked Obama's agenda because they felt he was proposing bad policy that would ultimately cause the country harm. That's what they are THERE for in the first place. Obama wanted Cap & Trade legislation. The Republicans opposed it. Why? Because it would have cost hundreds of thousands of jobs...the very same reason the Blue Dog Democrats opposed Cap & Trade.

As for Obama trying to pass bi-partisan legislation? Where exactly did that take place? Oh, I grant you that he TALKS about bi-partisan cooperation but he follows those speeches up with declarations that he'll veto any bill that the Republican Congress sends him that he doesn't like. If he were REALLY interested in bi-partisan legislation he'd tell Harry Reid and the Democrats over in the Senate to bring some of the Republican bills now sitting in limbo to the floor so they could be voted on. You can't reach a compromise with the other side when you won't allow their proposals to be discussed on the floor and that's what's been going on since the Democrats lost their super majorities in the mid term elections.

You really like my name, don't you?

You may be half right about his political prowess as a senator. The facts here can be left open to interpretation, however:

FactCheck.org : Obama’s Legislative Record

I do think, however, if he was such an incompetant president, the truth would have outed by now. I guess we will wait and see.

EDIT: Posted wrong link -- oops.

Ah, I read your cited source...and it talks about his voting "present", not the legislation he sponsored. Where does my contention that he was a terrible legislator get called into question by that article?

Let's face it...the truth has been "outed" for quite some time, Billy. Barack Obama has one talent. He's a gifted speaker. He has no executive skills whatsoever. He's clueless when it comes to the economy. He's been ineffective with his foreign policy. He should thank God for W's enhanced interregation policy because without that policy...one that Obama opposed...those Navy Seals would never have gotten Osama bin Laden and Barack would be seen as a complete failure.

As far as our "waiting to see"? It's been three years. How much more do you NEED to see?

 

[Billy000]

Actually, Billy...if I say something here I'm quite ready to back it up.

You ask why I say he can't draft effective legislation? I point you to his legislative record. As an Illinois State Senator exactly zero of the bills he sponsored in his first two years were passed. That's a big O-fer. It wasn't until he went to Emile Jones...the black Godfather of Chicago politics and begged for help that he suddenly became a legislative "whiz". The difference between before and after was that Jones took bills that other Democrats had worked long and hard on and GAVE them to Obama to sign onto as his own. As Jones remarked to a Chicago newspaper reporter about Obama..."Watch me make a US Senator."

Then let's examine his legislative record once he reached the US Senate. Once again he was allowed to "piggy back" on the bills of other Democrats because after his Democratic National Convention speech he was viewed as an up and coming "star" of the party. A star that couldn't write a bill to save his life...but a star none the less.

Now you could "really" impress me, Billy if you could show me a bill that Barack Obama wrote. Good luck on that... It's like trying to find all the articles he wrote while he was on the Harvard Law Review...or all the scholarly works he wrote while he was teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Good luck finding those as well...

Yes, you're right that Republicans have tried to block most of his agenda for "political reasons"...but more importantly they blocked Obama's agenda because they felt he was proposing bad policy that would ultimately cause the country harm. That's what they are THERE for in the first place. Obama wanted Cap & Trade legislation. The Republicans opposed it. Why? Because it would have cost hundreds of thousands of jobs...the very same reason the Blue Dog Democrats opposed Cap & Trade.

As for Obama trying to pass bi-partisan legislation? Where exactly did that take place? Oh, I grant you that he TALKS about bi-partisan cooperation but he follows those speeches up with declarations that he'll veto any bill that the Republican Congress sends him that he doesn't like. If he were REALLY interested in bi-partisan legislation he'd tell Harry Reid and the Democrats over in the Senate to bring some of the Republican bills now sitting in limbo to the floor so they could be voted on. You can't reach a compromise with the other side when you won't allow their proposals to be discussed on the floor and that's what's been going on since the Democrats lost their super majorities in the mid term elections.

You really like my name, don't you?

You may be half right about his political prowess as a senator. The facts here can be left open to interpretation, however:

FactCheck.org : Obama’s Legislative Record

I do think, however, if he was such an incompetant president, the truth would have outed by now. I guess we will wait and see.

EDIT: Posted wrong link -- oops.

Ah, I read your cited source...and it talks about his voting "present", not the legislation he sponsored. Where does my contention that he was a terrible legislator get called into question by that article?

