jump to last post 1-47 of 47 discussions (169 posts)

What has Obama accomplished?

  1. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    One of my biggest frustrations with the Obama administration is they are not good at promoting their achievements. Although that could be the fault of the so-called "liberal media" which is all corporate owned and anything but liberal.

    Anyway, I came across this article and thought I would share it.
    134 kept campaing promises in his first 2 years. Not too shabby, eh?

    President Obama Has Kept Most Campaign Promises
    By ThePresidentialCandidates.US on Jan 21, 2011
     
    President Obama has kept 134 campaign promises vs. just 34 broken promises during the first two years of his Presidency according to the PolitiFact political fact checking website.

    This is a pretty good ratio which means President Obama can campaign in 2012 on the many promises he has kept and his great many accomplishments which include the following:

    + Signing the SALT Treaty

    + Massive Wall Street reform

    + The Stimulus Bill

    + Fair Pay Act allowing for equal pay for women

    + Hate Crimes Prevention Act

    + Allowing the FDA to regulate tobacco

    + Reformed the Student Loan program saving millions of people millions of dollars

    + Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

    + The extension of unemployment benefits

    + Health Care Reform

    + There have been more jobs created in the last two years under President Obama than under the eight years of George W. Bush

    + We are paying the lowest taxes than we have in 60 years

    + Tax Credit for new Home Buyers

    + Cash for Clunkers that basically reignited the auto industry

    1. JON EWALL profile image48
      JON EWALLposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      96Mighty Mom
      For your inforrmation to your reference source.
      Whois Lookup 

      www.thepresidentialcandidates.us

      The domain extension .thepresidentialcandidates.us is invalid.
      .
      The article is biased .I suggest you check the sources for using information IN YOUR HUBS
      Besides being invalid  many of the articles do not tell the whole story of actually what happened..


      GOP Speaker of the House Doesn’t Care About Jobs

      One would hope the American people see the huge mistake they made last November and kick the Republicans completely out of power in the 2012 elections so they can do no more damage.

  2. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Hmmmm......not sure I want to really respond. lol

  3. William R. Wilson profile image61
    William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago

    "There have been more jobs created in the last two years under President Obama than under the eight years of George W. Bush"

    Wow.  This seems like the fact that most people actually are paying less taxes under Obama than under Bush, but they all think they are paying more.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ""There have been more jobs created in the last two years under President Obama than under the eight years of George W. Bush""

      Temporary government jobs don't count.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Why not? Folk are still earning, paying taxes and spending.
        Or do people in the US not get paid working for the government?

        1. lady_love158 profile image61
          lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Theres that faulty Nancy Pelosi logic again! LOL
          So all that has to happen to end unemployment is for the government to hire everyone,  right?

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Spell it out for me LL, were  is the faulty logic? Nobody is saying that all jobs should be government jobs but heck, isn't it better for the government to give people jobs than welfare?

            Even when employed by the government people still pay taxes and spend more than the minimum. They create work for others, don't they?

            Hey look, in the early 80s Thatcher decided that she would cut public spending, laid off loads of nurses, cleaners etc and discovered that rather than cutting public spending she'd increased it!

            Surely a better use of tax money than welfare?

            1. lady_love158 profile image61
              lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Where does the government wokers money come from? The government doesn't make money it takes money so if everybody works for the government who will they take money from? Think about it!

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Try reading what was written, I didn't say anything about everybody working for the government.

                There is no reason whatsoever why government created jobs shouldn't make money, no reason at all.

                Tell me why it is better for the government to pay welfare than to employ people?

                1. lady_love158 profile image61
                  lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Working for the government IS welfare!!!

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    So if I drive a truck for the ACME drilling co that's ajob, if I drive a truck doing exactly the same work for the government then that is welfare!

                    So your country is run by welfare claimants, jeez, I know you hate Obama but isn't that a little extreme?

        2. rocketjsqu profile image84
          rocketjsquposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Paying govt employees with taxpayer money does not reduce the deficit, it just recirculates the money that's already in there.  Now granted, the states will collect some revenue from that money through sales and income tax, and businesses will pay tax on there incomes as well.  But again it's not bringing in new money, just recirculating...the govt pays out, the govt receives back...essentially no gain.  That's why govt jobs don't count when you consider job creation.

          1. profile image0
            jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You are correct. Paying govt employees with taxpayer money does not reduce the deficit, nor does it create any new money. 

            The creation of new money can only come about if and when more borrowing occurs, whether it be in loans from a banker, or government borrowing through bonds.  In other words, (Government borrowing on the publics credit card).

            People do not realize that all money is debt before in enters into circulation.

            Programs like welfare, unemployment, medicare/medicaid, social security, pension plans, and others, are nothing more than programs that recirculate the same debt dollars over again.

            Money is created when debts are incurred and extinguished when loans are repaid. 

            There is never any money created to pay the interest on debt.  Add to that the fact that interest debt grows 24/7, 365 days a year. We are always creating a debt greater than the debt money supply created because of interest.

            Helluva mess we are in huh?

        3. profile image61
          rusureuwant2knowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It is because it is taxpayer money that it does not count. Real jobs produce goods and services - the government does not do that - the government is a massive welfare program for Federal employees.

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
            Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So I guess writers don't have "real" jobs either...

      2. William R. Wilson profile image61
        William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        So the military doesn't count as a job then right?

      3. DannyMaio profile image60
        DannyMaioposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        More jobs from the government which means more debt! and your statement is wrong! if that was the case, why is there 9.6% unemployment? the numbers are BS and if you have half a brain you would realise this. also the unemployment numbers are even higher, when people lose their benefits they dont count them anymore!

