Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Obama's failings

Posted by mylab123 z5NW (My Page) on
Thu, Jul 26, 12 at 12:59

In an attempt to further the discussion point Ingrid attempted to start in Circuspeanut's "who really built it..." thread which can be found on this page ,I would like to propose a specific discussion point in this specific thread.

For those of us who are not conservatives, I sense we have always been dismayed at the almost immediate dislike and distrust of President Obama which has only grown since his win of the nomination for president from the Democrat party,certainly since his swearing in as the President of our country.

He has had three and a half years now to deal with the country and it's problems which were laid at his feet when he was sworn into office. He now has a track record which can be pointed to - with specifics - a record with both positive and negative points.

I think Ingrid did a fine job of pointing out, with specifics, his accomplishments during the last three and a half years.

I think it would make for a greater understanding if conservatives would, in kind, point out, with specifics, actions where the President and his administration have failed the country so severely to the point where it has been said here by most conservatives that they would vote for anyone BUT Obama.

That attitude would certainly indicate some severe failings, decisions which have greatly hindered or reversed any progress this country has made.

If conservatives here would please take a minute or two to compile a list of the specific (not general, please - specifics only) failings, it would finally provide a platform for the understanding of the deep distrust and outrage. If any of you have specifically addressed this issue in the past and don't want to repeat it again out of frustration, please at least refer us to the thread(s) where you made out his list.

Participating in this thread will finally allow all conservatives to simply refer back to this appropriately titled ""Obama's failings" thread when we ask why you hate him so. This is a real opportunity for all conservatives to finally offer their own personal, exacting list to be compiled within a single thread for reference later when liberals once again question the basis for their total disregard conserning President Obama's presidency.

I hope that the more liberal members here will allow the conservatives on this forum to do just that, offer their personal, specific list - without jumping in and condeming what it is they have to say, give them a chance to do what we keep asking them to do, please, without running them down.

As long as they are willing to be as precise in their list of his failings as was Ingrid in her list of President Obama's achievements, whatever they have in objections are valid and worthy of being acknowledged as such IMO.

Let's just try, all of us, just once?



Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Obama's failings

And start a thread for Romneys attributes and failings then when they get full enough put them in a third thread side by side. Backing up these things posted with a source would be helpfull too.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Lots of luck, mylab. I'd be willing to bet that you won't get one response from Conservatives, leading the rest of us to believe that there is nothing specific that they can list.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Thu, Jul 26, 12 at 13:54

Mitt Romney 2012
He's Too Big to Fail!


 o
RE: Obama's failings

If I hadn't done this before and been personally attacked, I'd be happy to answer mylab.

But I'm not going there again as there are very few posters here who are interested in respectful dialogue about conservative opinions and why we think the way we do.

Sorry, mylab, if you and I were having lunch I'm sure we could talk and agree about much.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Demi, why not just put down your specifics on his failings and then not come into the thread again - or refuse to engage any negativity within the thread anymore? That way, you have put the info out there and what others choose to do with the information - or react to it - isn't your problem.

I hope you will reconsider or at least the other conservatives will be willing to offer their ideas regarding Obama's failings within this thread - the back and forth with no real dialog between all of us doesn't lead us anywhere if we aren't even willing to present our facts which are what lead us to our logical conclusions.

There are thousands of internet sites where people gather to make useless jabs at others when supposedly discussing politics, but end up being places where adults gather to behave churlishly - why keep this one on the level of the rest of them when it could be so much more.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

To be honest I do think that demi has done that before and we just haven't saved that. She is generally pretty upfront about specifics.

I don't know about the rest of you but I'm not willing to keep a file about "what demi doesn't like about Obama" just so I can refer to it later.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

That is absolutely not the point of the thread I've started Esh, it's too bad that you assumed that it is.

This was not intended to be a file for referral, it's an attempt to further the conversation which Ingrid attempted to start without luck.

If specific facts are offered on what conservatives object to as Obama's failings, that can't come back to them - it is what it is. Facts of failure they object to.

Not everything is a game of oneupmanship, if that is how it is always seen, then what is the point of this forum except for there to be a place where adults gather to behave churlishly with each other.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

This was not intended to be a file for referral

Nope, never thought it was.

Demi, why not just put down your specifics on his failings

That's what I was responding to - she has outlined her specifics before. I am agreeing with her that she doesn't have to repeat them if she doesn't want to. If I HAD saved such a list before on my computer than I could have looked at it to see how she felt ... but I'm not willing to do that.

She shouldn't have to type it out every time someone creates a new thread if she doesn't want to. She has answered the question before.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Posted by esh_ga z7 GA (My Page) on
Thu, Jul 26, 12 at 16:28

To be honest I do think that demi has done that before and we just haven't saved that. She is generally pretty upfront about specifics.

I don't know about the rest of you but I'm not willing to keep a file about "what demi doesn't like about Obama" just so I can refer to it later.

*

She shouldn't have to type it out every time someone creates a new thread if she doesn't want to. She has answered the question before.

*

Thank you, esh, I have indeed enumerated specific, salient points about why I do not support President Obama's relection, as well as some things I approve that he's done, and I've done that on several occasions.