Let's face it...the truth has been "outed" for quite some time, Billy. Barack Obama has one talent. He's a gifted speaker. He has no executive skills whatsoever. He's clueless when it comes to the economy. He's been ineffective with his foreign policy. He should thank God for W's enhanced interregation policy because without that policy...one that Obama opposed...those Navy Seals would never have gotten Osama bin Laden and Barack would be seen as a complete failure.

Ugh, now I am just talking to a wall. I have provided indisputable evidence that Obama is not incompetant, yet you still assert otherwise. However, I think you know I am right. You just cant stand the fact that the almighty Fox News could be incorrect, so we continue this argument in futility.

 

[Oldstyle]

You really like my name, don't you?

You may be half right about his political prowess as a senator. The facts here can be left open to interpretation, however:

FactCheck.org : Obama’s Legislative Record

I do think, however, if he was such an incompetant president, the truth would have outed by now. I guess we will wait and see.

EDIT: Posted wrong link -- oops.

Ah, I read your cited source...and it talks about his voting "present", not the legislation he sponsored. Where does my contention that he was a terrible legislator get called into question by that article?

Let's face it...the truth has been "outed" for quite some time, Billy. Barack Obama has one talent. He's a gifted speaker. He has no executive skills whatsoever. He's clueless when it comes to the economy. He's been ineffective with his foreign policy. He should thank God for W's enhanced interregation policy because without that policy...one that Obama opposed...those Navy Seals would never have gotten Osama bin Laden and Barack would be seen as a complete failure.

Ugh, now I am just talking to a wall. I have provided indisputable evidence that Obama is not incompetant, yet you still assert otherwise. However, I think you know I am right. You just cant stand the fact that the almighty Fox News could be incorrect, so we continue this argument in futility.

I ask you for examples of Obama's legislative "ability" and you cite an article about his "present" votes? Was THAT your proof? Come on, Billy...if you want to play the game you're going to have to actually come up with something to prove Barack Obama isn't just an empty suit as I've stated. So go back over Barack Obama's long and "illustrious" career and show me some examples of great legislation that he himself wrote. If you can't find that...then give me an example of some scholarly works on constitutional law that he produced when he was teaching the subject. Or if you can't find that, Billy...then give me an example of the incisive articles he wrote when he was the President of the Harvard Law Review.

Surely you can find SOMETHING in Barack Obama's adult career that shows his competence? Let's see what you've got, my little progressive.

 

[Full-Auto]

Ah, I read your cited source...and it talks about his voting "present", not the legislation he sponsored. Where does my contention that he was a terrible legislator get called into question by that article?

Let's face it...the truth has been "outed" for quite some time, Billy. Barack Obama has one talent. He's a gifted speaker. He has no executive skills whatsoever. He's clueless when it comes to the economy. He's been ineffective with his foreign policy. He should thank God for W's enhanced interregation policy because without that policy...one that Obama opposed...those Navy Seals would never have gotten Osama bin Laden and Barack would be seen as a complete failure.

Ugh, now I am just talking to a wall. I have provided indisputable evidence that Obama is not incompetant, yet you still assert otherwise. However, I think you know I am right. You just cant stand the fact that the almighty Fox News could be incorrect, so we continue this argument in futility.

I ask you for examples of Obama's legislative "ability" and you cite an article about his "present" votes? Was THAT your proof? Come on, Billy...if you want to play the game you're going to have to actually come up with something to prove Barack Obama isn't just an empty suit as I've stated. So go back over Barack Obama's long and "illustrious" career and show me some examples of great legislation that he himself wrote. If you can't find that...then give me an example of some scholarly works on constitutional law that he produced when he was teaching the subject. Or if you can't find that, Billy...then give me an example of the incisive articles he wrote when he was the President of the Harvard Law Review.

Surely you can find SOMETHING in Barack Obama's adult career that shows his competence? Let's see what you've got, my little progressive.

Since there will be a considerable wait.

Can we get a movie!

 

[Jarhead]

You really like my name, don't you?

You may be half right about his political prowess as a senator. The facts here can be left open to interpretation, however:

FactCheck.org : Obama’s Legislative Record

I do think, however, if he was such an incompetant president, the truth would have outed by now. I guess we will wait and see.

EDIT: Posted wrong link -- oops.

Ah, I read your cited source...and it talks about his voting "present", not the legislation he sponsored. Where does my contention that he was a terrible legislator get called into question by that article?