  4. William R. Wilson profile image61
    William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago

    Haha.  Crickets.

    1. Christy Goff profile image60
      Christy Goffposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, but George sucked, Obama has a bad name for no other reason than change.  If it had been a different woman running for pres., I probably would have voted for them.  The unemployment in Oklahoma is at a record high, my husband has to work out of the country to take care of our family.  But that goes back to my theory of, if you don't like it, move.

    2. Writerly Yours profile image91
      Writerly Yoursposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      hehehehehehe....crickets.

      Change is always a problem for a lot of people when their perks, entitlments and benefits are ruffled. 

      Let me just get out of this one.

      MIghty Mom-Thanks for the positive attitude. I remember, how we all loved Bush on 9-11 and days after because he was just our President.

      Hey, when 2012 comes around feel free to vote obama out.

      The good old democratic way.

      Let's thank (Fill in whatever you believe in-don't want to offend anyone) that we have that right still.

  5. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    I'm not saying the federal government shouldn't cut spending -- that absolutely needs to happen.
    But you're right. People are under the illusion they're paying such high taxes and we're really not.
    Disparity between reality and perception -- fueled by.... we all know who!

    1. DannyMaio profile image60
      DannyMaioposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      mighty how can you say taxes are not high? we have income tax, home taxes, gas tax, cigarette tax, electric tax, liquer tax,sales tax,telephone tax, soda bottle tax, luxury tax, inheritance tax,mortgage tax, and many many more. including the newest one inside the healthcare bill, 10% tanning tax. and isnt that a racist tax? black people do not tan, just snooky, the jerseyshore people and the speaker of the house. why pick tanning? very strange, so he can say he didnt tax black people??

  6. yenajeon profile image82
    yenajeonposted 6 years ago

    Yes, it's been a disappointing administration but here's what he has done:

    -provided 12.2 billion for the individuals with disabilities education act

    -benefits for same sex partners for fed employees

    -voluntary disclosure of white house visitors for the first time in US history

    -appointed the first latina to the us Supreme court

    -START Treaty; nuclear arms reduction pact with Russia

    So there! He's done SOMETHING, not much but something!

  7. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago

    He's accomplished a lot.
    Don't forget leading America down the drainpipe both socially and economically and making a mockery of the Office.

    1. William R. Wilson profile image61
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this
    2. Flightkeeper profile image78
      Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well, that's because he's easy to mock while he's in the Office.  When Obama mentioned change to Hu, Hu gave him a couple of coins! lol

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Brenda and FK - We know you don't like President Obama. That's OK. However if you want your posts to be respected, you have to come with something factual, possibly with sources to back up your opinions.

        1. Flightkeeper profile image78
          Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol

        2. junko profile image78
          junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Doug: you know if facts are used,  it can destroy disinformation.

          1. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            If facts are used it could destroy disinformation? Not in America.

            Approximately 60%+ of Americans don't believe facts, even when presented with them. lol

            1. junko profile image78
              junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              cagsil: I would'nt deny that fact.

      2. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Who?

        OH. 


        Hu.

        wink

        The dictator Hu, who so adeptly deflected American reporters' questions about citizens' rights.  Reckin he's been takin' speech lessons from Obama, or vice-versa.  Quite a pair they are.  I wonder if who-Hu has pink speedos hidden in his closet too.....

    3. profile image0
      Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      america was already at the bottom of a drainpipe - anyone who got voted in would get the blame with it being a recession

  8. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    I fear we all set unrealistic expectations based on his campaign of HOPE.
    We didn't know when he took office that the financial s#%t was about to hit the fan. We also didn't know that so many on the "other side" would devote so much negative energy to thwarting anything/everything he tried to accomplish.

    Still, I would not call Obama's adminitration "disappointing" at all.

    1. William R. Wilson profile image61
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I am disappointed in some of the things Obama has done.  He could provide much better leadership.  I'm convinced that most Americans share his agenda - it's just the nasty noisy tea party slobs who get all the media attention.

      Another accomplishment: 

      he has actually pushed the EPA to actually do its job, and it has started doing so. 

      In any case, Obama could be much worse and he'd still be better than Bush.  Thank god that nightmare is over.

      1. junko profile image78
        junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        More than almost any President in history in their first two years of their presidency, or maybe any president in history.

  9. Flightkeeper profile image78
    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago

    He fooled everyone into thinking he's elegible to be President of the United States.  That's a major accomplishment.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Everybody!! What about the ones claiming he's not American?

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Everybody except for FK and Michelle Bachman. And of course Orly Taitz.

  10. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    If that's the case (which it is not, but go ahead and keep hallucinating), I'd rather have ineligible than inept, any day.
    We may not miss Bush but the comedians sure do!
    There's simply not much to make fun of Obama about.
    What a shame!

    1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
      Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, but i was told recently by one of my professors that bush's nephew might be running for president soon in the near future. wink

      1. profile image0
        klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        RUN THEN! LET's ASK POLITICAL ASSYLUM IN INDIA. We'll be better off!

        1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
          Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lollol

  11. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Shhh, John!
    It's supposed to be a SECRET that he's Kenyan (or Indonesian, or Martian) lol

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And a Muslin Hindu Jew to boot.

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
        uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I thought he was a cabbagetarian.

  12. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Really? One of Bush's nephews?
    I kinda thought Jeb might make a run for it. Unfortunately, I think his brother W made sure no one named Bush will ever be elected to that office again.
    The dynasty is kaput.

    1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
      Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I wouldn't be so sure about that.  according to yahoo news, it was reported that George W. Bush's popularity has gone up a bit since O'Bama became president.  Therefore, it might be possibly that W's nephew might win if and when he runs for office.