I was excoriated, called names, taunted, insulted, and I'm just tired of it.

My political contributions and my vote are going to have to speak for me from now until election time.

I am not interested in arguing and putting myself up for target practice for only giving my opinion.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Thanks for the clarification, Esh, I misunderstood.

I wish I actually had saved such lists from the various conservatives in the forum, then I would have the answer to my question and would never have started this thread in the first place.

But of course nobody can make her participate in this thread - she and others either will or they won't.

I'm hoping they will.

I'm just sorry that there hasn't been a single positive or encouraging response to the intent of this thread.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Mylab the information you seek is not the stuff of electioneering which seems to be the permanent mode of thinking that drives US politics. In this mode it is more beneficial to make emotional pleas about the oppositions failings than to enter into a more productive discourse about how we would do better. There is no doubt that Obama has 'failings' and these have been mentioned here but without fail they have shrunk in comparison with him once being a community organizer or having a connection with Bill Ayers. In my opinion Obama is far from the model 'leader of the free world' but until someone comes along better fitted to the role he is the best on offer mainly because the competition is so lame. Consider the response to this question that amounts to 'anyone but Obama' a desire with a soft centre> Anyone?


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Regarding the statement that Obama's failings have been discussed before, I'm not aware that has taken place. Nothing SPECIFIC has to my knowledge been mentioned, in terms of what he has or has not done. It's all very vague and veiled and often very contentious, but as for hard, salient, specific facts - those are hard to come by. Had they been specific facts, I doubt very much anyone would have been "taunted", "insulted" or "excoriated". It's the vague innuendos of wrong-doing and evil that are so frustrating, not statements of solid facts. However - we're all wasting our time here. mylab123, thank you for trying once again to elicit logic and reason from posters who seem unable and/or unwilling to produce such.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

How self serving.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

I agree with you Ingrid. I vaguely remember when Demi listed Obama's failings and why she couldn't support him. as I remember there was nothing specific, no facts .


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Do tell, Chloe, since you made that charge, tax your "vague" remembrance and back up what you just said.

An opinion is an opinion, and may or may not be based on facts.

There are plenty of facts that cause people not to want to reelect Barack Obama--one is the FACT that the man has supported the 5 TRILLION more in debt during his term.

That is FACT enough, people.

What you don't get is conservatives laugh at your little "demands" for "links."

People that can think for themselves don't need to check to see what others think and don't require anyone to post a reference to someone else's opinion to back up theirs.

So, let me be SPECIFIC:

Barack Obama is behind spending this country into oblivion, Barack Obama is in favor of redistributing wealth, and Barack Obama is in favor of causing the top contributors to the federal coffers to pay EVEN MORE while not requiring that everyone pitch in and pull some weight.

That's REASON enough for me not to want to reelect him.

That's a FACT.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

By the way, Mylab, these posts prove EXACTLY what I said had happened in the past, and what would happen, and I didn't even ANSWER YOUR QUESTION and these posters STILL found a way to denigrate me by accusing me of not answering why I do not support Obama because I do not have the "facts" they deem necessary for me to have an opinion.

Rubbish, and a perfect example, mylab and esh.

At least you two aren't of the ilk of these posters:

Posted by ingrid_vc Z10 SoCal (My Page) on
Thu, Jul 26, 12 at 20:46

Regarding the statement that Obama's failings have been discussed before, I'm not aware that has taken place. Nothing SPECIFIC has to my knowledge been mentioned, in terms of what he has or has not done. It's all very vague and veiled and often very contentious, but as for hard, salient, specific facts - those are hard to come by. Had they been specific facts, I doubt very much anyone would have been "taunted", "insulted" or "excoriated". It's the vague innuendos of wrong-doing and evil that are so frustrating, not statements of solid facts. However - we're all wasting our time here. mylab123, thank you for trying once again to elicit logic and reason from posters who seem unable and/or unwilling to produce such.

Posted by chloe45 zone 61/2-7 (My Page) on
Thu, Jul 26, 12 at 21:39

I agree with you Ingrid. I vaguely remember when Demi listed Obama's failings and why she couldn't support him. as I remember there was nothing specific, no facts .


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Barack Obama is behind spending this country into oblivion, Barack Obama is in favor of redistributing wealth, and Barack Obama is in favor of causing the top contributors to the federal coffers to pay EVEN MORE while not requiring that everyone pitch in and pull some weight.

I just want to crystallize this:

- Obama increased the debt by increasing spending without reducing spending elsewhere in sufficient amounts (ergo, deficit increases)
- Obama wants to redistribute wealth
- Obama wants the top income folks to pay more taxes
- but Obama isn't making the lower income folks pay taxes

demi, I hope I represented that accurately.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Barack Obama is in favor of causing the top contributors to the federal coffers to pay EVEN MORE while not requiring that everyone pitch in and pull some weight.

Maybe, just maybe, it's because those "top contributors" have not been paying their fair share and forcing the rest of us to do so, to fill the coffers that you speak about.

The top contributors don't need the tax break, the rest of us do. It's time for a dose of reality for the "top contributors" top pay their fair share, not have all the tax loopholes the ability to shove their money to off shore foreign account and not pay taxes on it.