Let's face it...the truth has been "outed" for quite some time, Billy. Barack Obama has one talent. He's a gifted speaker. He has no executive skills whatsoever. He's clueless when it comes to the economy. He's been ineffective with his foreign policy. He should thank God for W's enhanced interregation policy because without that policy...one that Obama opposed...those Navy Seals would never have gotten Osama bin Laden and Barack would be seen as a complete failure.

Ugh, now I am just talking to a wall. I have provided indisputable evidence that Obama is not incompetant, yet you still assert otherwise. However, I think you know I am right. You just cant stand the fact that the almighty Fox News could be incorrect, so we continue this argument in futility.

Obama has one major domestic job as President. To be a leader and get congress to work together so America can move forward.

He struggled to get things done in congress when he had a majority in both houses. To get the health care law passed he needed to put together some back room deals with his own party (backroom deals...something he campaigned against)....and yet he STILL needed to use a congressional loophole to get it passed.

He has been a failure as a leader. That simple. He has made it quite clear that his only trtue asset as a politician is the gift of gab....and he has found that the only way to successfully use that gift is to villify everyone that doesnt agree with him.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ugh, now I am just talking to a wall. I have provided indisputable evidence that Obama is not incompetant, yet you still assert otherwise. However, I think you know I am right. You just cant stand the fact that the almighty Fox News could be incorrect, so we continue this argument in futility.

I ask you for examples of Obama's legislative "ability" and you cite an article about his "present" votes? Was THAT your proof? Come on, Billy...if you want to play the game you're going to have to actually come up with something to prove Barack Obama isn't just an empty suit as I've stated. So go back over Barack Obama's long and "illustrious" career and show me some examples of great legislation that he himself wrote. If you can't find that...then give me an example of some scholarly works on constitutional law that he produced when he was teaching the subject. Or if you can't find that, Billy...then give me an example of the incisive articles he wrote when he was the President of the Harvard Law Review.

Surely you can find SOMETHING in Barack Obama's adult career that shows his competence? Let's see what you've got, my little progressive.

Since there will be a considerable wait.

Can we get a movie!

If the best that Billy can do is to come up with Obama's "present" votes then this is a debate that's destined to fizzle out in a hurry.

The poor little guy doesn't seem to understand that his "hero" took his appointment as President of the Harvard Law Review (which occurred not because he was so brilliant but simply because the powers that be at Harvard had decided they needed to have a person of color elected to that position to deflect criticism of their treatment of black faculty at the school) and milked that for a six figure book deal, a job at a prestigious law firm, a job teaching at the University of Chicago and his whole political career...all the while doing as little as humanly possible.

Billy is a true believer...he really thinks Barack Obama is brilliant. And why? Because someone's TOLD HIM that Obama's brilliant. But if someone like me asks him to perform what should be a very simple task given Barack's supposed brilliance...namely cite some examples of it...he suddenly has real problems coming up with something that would fit that description. I'm genuinely amused by the whole thing.

 

[daveman]

No, what they did was look at the direct affect the stimulus had on the economy. Come on, is it really so hard to believe that Obama created jobs? Is it really? Why do you try to fight the validity of independent analysis? Unless you can find research that disputes these claims, anything criticism you have toward it is unfounded.

If you're giving Obama credit for creating jobs, you also have to give him responsibility for jobs lost.

And going by the UE figures, he's lost more jobs than he's created.

But how do you know that it was Obama that was responsible for the job loss? Do you really think the president is the only economic influence there is.

Think about it.

I'd ask you the same question about job growth, but you take it on faith that Obama is responsible.

Meanwhile, answer this question: What happens to a job when the stimulus money that funded it runs out?

 

[Jarhead]

If you're giving Obama credit for creating jobs, you also have to give him responsibility for jobs lost.

And going by the UE figures, he's lost more jobs than he's created.

But how do you know that it was Obama that was responsible for the job loss? Do you really think the president is the only economic influence there is.

Think about it.

I'd ask you the same question about job growth, but you take it on faith that Obama is responsible.

Meanwhile, answer this question: What happens to a job when the stimulus money that funded it runs out?

Thats the problem. Progressives look at the positives of a policy without considering the negative long term ramifications of the policy.

 

[The Rabbi]

But how do you know that it was Obama that was responsible for the job loss? Do you really think the president is the only economic influence there is.

Think about it.

I'd ask you the same question about job growth, but you take it on faith that Obama is responsible.