  13. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Yes, I'm sure his popularity has risen. Bush kept a low profile long enough to keep the spotlight off himself while Obama took the fall for 8 years of Bush policies.

    I think his (not so new anymore) book has helped him get back into America's good graces.
    And true, we seem to have (collectively) a very short memory as well as a short attention span. By the time this nephew runs the reality of 2000-2008 will be a distant memory --- for many.
    What is the name of the nephew? Is he from Texas? Does he currently hold office?
    To be fair, we really can't judge a Bush by its cover.
    Bush's daughter Barbara is way cool. So is Laura Bush.
    This nephew may be more like Bush Senior.
    So who knows. THis is America. Anything can happen!

    1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
      Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well she only mentioned him briefly, in my government class, but I think she said his name was George P. Bush.  I'm not sure if she's right though, as every news source I read only mentions him running as a possibility, but no clear cut statement by him claiming to want to run for office down the road.  However, from what i read about him though and based on what she's told me, I think he does have a good chance to become the next President if he decides to run. 

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/au … s2004.usa1

      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/08/ … 1669.shtml

      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-b … id=8951139

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._ … l_activity

  14. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    That's actually a funny one, FK!

    1. Flightkeeper profile image78
      Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks, it was even funnier when Obama kept it.

  15. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    One moment of levity and we're back to business as usual.
    Carry on smile

    1. Flightkeeper profile image78
      Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, it's too bad some people take politics way too seriously.

      1. junko profile image78
        junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Politics is life and life is serious, c'mon let's get serious.

        1. Flightkeeper profile image78
          Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You live a very limited life if that's how you look at it.

        2. profile image0
          china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Politics is life - or life is politics - is a philosphical standpoint and has been quoted by an American president I believe.

          It is only serious when politics have a direct and disastrous effect on your life. I guess that Junko living in New Orleans and getting the shi@@y end of hte political stick for several years now would see politics as serious.  Those unthinking people who believe that politics are not serious deserve to watch their country go down the pan while they tout their shallow views and attack every effort that works toward anything better.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            China Man - the OP opens the door to SERIOUS discussion about what Obama has accomplished. It's a mixed bag, but overall impressive.

            Naturally the teabaggers do NOT want a serious discussion of that. I pointed out  that rational, factual arguments critical of Obama are lacking - so now the critics want to say 'it's not serious'....

  16. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Wow, Cags! Is that a fact? lol
    Yikes! 60%?
    That's frightening!
    Do you happen to know if it matters what the source of those "facts" is?
    For example, are "facts" from a .gov website more "factual" than "facts" from, say, the WSJ, or Fox News, or your science teacher?

  17. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Yes, I think we are all guilty of that when we feel our viewpoint is under attack smile.

  18. prettydarkhorse profile image60
    prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago

    the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - the employee can sue the employer for wages discrimination

    and Obama signed a credit card law  -- it adds some restrictions on IR (interest rates) and prohibiting marketing credit cards to students.

    and more than 1000 tangible achievements...LOL

  19. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Stevennix,
    Thanks for the links about George P. Bush. He is an intriguing twist on the Bush family. Very interesting. Lawyer married to a law school classmate. Lives in Austin. Dad is Jeb and Mom is Mexican and he's very popular with Hispanic Republicans. Will be interesting to watch his progress.

    My biggest concern would be this:
    His name is George P Bush
    So if tradition holds, as his uncle came to be known as W, he would be referred to as "P" -- not the most presidential name lol

    1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
      Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, but I can imagine the comedians would have a field day making fun of that presidential name. wink lollol  However, I do think your right. It'll be interesting to watch his progress.

      edit:  in regards to the links, your welcome.  Glad you found them informative.  smile

  20. prettydarkhorse profile image60
    prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago

    more

    transparency in governance  i.e, - ban on gifts that come from those lobbying, restrict hiring of those lobbyist; transparency of those people who visits the White House by showing the logs and records.

    Together he and Hilary brought a new face in foreign relations. The US gained the lost respect from the past admin bec of war etc...

  21. prettydarkhorse profile image60
    prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago

    Most of all, he is a Steelers fan even though he is from Chicago and they even gave him a Green Bay Packers jersey, still he said I belong to Steelers Nation, LOL

  22. BillyDRitchie profile image60
    BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago

    Yeah, he's achieved many of the things he set out to do, as part of his "fundamental transformation" of our country. 

    I'm wondering though how much of an accomplishment it is when the American people by and large do not want what he is selling.  I think they made that abundantly clear by handing the Democrats their heads in the last election.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Since the last electon, President Obama's approval rating has only gone up. It's well over 50 percent last time I checked. The last election was NOT a repudiation of Obama's policies.

      1. profile image61
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Sure wasn't. It was a repudiation of wastefull spending. Spefically it was a repudiation of congress.

      2. BillyDRitchie profile image60
        BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It won't last.  Obama may have momentary spikes in popularity (oddly enough coinciding when he decides to actually work with those across the aisle), but it is awfully hard to keep down who you really are.

        As he reminds us of what he is, a radical leftist seeking to fundamentally transform this nation (into something most people don't want), his numbers will plummet again.  Count on it.

  23. lady_love158 profile image61
    lady_love158posted 6 years ago

    Let's see... he's taken over the health system student loans created new financial regulations that have lead to higher costs for consumers while at the same time doing nothing to prevent another collapse he's taken over the auto companies stepped up drone attacks traveled the world apologizing for America bailed out all kinds of businesses and is ruling by decree through executive order implementing his socialist agenda through the FCC FDA and EPA and he's spent 3 trillion dollars on stimulus to maintain our unemployment at 9.5% all while raising the national dept to unprecedented levels! Yes he's accomplished much and I can't wait to see him gone and all the damage and destruction he's wrought undone!!!

