My number one reason for disappointment in Obama

[The T]

I'd be here all week listing his failures. He did good by allowing concealed handguns in national parks, much to his chagrin.

If you can only pick one, the worst on the list, what would it be?

Pushing Ocare while the country was bleeding out. He had a golden opportunity but failed.

Pushing ObamaCare while the economy goes into the toilet.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

They tried to compromise with the republicans to get something through.

No they didn't.

 

[Emma]

They tried to compromise with the republicans to get something through.

Buncha spineless pussies. Compromise, my ass. They could have pushed it through if they'd had the balls to do it.

 

[hortysir]

They tried to compromise with the republicans to get something through.

How does one do that through a LOCKED DOOR?

 

[The T]

They tried to compromise with the republicans to get something through.

No they didn't.

Republicans were told by Obama they were welcome on the bus but had to sit in the back. He reminded John McCain that 'he won'.

 

[bripat9643]

If you can only pick one ... what would it be?

Mine is the extension of the Patriot Act. If I could only ask him one question, and get an honest answer, I'd want to know the logic behind that.

I'm not disappointed in him one bit because I knew he was a cheap Marxist thug before he was elected.

 

[Emma]

Pushing ObamaCare while the economy goes into the toilet.

So let's continue to spend nearly a quarter of our GDP on a failed "healthcare" system.

 

[California Girl]

If you can only pick one ... what would it be?

Mine is the extension of the Patriot Act. If I could only ask him one question, and get an honest answer, I'd want to know the logic behind that.

For me, it would be his utter and abject failure to deal appropriately with the economic crisis. The horrific waste of the stimulus, his prioritizing of healthcare over jobs, his total disregard for the very people he claims to care about the most.

 

[Avorysuds]

That was Bush Paulson

Oh, so according to you it was Bush that saved the economy....

Yeap it was about the only thing he could have done other than just sit and watch the results of what their policy did to the country distroy the American way of life.

They of course put in no restrictions on the corps taking they money like they should have though.

This country could have made MONEY off what the banks did to us.

The Paulson team just wanted to stop the bleeding NOT help the American people

2 points.

1: The policies Bush did that destroyed the markets are still in place under Obama and the Dem congress he had.

2: Why do you keep telling everyone Obama and Dems saved us from a depression when you admit it was Bush's policies that stopped the US from going into a depression? (I don't think anyone saved us from a depression, they made things worse for a longer time, just like FDR we will have to go another 9 years until we stop spending?)


Last point, we never left the recession as spending is not the answer. Bush was bad but Obama kept every bad Bush policy in place and expanded of many as well. In the end int makes no sense to claim Republican policy hurt the economy then claim that same Republican policy saved it under Obama. If we look at nothing but policy, not bullshit words but the actual policy there is almost no difference between Bush/Reps and Obama/Dems. Even when you claim Bush did a piss poor job with regulating who the money went too, well Obama played a big part in TARP and his Stimulus suffered the exact same problem, who the money went to.

How is it possible to blame Reps but not Dems when you can’t show a single meaningful policy difference between the two?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

"Miracle in Chicago" - Google it, or Amazon? Is it a book?

Not that I know of. Miracle in Chicago is a coin phrase people have used to describe Obama's miraculous ascent to the Presidency and with Fairy Tale-like speed the Obama's lives dramatically improved when he joined the Chicago Democratic Party Machine.

Barack Obama Inc.: The birth of a Washington machine?By Ken Silverstein (Harper's Magazine)
How Chicago Politics Shaped Obama : NPR

When Barrack Obama ran for president, Obama received $950,000.00 in aggregate from these same five Daley contributors. In all, the 15 members of the Chicago Olympics bid committee donated at least $2 million to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Given Obama’s quick and easy $2 million haul from the Chicago Olympics bid committee members, is anyone surprised that the president went to Copenhagen to lobby on behalf of a Chicago Olympics?

Besides President Obama and First Lady Michelle, the White House staff and cabinet includes other politicians schooled by Daley. Michelle Obama was a Daley advisor and Assistant Planning Commissioner. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, White House advisors David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan all put substantial time into learning the ropes from boss Daley.

Barrack Obama is the most articulate, charismatic, charming, and intelligent face the Chicago machine has ever had, but in spite of Obama’s vast talents and abilities, he still represents everything wrong about Chicago politics. What Obama has learned from Chicago politics and the Chicago politicians with whom he surrounds himself in the White House has been detrimental to him in governing our country. Unfortunately for America, Obama is running the country like a political boss of Chicago instead of acting like the president of the United States.

 

[blackhawk]

If you can only pick one ... what would it be?

Mine is the extension of the Patriot Act. If I could only ask him one question, and get an honest answer, I'd want to know the logic behind that.

He and the Democrats continued the massive spending of Bush and the Republicans we got more of the same not change.

 

[Neotrotsky]

He is running for a second term

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Mine is the extension of the Patriot Act. If I could only ask him one question, and get an honest answer, I'd want to know the logic behind that.