Meanwhile, answer this question: What happens to a job when the stimulus money that funded it runs out?

Thats the problem. Progressives look at the positives of a policy without considering the negative long term ramifications of the policy.

Actually that's wrong.
Progressives look at what a program is supposed to do, regardless of whether it achieves its objectives, or reasonably could even do so.
So the stimulus was meant to "save" the economy. Over 200 economists took out an ad warning that that would not happen. The results are in and the conclusion is clear that the stimulus failed to do anything other than spend money we dont have.
And yet the progressives are touting the need for another one becayse the first one was too small.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm amused by Billy's lack of a response to my challenge to provide an example of something Barack Obama has produced while President of the Harvard Law Review, a college professor at the University of Chicago, an Illinois State Senator, or a US Senator that was exceptional.

I have a feeling the poor guy is desperately pouring over Obama's adult life looking for SOMETHING that Barack did that was note worthy and getting more and more frustrated because there's really nothing there to find. Barack Obama is the poster child of what affirmative action can do for someone who's savvy enough to play the game...and let's give him his due...he was very savvy to parlay that Harvard Law Review gig into what he has. It's too bad for the country that he didn't pick up some of the skills he needs to PERFORM the job of President along the way.

 

[Sundial]

Why don't we talk about what Obama has done as president?

He's presided over the end of the worst economic recession since WWII. Note: he didn't preside over the BEGINNING of the recession. That was George W. It BEGAN in 2997, and ended in 09.

He turned the job situation around. When Bush left, the economy was losing 800,000 jobs per month. Now we're gaining one to two hundred thousand. Its not enough, of course. More is needed. A jobs bill, for example, and a continuation of the middle-class tax cut - both of which the Republicans are stalling.

He finally caught and killed Bin Laden.

He passed Obamacare.

He ended US state-sponsored torture.

He lowered taxes for ordinary working Americans.

DADT is gone. He's stopped the Justice Dept. defending DOMA.

You may not agree with all that. In fact I'm sure you disagree. But you can't deny it's an impressive record.

 

[Jarhead]

Why don't we talk about what Obama has done as president?

He's presided over the end of the worst economic recession since WWII. Note: he didn't preside over the BEGINNING of the recession. That was George W. It BEGAN in 2997, and ended in 09.

He spent a trillion dollars and unemployment is still at unacceptable numbers and still, three years since he spent the money. We will never know where the numbers would be if he did what we asked...let the private sector fix it by itself...FOR FREE.

He turned the job situation around. When Bush left, the economy was losing 800,000 jobs per month. Now we're gaining one to two hundred thousand. Its not enough, of course. More is needed. A jobs bill, for example, and a continuation of the middle-class tax cut - both of which the Republicans are stalling.

OK. If you want to give him credit for that. Go for it. I see it as he stalled the job creation of the private secotre and there is as much reason to belioeve that as to believe what yopu believe.

He finally caught and killed Bin Laden.

He did? I thought it was Navy Seals that risked their lives when they took him out. I may be wrong. Maybe I should read more about it...but I couyld have sworn it was Navy Seals.

He passed Obamacare.

50% of federal courts found it to be unconsitutional. He would never have been able to pass it without a majority in both houses...and he STILL barley got it passed. He admitted not to know all of what was in it becuase he admiutted he did not write it....So you give him credit for it? I blame congress for it.He ended US state-sponsored torture.

He lowered taxes for ordinary working Americans.

So did Bush. But he was a bad bad evil man

DADT is gone. He's stopped the Justice Dept. defending DOMA.

Yes...thank you congress for eliminating DADT.

You may not agree with all that. In fact I'm sure you disagree. But you can't deny it's an impressive record.

He is a junior politician who has failed at the one, most important thing we need from a president.

LEADERSHIP.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why don't we talk about what Obama has done as president?

He's presided over the end of the worst economic recession since WWII. Note: he didn't preside over the BEGINNING of the recession. That was George W. It BEGAN in 2997, and ended in 09.

He turned the job situation around. When Bush left, the economy was losing 800,000 jobs per month. Now we're gaining one to two hundred thousand. Its not enough, of course. More is needed. A jobs bill, for example, and a continuation of the middle-class tax cut - both of which the Republicans are stalling.

He finally caught and killed Bin Laden.

He passed Obamacare.

He ended US state-sponsored torture.

He lowered taxes for ordinary working Americans.