    1. Deni Edwards profile image89
      Deni Edwardsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      President Bush enacted TARP (bank bailout) and did the auto bailout, keep that in mind when you consider the debt.  We are/were in 2 wars, both under Bush, and one of them was for non-existent WMDs. 
      The student loans you are referring to--all Obama did was cut out the middle man to save costs--the government loaned the money but paid to have someone else administer them, sort of like a collection agency, and that isn't happening anymore (saving money).

      1. lady_love158 profile image61
        lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And Obama continued it... Newsflash the stated justification for a new law is NOT the guaranteed result. Competition in student loans has been eliminated.

        1. Deni Edwards profile image89
          Deni Edwardsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Okay, so you did realize that Bush enacted these programs--let's not rewrite history with false information then. 

          Obama administers these programs.   He has to because the legislation was already there and approved under the previous administration.

          He actually put oversight and accountability and conditions into TARP and the auto bailout, because there was none of that under Bush.

          As far as eliminating competition in student loans, on one end you complain about the deficit and spending--so I am slightly confused.  Not only does it save money for the government, but also for students who are trying to pursue an education.

          1. lady_love158 profile image61
            lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yes sure, Obama could have done away with TARP but besides that he spent an additional trillion!

            And please, don't tell me that student loans will cost less. What happened when Obama passed banking legislation to "protect" consumers? Fees went up loans are harder to get etc! As I said, what they state as the intention to justify their poison is not necessarily the result.

  24. profile image0
    jerrylposted 6 years ago

    I think that if we focus on the positives and negatives of both Obama's and G W Bush's accomplishments we might get somewhere.

    How about honestly evaluating the 8 years of Bush. What bills were passed during his administration and how much opposition did he face by the Dems? How much oppositions has Obama received from the Repubs, while trying to pass legislation?

    Compare his first 2 years in office against Obama's. Evaluate GWB's accomplishments and errors in judgement, and how much our nation's debt increased during his administration?

    What each administration inherited economically from the previous administrations, surplus or deficit?  What steps they took to correct any problems lingering from the previous administration.

    This information should be available online.
    Both sides should present reliable documentation, not just inuendos.

    My two cents.

    1. junko profile image78
      junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      jerryl: The information is available on line, but the truth don't matter to those who purpose is to spread mis and dis information. They are illrational and unreasonable on purpose.

  25. sagar hubpages profile image49
    sagar hubpagesposted 6 years ago

    Why.?

    1. junko profile image78
      junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hate and anger is why.

  26. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    junko -- great new word "illrational" me likes!

  27. mortimerjackson profile image59
    mortimerjacksonposted 6 years ago

    Obama has done some good things. However, one of the biggest problems with his administration is that in aligning himself as a "centrist," he moves himself further away from his base. And while there are benefits to some of the legislation he has passed, they do not address the underlying problems that they were meant to solve.

    Obama's health care bill lacks a public option. Having a system where citizens can choose competitive rates gives them buying power, instead of a sham health care system that is run by private insurance. But since Obama fancied himself as a centrist, it was HE that rejected all attempts at a public option.

    Wall Street reform (or lack thereof). Derivatives trading and the ilk are still legal, and the factors that led to this final collapse are still present.

    Also, in having waited so long to repeal DADT, the "liberal" base that supported him have lost a lot of the optimism that got him elected.

    Now, this isn't to say that Obama won't win in 2012. The Republicans have either Mitt Romney, or Sarah Palin to run against him. Not popular options. Obama could do the hula hu throughout the entire campaign season, and he'd still win.

    1. junko profile image78
      junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      mortimerjackson: One has to get in where they can fit in, then build from the inside out. It's not possible to build from the outside in when all entance are blocked. Give it more time jackson.

      1. mortimerjackson profile image59
        mortimerjacksonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The Obama administration had a majority in the house and the senate. The only reason why Obama simply didn't do more (so to speak) is because he has no intention of doing more. Now Obama has lost his majority in the house, all because he caved in to a party that had no interest in cooperation.

        It is time to be skeptical.

        1. junko profile image78
          junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          mortimerjackson: Because of the blue and yellow dogs, the democrats never had a true majority. The public option wouldn't have passed in the house. After that fight and lost there would be no h c bill or weak financial reform bill to build on. Most bills are ugly and weak at birth, but as they grow they become strong. The GOP understands this fact,that's why they want to kill the bill before it grows. The tea party(red dogs),will block the republican's majority's rule in the GOP. The republicans will also have to get in where they fit in and than try to grow their bills. Today minority rules.  What goes around comes around.

  28. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    The government is not in business to create wealth or create profits. It is in business to provide needed services to its citizens. There are many businesses that are not in business to make a PROFIT. Profit is not the be-all and end-all of business.

    I also do not understand how working for the government is welfare? You don't get money for nothing. You get wages for work performed. AND you pay taxes on your earnings as well. So it's not a one-way money flow.

    We can argue about the specific services we think government should provide vs. what services they should not provide. But unless you are Evan G Rogers (and I don't believe you are that extreme, LaLo, am I wrong?), you agree that we need SOME government and to have SOME government we need to pay SOME taxes.

    1. lady_love158 profile image61
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I know of NO business that exists to do anything but earn a profit! Anything that doesn't isn't a business but a charity.

      I don't understand why you can't see working for the government as welfare. Where does the government get their money from?

      It's quite simple you and I are FORCED to give OUR money to government. I'm not saying that some functions of government aren't necessary or useful but none of them NONE of them produce wealth. Everyone employed by the government is paid for with OUR money. The only difference between that and charity is with charity you give your money willingly out of compassion.