It’s the logic of politics, a veto may have been overridden, and regardless the outcome, Obama would be accused of being ‘weak on terror,’ a weapon the right would use come election time. Although many ‘conservatives’ say they’re opposed to the PA as well, as partisan hypocrites they’d attack the WH over the veto anyway.

 

[Trajan]

Getting sworn in

........... and after that?

Economic failure. Extension of the Patriot Act also, but the right would have impeached him had he not continued that monstrosity.

the right didn't have the house ( or senate) and even if they did (like now) the present dem. senate would need 2/3's even if they agreed to put it to a chamber vote...hello...

 

[Truthmatters]

Oh, so according to you it was Bush that saved the economy....

Yeap it was about the only thing he could have done other than just sit and watch the results of what their policy did to the country distroy the American way of life.

They of course put in no restrictions on the corps taking they money like they should have though.

This country could have made MONEY off what the banks did to us.

The Paulson team just wanted to stop the bleeding NOT help the American people

2 points.

1: The policies Bush did that destroyed the markets are still in place under Obama and the Dem congress he had.name them liar.

2: Why do you keep telling everyone Obama and Dems saved us from a depression when you admit it was Bush's policies that stopped the US from going into a depression? (I don't think anyone saved us from a depression, they made things worse for a longer time, just like FDR we will have to go another 9 years until we stop spending?)stimulus instead of austerity like europe did


Last point, we never left the recessionthese words have defintions and you dont get to pretend they dont, we are NOT in a recession by defintion of the very word as spending is not the answer. Bush was bad but Obama kept every bad Bush policy in place and expanded of many as well. In the end int makes no sense to claim Republican policy hurt the economy then claim that same Republican policy saved it under Obama. If we look at nothing but policy, not bullshit words but the actual policy there is almost no difference between Bush/Reps and Obama/Dems. Even when you claim Bush did a piss poor job with regulating who the money went too, well Obama played a big part in TARP and his Stimulus suffered the exact same problem, who the money went to.

How is it possible to blame Reps but not Dems when you can’t show a single meaningful policy difference between the two?

Dear disgruntled brained con idiot, Europe is in a double dip because they took the con idea of doing austerity,

We did stimulus and are out of a recession and in a recovery.

Those are cold hard facts you ******* liying sack of dog shit

 

[clevergirl]

Yeap it was about the only thing he could have done other than just sit and watch the results of what their policy did to the country distroy the American way of life.

They of course put in no restrictions on the corps taking they money like they should have though.

This country could have made MONEY off what the banks did to us.

The Paulson team just wanted to stop the bleeding NOT help the American people

2 points.

1: The policies Bush did that destroyed the markets are still in place under Obama and the Dem congress he had.name them liar.

2: Why do you keep telling everyone Obama and Dems saved us from a depression when you admit it was Bush's policies that stopped the US from going into a depression? (I don't think anyone saved us from a depression, they made things worse for a longer time, just like FDR we will have to go another 9 years until we stop spending?)stimulus instead of austerity like europe did


Last point, we never left the recessionthese words have defintions and you dont get to pretend they dont, we are NOT in a recession by defintion of the very word as spending is not the answer. Bush was bad but Obama kept every bad Bush policy in place and expanded of many as well. In the end int makes no sense to claim Republican policy hurt the economy then claim that same Republican policy saved it under Obama. If we look at nothing but policy, not bullshit words but the actual policy there is almost no difference between Bush/Reps and Obama/Dems. Even when you claim Bush did a piss poor job with regulating who the money went too, well Obama played a big part in TARP and his Stimulus suffered the exact same problem, who the money went to.

How is it possible to blame Reps but not Dems when you can’t show a single meaningful policy difference between the two?

Dear disgruntled brained con idiot, Europe is in a double dip because they took the con idea of doing austerity,

We did stimulus and are out of a recession and in a recovery.

Those are cold hard facts you ******* liying sack of dog shit

They did not "choose austerity" measures! This single post by you proves the only idiot is you!

 

[WillowTree]

 

[BDBoop]

Oh, god. Well. It was a lovely attempt while it lasted.

 

[Katzndogz]

Of all the reasons to be disappointed in obama is that he has turned us into Greece. Our debt is greater than our GDP, by design. The deisgn is obama's.

News Headlines

Government has become its own worst enemy when it comes to the economy, with public spending putting a damper on growth that otherwise continues at a steady if unspectacular pace.

"None of this is all that surprising, so where is the miss?" wondered Brown Brothers Harriman global currency strategist Marc Chandler, after noting some fairly pedestrian and in-line quarterly growth results. "Contrary to what passes as conventional wisdom, the main drag is coming from the government itself."


Before anyone starts thinking that Washington suddenly has gotten religion on spending, the bulk of the federal government cuts came from defense spending, which plunged 8.1 percent.

 

[freedombecki]

........... and after that?

Economic failure. Extension of the Patriot Act also, but the right would have impeached him had he not continued that monstrosity.

the right didn't have the house ( or senate) and even if they did (like now) the present dem. senate would need 2/3's even if they agreed to put it to a chamber vote...hello...

Oh, those stubborn facts. *sigh*