DADT is gone. He's stopped the Justice Dept. defending DOMA.

You may not agree with all that. In fact I'm sure you disagree. But you can't deny it's an impressive record.

You're kidding.
He didnt catch anyone. Navy SEALs, operating under a program begun by Bush, caught bin Laden.
He didnt pass anything. Congress passed Obamacare, which he had little to no input on.
He outsourced torture to 3rd countries, and made us less safe in the process.
There are many fewer working Americans thanks to Obama.
Congress passed legislation repealing DADT. He made an unconstitutional decision as to which laws, which he is sworn to uphold, to enforce.

 

[Oldstyle]

Why don't we talk about what Obama has done as president?

He's presided over the end of the worst economic recession since WWII. Note: he didn't preside over the BEGINNING of the recession. That was George W. It BEGAN in 2997, and ended in 09.

He turned the job situation around. When Bush left, the economy was losing 800,000 jobs per month. Now we're gaining one to two hundred thousand. Its not enough, of course. More is needed. A jobs bill, for example, and a continuation of the middle-class tax cut - both of which the Republicans are stalling.

He finally caught and killed Bin Laden.

He passed Obamacare.

He ended US state-sponsored torture.

He lowered taxes for ordinary working Americans.

DADT is gone. He's stopped the Justice Dept. defending DOMA.

You may not agree with all that. In fact I'm sure you disagree. But you can't deny it's an impressive record.

Impressive?

From where I'm sitting...not so much.

First of all, he's "presided" over a continuing recession, Sun...now you might argue that technically the recession has ended but the vast majority of the country doesn't believe that is the case...just as the vast majority of the country doesn't feel we're headed in the right direction with the economy. That's what Barack Obama has "presided" over. One of the slowest recoveries after a recession in our country's history. The only thing that comes close is the Great Depression.

Obama stopped the job losses? Really? Did his policies stop them or did they slow because the recession had already started to bottom out? I lean towards the latter since his "policies" have been so ineffective since. It's all well and good to credit Obama for "saving" us, only when you compare OUR economy to say, Germany's...who didn't do a massive stimulus program when Obama asked them to...and see that they actually recovered much faster than we did without spending the trillion dollars that we did, it makes that argument hard to make.

The Obama "Jobs Bill" is a joke, Sun. It's a rehashed, smaller version of the stimulus that didn't work last time. Obama only proposed it to try and paint the Republicans as obstructionists for not passing something that he can't even get Democrats to support.

Yes, we finally did kill Osama bin Laden. Would that have happened without W's enhanced interrogations? You know...the thing that Obama opposed?

For every tax that Barack Obama has lowered for Americans...he's imposed other taxes to make up the difference...including looming taxes to pay for his signature piece of legislation, ObamaCare. The bill that he will be presenting to our kids and grandkids is staggering.

 

[Sundial]

If y'all want to say, "Oh it was the Navy Seals who did it, not Obama"; go ahead. But you appear to be hypocrites (which you are) when you blame everything bad that happens on Obama (because he's President), but won't give him credit when he does something good. You're just revealing your own ingrained bias against him.

Obama did spend money to turn the economy around. He had to. So - by the way - did Bush. ($1.4 trillion deficit for the 08-09 fiscal year - the largest ever.) That's what happens when you've got nearly a million people losing their jobs every month and the worst financial crisis since 1929. I don't blame Bush for that. (Well, I might blame him for some of the policies that contributed to the crisis in the first place, but I don't blame him for the deficit.) I didn't like Bush. I didn't like what he did in Iraq. I didn't like his style. I didn't like anything about him. But I'm capable of admitting when he's done something right. TARP was right; and he did it.

You say, "Well, maybe everything would have been ok even if the government hadn't stepped in."

Well, maybe. But that's not what anybody was saying at the time. Do you remember when the stock market dropped 50%? When the Dow was losing 1000 points PER DAY?

Do you remember anybody coming on TV and saying, "Hey, maybe it'll all be ok if nobody does anything"?

I don't.

Where were all these free-market people then?

Claiming NOW, that things are getting better, that they would have gotten better ANYWAY, is easy to do, and impossible to disprove. But what we know is that things sucked. Obama did what he did. And things improved. The rest is just speculation.

If you really things would have gotten better without any intervention, Why? How? When? How do you know?

Waiting until things get better, and then claiming the medicine wasn't needed seems kind of pissant to me.