      Paying government workers with OUR money does NOTHING to grow wealth... we are essentially being forced to spend money on something we did not want or need and would have used that money for something else.

    2. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      MM - The mind of the wingnut is irrational. They take as an article of faith that money that 'the government' collects goes into a black hole and robs the economy of all benefit.

      The money goes for goods and services.  The government buys stuff - from the private sector, whether it's the construction industry, defense industry, computers, automobiles, etc. All that money spent stimulates the economy.  A small portion pays the salaries of government employees.  What happens to that money? The same as any other employee. They buy food, homes, automobiles, etc. in the private sector  which stimulates the economy.

      Money is distributed to the needy - food stamps, unemployment, welfare. What happens to that money? Almost all of it is spent on food, housing, electric.. Which stimulates the private sector.

      How can anyone suggest that government spending does not create wealth??? Try to explain it to a wingnut.....

      1. lady_love158 profile image61
        lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You just have no concept of commerce do you? All the money the government has it took OUT of the economy! That was money that would have been used for investment by the private sector!

        Again, carry your premise to the ridiculous... make everyone an employee of the government, now what happens to your model?

        What is it with the liberal brain that they can't comprehend this?

        1. William R. Wilson profile image61
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          So did the interstates just spring up out of nowhere, LL?  The post office?  The internet?  Were you educated in the public school system, or do you have employees or coworkers who were?

          Can you seriously imagine business in American functioning without these three things?

          The government may or may not directly produce wealth (I don't see much difference really between the government paying Boeing for a contract to produce a warplane and the gov't producing the plane itself - either way it's tax money creating jobs). 


          But the Government definitely plays an essential role in the economy.  Government jobs are real jobs, they pay taxes and the people who have them buy stuff.  Government spending is a huge driver of the economy.

          1. William R. Wilson profile image61
            William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            To illustrate my point:

            http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=US%20Government%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&year=1903_2010&sname=US&units=p&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&col=c&spending0=6.80_7.28_6.89_6.81_6.61_7.90_7.84_8.03_8.31_8.09_8.22_9.55_9.80_8.22_9.49_22.12_29.38_12.81_14.31_12.67_11.27_11.49_11.44_11.12_11.75_11.75_11.27_13.07_15.92_21.19_22.38_19.40_20.17_20.00_18.74_20.53_20.66_20.14_19.22_28.15_46.68_50.02_52.99_35.87_23.65_20.47_23.47_23.95_22.38_27.88_29.02_29.27_26.70_26.47_27.21_28.84_28.77_28.74_30.25_28.94_28.71_28.50_26.96_27.45_29.80_30.47_30.08_31.00_31.49_31.36_29.78_30.23_33.62_34.00_32.91_32.02_31.58_33.72_33.64_36.25_36.31_34.44_35.48_35.71_35.09_34.73_34.94_36.01_37.22_37.04_36.31_35.38_35.54_34.69_33.77_33.24_32.65_32.56_33.38_34.75_35.28_34.78_34.79_35.06_34.98_36.94_41.97_43.09&legend=&source=i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_e_g

            1. lady_love158 profile image61
              lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The only thing that illustrates is how much government has become a drag on our society.

              1. William R. Wilson profile image61
                William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                LOL.  A drag on society?  The 1950s to now is the richest period in our history - and the time of the greatest government spending.  I don't see much drag happening.

                1. lady_love158 profile image61
                  lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL! Not according to the chart you posted!!! Please refer to Reagans quote on liberals!

                2. Evan G Rogers profile image81
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "the 1950s to now is the richest period in our history... and the time of the greatest government spending"

                  This is nonsense.

                  Just because there is a statistical correlation between two things doesn't mean that they are directly connected.

                  "People who have bigger feet do better in Math." It's true! People with size 3 feet generally fail at calculus! (BECAUSE THEY'RE CHILDREN).

                  The simple fact is that we've had a technological breakthrough - which has taken place and has been consistent only in countries that have relatively free economies (just ask the USSR).

                  Government can't really create wealth because it doesn't have the proper incentives in place.

        2. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Invested by the private sector in China, that would be really good for the US.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            only if you actually think that countries and states matter.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Obviously!

        3. junko profile image78
          junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The private sector don't finance interstate hwys for their commerce. the private sector depends on the goverment, Right??

          1. junko profile image78
            junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Make everyone an employee of the private sector, now what  happens to your model?

            1. Doug Hughes profile image60
              Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You just described the Tea Party economic model.

          2. lady_love158 profile image61
            lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Wrong! Don’t you think the private sector would build a road or a bridge if it meant they could increase sales and profit? After all it was private investment that built the rail roads. Now governments are leasing roads and bridges to private companies in return for cash today bc even they realize how inept they are! LOL

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Wrong, do your history, find out why interstate highways were built by government and why private enterprise made such a mess of building high ways.

              Study the difference between rail-roads and highways.

            2. junko profile image78
              junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              She's back, put your boots on.

              1. lady_love158 profile image61
                lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Now that's a positive contrbution to the discussion.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Well it's as valid as claiming that Norway and Germany are communist countries!

                  1. lady_love158 profile image61
                    lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Who said that? LOL You libs really hate being shown how wrong your ideas are so much that you just want to fight over anything except the facts! You're dismissed! LOL

        4. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          All of the money that's taken OUT of the economy through taxes goes BACK in the economy in government spending.

          I shouldn't have to address "make everyone an employee of the government'"argument. Glenn Beck would be proud. *sigh*

          Since most people like economics as much as a root canal, I won't go there. But consider the airplane. Since all the lift is created by the wings, wouldn't it fly better without engines?  OK reverse the idea. All the acceleration is the result of the engines and the wings create the most drag. So engineer a plane with HUGE engines and no wings...

