> Obama may have inherited a country in shambles, but has he done anything
> to fix it? No. He had a supermajority in the House and the Senate
> for two years and all he could get passed was healthcare and the bailouts
> of banks and auto companies in the US.
Apparently they needed bailing out...? Seems like an unavoidable choice he was faced with day one.
What was the alternative? To starve the country?
> Don't give me this crap about
> how Republican's are obstructionists. They vote NO when Obama is
> pursuing his far left agenda that everyone knows is terrible for the
> fabric of America. I think YOU have a selective memory, because when
> the bill passed the House of Representatives, the vote was 219-212.
> Yes, all the Republicans vote NO, but so did 34 "obstructionist"
> Democrats by your definition. I think the most amusing part of Obamacare
> is Nancy Pelosi's idea that we had, "to pass the law to find out what's
> in it." This is the dangerous kind of thought that comes out of liberals
> too apathetic/ignorant of the executive/legislative/judicial systems
> to know how to operate in office. The hilarity is now Obama is challenging
> the Supreme Court publicly (unprecedented move probably aimed to
> sway the ruling) because of the "bipartisan" passage of Obamacare.
> The only thing "bipartisan" about Obamacare is the opposition. Presidents
> ALWAYS keep their mouth shut regarding a case that is currently being
> examined in the Supreme Court to prevent any bias one way or another,
> and Obama can't even do that. The federal judge that required Holder
> to provide a 3 page, single spaced explanation of the Obama Administration's
> understanding of the importance of judicial review should've awoken
> some of the lefties, but I'm sure it didn't.
I'm not sure where I stand on Obamacare. Afterall, this was something Mitt Romney and other republicans are now getting credit for introducing years ago.
I don't have healthcare myself, and don't need it. I don't like the idea of me being forced to pay for it.
But let's not forget why Obamacare was created and what it attempts to solve -- Those without insurance, like me, are driving up the rates for people like you, who have insurance, when I get sick or hurt and need emergency care. But if I can't pay for it the costs are passed on to you.
Clearly not without it's faults, Obamacare attempts to create a more national-based healthcare that most of the industrialized world has implemented already. It tries to solve the mega holes that current insurance policy has. Things like being dropped from your coverage unfairly, ignoring claims, rejections based on pre-existing conditions, healthcare based on monetary kickbacks like unnecessary prescriptions or procedures, etc.
> "How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like
> they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office
> of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran
> up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his
> first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion
> in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267
> trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money
> that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion
> in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average
> of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion
> a year more than Bush."
He is battling a recession. An improvement in the economy would increase GDP, which would reduce his ratios. The liberal agenda has always been to spend a little more, and he has always said that his strategy would be to basically spend his way out of the recession.
That is what government is supposed to do when the nation, at large, is in a hole. Why? Because it's government debt. It's secured. It's fixable at a future date.
> Perfect illustration here. I DO blame Obama for the mess that we
> are currently in because he has followed through on ZERO of his campaign
> promises thus far. He passed an unconstitutional "healthcare" bill,
> has racked up national debt faster than any previous President EVER,
> signed a continuation of both The Patriot Act and Bush Era Tax Cuts,
> failed to close down Guantanamo Bay, etc etc etc. The guy is obviously
> unqualified, in way over his head, and has also done the best job
> of dividing a country down class and racial lines than any President
> before him.
So you were expecting him to not continue Patriot and Bush Tax cuts?
Guantanamo, yeah, he didn't do it in his first 4 years. Maybe his next 4? But regardless, keeping it open seems like something you'd be down for. Where else are we gonna put all the terrorists that are trying to eat your children?
> I applaud any politician who has the nerve to stand up to the liberal
> machine and challenge what they mindlessly sign into law. If you're
> an obstructionist to wildly radical legislators and the most radical
> President in US history, then you're falling on the correct side of
> the battle. The 2010 election is also a great illustration of the
> agreement from Americans nationwide that the liberals need to go and
> that they support the effort to STOP all the ridiculous moves liberals
> were using to drive these damning pieces of legislation down our throats.
> Reconciliation is designed for budget legislation, not one that redefines
> the insurance and healthcare industry entirely, yet the liberals were
> shameless in their usage of it in order to side step the BIPARTISAN
> and SUBSTANTIAL opposition to the bill.
The dem's Senate majority means very little. The republicans can and have blocked all legislation through filibusters. Democrats are not in charge because you need 60 votes to do anything in these bi-partisan times.
All of the power resides in the House's lower chamber, where the Republicans have sole power for tax and spending legislation.
What jobs plan have the Republicans come up with? The R takeover of the house has set up Boehner and Cantor as figureheads to foil the president at every turn he can get.
They have more loyalty to Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers than the president, the country, the people, etc.
> I can't wait until he is out of Office. He could have the charisma
> of a Hollywood star, but he is ruining this country.
Too harsh. He hasn't done anything worse than the previous president did.