          You don't have to be a graduate of MIT (someone explain to LaLo what MIT is.)  to see that a balance between lift and thrust - or engines and wings results in the best plane. A balance between the private and public sector produced the best society - and personally, I feel a little sympathy but mostly contempt for the anti-government fools.

          1. junko profile image78
            junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks Doug lady love got lost. You gave a better answer than I would have got from her anyway. Don't let the foolishness dim your light, It shines bright and chase away the darkness.

          2. lady_love158 profile image61
            lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No you shouldn't have to adress making everyone a public employee bc you can't! Of course only you would use the Obama airplane example to explain economics because common sense can't do it!
            If you take a glass of water from a bucket and pour it back in what wealth has been created? If you invest that bucket of water into growing crops that you can sell for a profit which you can buy 2 buckets of water with what wealth have you created? I don’t think you need to be an aerospace engineer or a MIT graduate to understand that! Oh rockets don't have wings and they can reach space... now if only there was a way to send all the liberals there...

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What on earth are you on?
              What's with buckets of water and pouring it back and forth between buckets!

              1. lady_love158 profile image61
                lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                LOL! I know! That's how you libs sound when you talk about airplanes and driving cars in a ditch!

          3. Evan G Rogers profile image81
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            you missed the most important part, Doug.

            Sure, the money that gets taxed goes back into the economy... But you ignored how it is decided how the money is to be spent.

            Incentives and voluntary arrangements are the only way for true wealth to be created long term.

            Sure, I could steal your money and buy myself a TV, but in the net, wealth hasn't really been created, has it? I blew the money that you WOULD have spent on things that you would have liked to buy on something that wasn't worth enough for me to buy on my own.

            Wealth was destroyed.

            Because government works in essentially the same way, it can't really create wealth.

  29. John Holden profile image59
    John Holdenposted 6 years ago

    Mighty Mom, you'll notice that Lady  Love neatly avoids my question, which would she prefer, her taxes being spent on welfare or job creation?

    1. lady_love158 profile image61
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I answered your questions, it's not my fault that you can't comprehend the answers!

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No you didn't, you waffled but really a yes/no answer would have been a bit much for you wouldn't it?

        1. junko profile image78
          junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Is city, state, local, county jobs also welfare and charity ?  What about farm and corporate subsidies, welfare?? The point is...?

        2. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If you ask a question which isn't covered by parroting a Glen Beck rant, some folks are totally lost.

          1. junko profile image78
            junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            O'k Doug I see your point.

  30. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Some people might have loved Bush on 9/11. I did not. I hated him from the day he stole the election from Gore up til the day he left office.
    I do not want to vote Obama out of office in 2012!
    I want him to stay in office!!
    I think he is doing an amazing job, given what he has to work with.

    William R Wilson -- Would you PLEASE stop using facts, reason, and OMG "Charts" to make your points??!!! It's not fair to the other side, who have no facts, reason or charts to offer in rebuttal. lol lol lol!!!!!

    1. William R. Wilson profile image61
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Aw, but it's fun!

    2. Writerly Yours profile image91
      Writerly Yoursposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Mighty Mom-I'm with you. My point was just that there was all this LOVE and now there's all this HATE for him --which I can't understand.

      I think he's doing a good job too with the circumstances given to him.

      I like your style. I hear you. I so hear you!

      smile

  31. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Here's what would happen if we all went to work for the private sector: we'd get to work for $1.11 an hour -- AFTER being relocated to India or China or other offshore location where our GOVERNMENT regulations can't protect us.

  32. John Holden profile image59
    John Holdenposted 6 years ago

    Lady Love,
    100+ years ago Manchester had a predicament, an inadequate water supply and high unemployment (why private enterprise hadn't taken care of the water supply,I don't know, after all there was money to be made and according to those who share your views, where there's money to be made private enterprise takes over.

    The government stepped in and using tax payers money, they built a series of reservoirs and ancillary works.
    The money they injected into the local economy saw relative prosperity instead of the strife of unemployment as many businesses that wouldn't have survived had plenty of work and custom.

    The water provided was sold, putting money back into the government coffers and continued to do so until the water works were sold off by short sighted government in the 1980s.

    The reservoirs still provide a large area of Manchester with water and private enterprise with revenue.

    Please explain how and why that was wrong.

    1. junko profile image78
      junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      She gone John, she has to lick her wounds she took a beating, she will be back too soon.

    2. lady_love158 profile image61
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Is that the best example you could find? Do you really think I would know anything about what happened in Manchester 100 years ago?

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        But it needn't be about Manchester, it is a pure illustration of how public money can be spent in a positive and productive way. It needn't be Manchester, it could as easily be Boston or Chicago or Paris.

        1. lady_love158 profile image61
          lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I never said government can't do good or has no role to play only that it's corrupt, iinefficient, and wasteful and its role should always be minimized. The government built the Hoover damn ahead of schedule and under budget, perhaps that was the last time it did anything worth while.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You actually said;-

            "You don’t get it, you never will! Government doesn't produce wealth, it doesn't produce anything to sell at a profit. It simply conficates wealth from those that do grow wealth and redistributes it. For all intents and purpose government is welfare."

            1. lady_love158 profile image61
              lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, so? I stand by that.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Well, make up your mind then don't say you said something else when you quite openly said that!

                1. lady_love158 profile image61
                  lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  One has nothing to do with the other!

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    To you and your muddled thinking perhaps not but to the rest of us government spending = government spending

  33. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    It's about time for the night shift to come on duty.
    LaLo's male alter ego. Jim? Are you there, Jim Hunter?

    1. junko profile image78
      junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Mom: You got the night shift? Good I,m going to bed, Be back in the morning.

  34. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Yes, junko. I'll do my best. Not sure who's on to spar with, but I'm ready to rumble. Bring it!
    Good night! See you soon and thanks for your service to the cause smile

  35. AnnCee profile image76
    AnnCeeposted 6 years ago

    I am disappointed that President Obama has not been able to fart rainbow colored miracles as promised.

    http://irregulartimes.com/aapaypalfiles/images/barackobamarainbowbutton2012thumb.png

    Oh well, keep dreaming.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_y7akKaUErMI/SICeiUgpEoI/AAAAAAAABJg/TUwTM_s5d9U/s400/Baaarack1abc.jpg

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Did you get the memo, AC? Obama's approval rating is up to 55% - the highest it's been in over  a year - and climbing. You are going to have to work overtime with the senseless attacks and insults if you want to defeat Obama in 2012.  Or maybe try to come to the table with better ideas.

      It hasn't happened yet, but we democrats... we'll keep the light on for ya' just in case a constructive conservative idea comes along.

    2. oceansnsunsets profile image89
      oceansnsunsetsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      LOL, too funny, and while sarcastic, its true.  I recall hearing interviews from some people after elections, it was a few months after.  They were really disappointed that what they were told wasn't happening at all.  I felt sad for them, like they really believed all that was told. It was along the lines of what you say there almost, as goofy as it sounds.  Most people know that he can't promise all that he did and actually deliver.  I think it was part of a "test" of how stupid some Americans can be, how much they are like sheep or lemmings.  They didn't disappoint to those that want their vote and want to control.  Freedom is lost in such ways.

  36. AnnCee profile image76
    AnnCeeposted 6 years ago

    Sunday, January 30, 2011

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-six percent (36%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8.



    The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

    Overall, 50% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Forty-eight percent (48%) disapprove.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … cking_poll


    Polls schmolls!  http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/MSN_Emoticons/MSN-Emoticon-124.gif

    1. bgamall profile image85
      bgamallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hey, here is the deal. Both parties have let the banksters rob us. However, the Dems feel guilty and the Republicans have no conscience. Turns out the Republicans want to cut the SEC budget, which is a license for Wall Street to resume the theft of mainstreet. So, Lady Love, I could never vote Repukelican and have to hold my nose when voting for the Dems.

      1. lady_love158 profile image61
        lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Big deal like the SEC is if any use! Did the SEC see the meltdown coming? Did they do anything about Madoff even though they had decades to respond to whistle blowers? The SEC is just another USELESS government agency that we could get rid of along with the FDA EPA DEC FTC and dept of education and that's just for starters!

        1. Stump Parrish profile image61
          Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If you really want to improve this country , shut down the Faux News network. Well, it might not improve the country but it would force lady to find a new script to recite from, and that will improve the forums at huib pages.
          Considering the stellar job our healthcare industry does, why not abandon it also. If people get sick and die at least there wouldn't be bonuses involved for medical workers.

          1. lady_love158 profile image61
            lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You know what would really improve the forums? If you had another comment that didn't include Faux News.

  37. JON EWALL profile image48
    JON EWALLposted 6 years ago

    lady_love158
    The debate with fellow hubbers was interesting. Recently I made the following replies to hubs. For what it is worth to the debate.

    The changes that Obama has manipulated is not in the best interest of the private sector and the American people. The stimulus spending is a failure, unemployment remains above 9.4% nationally.
    The government now controls 60% of the economy and has had multi year $1.+ trillion deficits. Obama and the Democrat majority controlled Congress couldn't even approve a 2011 budget. We now know why it wasn't presented before the Nov. election. The CBO reported today, 2/14/11 that the estimated budget deficit for the 2011 budget will be $1.56 trillion, exceeding the last 2 budget deficits

    Since 2009 up to the present the government has spent  ( borrowed money  ) $4.5 trillion on trying to resurrect the economy. In the past 2 years the government has grown 20% and now have control of 60% of the economy while the private sector has not advanced. New Government legislation, regulations and taxes have had a great impact on the private sector employers and industries. Businesses cannot survive without making a profit with the additional non productive regulations.

    Do you remember candidate Obama's message to Joe the plumber ''we need to spread the wealth around '' 16 months into President Barak  Obama’s term.

    The average pay for a PUBLIC worker is $70,000 plus 40,000 in fringe benefits ( $110,000 ), public unemployment is 3% and Obama has increased the deficit 4 x 1.3 ( Bush deficit )more than president Bush.

    The average pay in the PRIVATE sector is $50,000 plus $ 9000 in fringe benefits ($59,000) , private unemployment is 9.7%+
    and the government will have spent $ billions in extending unemployment benefits.

    Something is very very wrong with the above situation. President Obama promised jobs, the jobs that cost the taxpayer more is out of balance.
    Now we know what he meant when he said '' save or create jobs ''.The unions and special interest got him elected and it appears he is doing a good job of paying them back at the expense of the private sector.
    Tell me it isn't so. Enough is enough, it's time for the government to stop spending and to start cutting.

    HUBBERS if you were spending your own money why would you want to pay more for a similar service that could be provided in the private sector!

    The Obama Administration’s actions in essence was a payback to unions  ( $500 million ) for supporting his election. Sad to say that much of the stimulus money has gone to save public union employees jobs, hire new government workers  and states to save union pension funds. The private sector union workers got nothing but unemployment pay.

    HUBBERS
    If the costs of gasoline keeps going up( NOW $91+ a barrel ), we will see a second recession. The Obama administration has another moratorium on oil drilling. Wake up our Congress. China is buying up oil, Opec  is raising the price and our country has a choking grip on US oil production. The politicians in Congress continues their B S when they say  ‘’ we need to wean the us off the need of foreign oil ‘’. How stupid we are to believe that shutting down our oil drilling companies ( US jobs ) will wean us off the need of foreign oil in these troubled times.
    The Obama 2012 budget he presented to Congress today 2/14/11 puts additional taxes on the oil, natural gas and coal industries.The cost will be passed onto the .........

    1. lady_love158 profile image61
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Good points but the lefties here don't care about intelligent debate or what's right they actually desire oppression. They want a central authority to make everyone the same and that will provide for all of their needs. That's just the pyschology of the liberal brain... 25% of all people think that way... we just need to keep them in their rooms and let us grown ups handle governing.

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
        oceansnsunsetsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I agree.  We see it everyday.  Its alarming to me on a core level to observe it too.  It can be discouraging, but then on the other hand they are so going to get what they are choosing.  No one can make a cause and effect true or not, it just is. 

        No one needs to take anyone's word for anything, just look around, its so super obvious.   I am glad American's seemed to be waking up, and that may not have happened had Obama not gotten into office.  So that they voted against what he has been "for" gives me some hope.  So instead of helping American's get what they want though, we see a whole new set of games put into place.  That is a scary kind of government that American's don't want.  To "get it done" they are demonizing all kinds of things, to place blame on them, so they can exert more government control.  Its a game, and smarter thinkers get it, and the not so bright folks are like sheep or lemmings.  They are "easy", and it works like a charm on them. 

        Wake up America... junk is going on.

  38. JON EWALL profile image48
    JON EWALLposted 6 years ago

    HUBBERS

    http://hubpages.com/hub/obamacampaignfailedpromises


    Just another view of Obama's promises

  39. profile image0
    IRVING GERSONposted 6 years ago

    More than what W. did in 8 years.

  40. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    So what happens when you take a big chunk of money out of circulation, as in tax cuts?

    There's less to go around, huh?

    And what happens when you give that chunk to people who have over billions of dollars?

    Huge income disparity and a dying country.


    Starve the Beast, is it called?
    Ahhh, but it feeds the Monster.

    The never-ending greedy monster......

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      and yet, you're not a libertarian!

  41. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Ha ha, that's pretty astute.
    But it's hard to pigeonhole the Jersey Shore cast into any mold or class that John Boehner is also in... talk about mismatches!

  42. Mikeydoes profile image78
    Mikeydoesposted 6 years ago

    Being the first black president is a very big deal. Whether people want to believe it or not, it is a HUGE step in the right direction. This is something that could have plagued us for centuries to come.

    A female president will be a big deal as well, but I can't say the importance is as great as the one we already accomplished. Racism trumps sexism in this country, we love our ladies smile

    For this reason and this reason alone, his presidency was not a waste. I am not in to politics at all, and I certainly am not a democrat, just my opinion.

  43. Evan G Rogers profile image81
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    Here's his list of accomplishments, listed good and bad, that are of importance to me

    *(B) Got congress to pass a health care bill without even reading it or understanding it before passage
    *(B) Has NOT shut down Guantanamo Bay
    *(B) Patriot Act has not been thrown out
    *(B) Iraq and Afghan Wars are still being waged
    *(B) Horrendous government spending without equal
    *(B) Won a nobel prize for... well... nothing
    *(G) Has asked his justice department to stop arguing FOR the "Defense of Marriage" act.
    *(B) TSA powers have vastly grown under his watch.
    *(B) All around loss of freedom and privacy on his watch.

    ... and that's about it.

  44. uncorrectedvision profile image59
    uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago

    I was hoping for so much more. If Shining Handsome has revitalized interest in the Constitution this much in such a short time one can only imagine what he could have done if he was really serious. The excesses of four unhindered years of SHO and a liberal congress may have forced some, heretofore, unknown George Washington or Samuel Adams out of the wood work and into the limelight.  How marvelous for human liberty would the disastrous results of SHO's true potential would have been(sigh.)  "For all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, "It might have been." (sigh)

  45. AnnCee profile image76
    AnnCeeposted 6 years ago

    What has Obama accomplished?

    Obama has managed to decrease America's standing and influence in the world.   There is no strong leadership in the world right now and the Middle East is a mess.  Israel may end up having to do something very radical because this president has frittered away the weight of the office of the president of the United States.

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
      oceansnsunsetsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, as bad as it was before he got in office, it is actually much worse now, and especially will be worse for future generations because of choices Obama himself has made. 

      Its like there is no thought involved for others or the future.  That really concerns me.  That America voted like they did showing their non support of Obama (something that shows results of what America is actually thinking without opinion entering in) says scores about how badly Obama did not keep his word.  He was elected on the basis of what he promised people.  Many knew it wasn't even possible, but that its become so obvious now is hard to deny.  Yet we see it. 

      The extreme liberal media is alarming, and partly why I think he got voted in.  I think even liberals are growing increasingly weary of Obama, because of the cause and effect they see.  Words only go so far, and actions last longer term.

  46. profile image0
    bolt1951posted 6 years ago

    The Question should really be that it's a miracle Obama was able to even accomplish that much with the attrocious mess the Bush administration did. This man and his hench men not only killed people in other countries without just cause but they destroyed our economy in the interum.

    1. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Not to mention, the SOLE goal of the current Repubs is to obstruct him until they can get him out.
      Totally agree with you.

  47. Lady_E profile image81
    Lady_Eposted 4 years ago

    He got rid of Mafia Bin Laden.
    Made people feel comfy with their sexuality.
    Making Education affordable...

    He is good, but I wouldn't advice him to go for a 3rd Term.

 
working