It's high time the "top contributors", aren't they also called the "job creators" to pay what they should have been paying all along; Especially after getting all these tax breaks because they are the "all mighty important job creators" you know the ones that need those tax breaks because they are "the job creators and without those tax breaks they won't create jobs"

So how many jobs did these "job creators" make, the ones with the tax credits?

Yup, the noise is just deafening, isn't it? Don't everyone scream out a number at once now.

They had their chance and no jobs, protect themselves at the expense of the rest of the people.

That's not how things should be working.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Why does redistribution of wealth in your mind go from rich to middle class, when in reality, redistribution of wealth is definitely occurring but going from from the middle class to the rich?


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Who says the only reason people shouldn't pay higher taxes is if they create jobs?

Where is it an obligation for people to create jobs, and if they don't, they have to pay more in taxes than other people?

I believe in a flat tax.

*

Esh, yes, that's pretty much my views in a nutshell as to why I will not vote for Barack Obama.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

People that can think for themselves don't need to check to see what others think and don't require anyone to post a reference to someone else's opinion to back up theirs.

LIKE

This should be right up there under the TOS for this board.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Demi, you don't seem to understand, so let me try again and explain it this way.

The reason the super wealthy got those tax breaks was the claim that the needed them because they where the "job creators" and without the tax breaks the "job creators wouldn't be creating jobs.

They got the tax breaks based on that belief, and that belief proved to not be true.

Since the basis of the tax break was for these people to create jobs and they didn't do that, then they shouldn't be given that tax break, they aren't deserving of the tax break and the basis of the tax break was a lie.

Pretty simple to understand.

People got conned into believing this rhetoric and it's time the con was ended, especially when it is being done on the backs of those that can't afford to continue to support the coffers for those that can well afford to pay their fair share.

It would seem quite fair and reasonable that if a tax break was given to a certain group based on a lie, a con to the public and it was proven that the reason was a lie, was a con, then the tax break should be ended immediately.

Pretty simple concept to understand.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Posted by littleonefb z5MA (My Page) on Thu, Jul 26, 12 at 23:54

"The reason the super wealthy got those tax breaks was the claim that the needed them because they where the "job creators" and without the tax breaks the "job creators wouldn't be creating jobs."

Really? Who gave the tax breaks to the super wealthy, at the same time giving the reason as stated above? Names, please. And how did they do that? I'm really curious about this.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Understand this concept, littleone--after your hateful, taunting, accusatory, and speculative remarks about me a few days ago, I could not care less what you have to think or say about anything.d

Pretty simple.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

On this forum, conservatives themselves have frequently argued that the top earners must get a tax break or they won't create jobs and all of society will suffer. Just search for a couple of demi's own statements on here in the not too distant past.

I remember them because I also remember thinking that the rich sounded like a bunch of spoiled kids having a temper tantrum--do it my way or I'm not going to play with you any longer! Here we are talking about human beings who have lost the jobs and can't support their families, and conservatives are playing "hostage": we won't release your captured unemployed people until you pay the ransom money (lower taxes for us rich)!

Whatever analogy you use, it all sounds so inappropriate and indeed downright insensitive and uncaring.

Kate


 o
RE: Obama's failings

So Mylab starts a thread to gather thoughts on Obama's failings and it becomes a stage to bash Demi.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Like the man said: the wealth of a nation is created by the efforts of all, if that wealth is not used for the benefit of the nation but by an oligarchy for themselves alone then problems arise. This is the situation that lead to American independence. When the gap between the rich and the poor seems insurmountable it is not uncommon for the peasants to revolt and heads, quite literally roll.In the past the US saw a way round this inevitability with the creation of a healthy middle class fired up on a dream. The wealth of the US today is being sucked dry and unless there is a united effort to stem the flow trouble is brewing. Obviously those in the rich elite won't willingly relinquish their favoured position so this either falls on the government to act on behalf of its people or the people go it alone. There is a major problem in that the government is owned by the oligarchy making a compromise almost impossible as we have seen. There is another impediment and that is the gullibility of the people who take propaganda words like "redistribution of wealth' or 'socialism' and run with it.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Do tell Demi.
Your currant list is pretty much as I remember the other one, void of facts.

When people are fed a steady diet of propaganda, they begin to lose the ability to understand the difference between that propaganda and facts. They offer propaganda and really really believe they have offered facts.
And they then get all huffy when people call them on it.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Jul 27, 12 at 10:33

Government has not failed the American people, a look from the left and sure to be dismissed, from a businessman's perspective.

Here is a link that might be useful: Fail


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Unfortunately the thread never developed in the way I really hoped it would. Demi (and Esh) did prove to be absolutely correct after all in her prediction about reactions to what she would have to say folks - and now that she has re-stated her position, I absolutely do recall her saying these things many times.

I was hoping for a thread where there wouldn't be negative reactions to what conservatives had to say about Obama's failings, just a thread where they could present his failings which they strongly object to enough to vote for anyone but him without a lot of back and forth on this single thead- since we keep asking of them why with specifics, I wanted to offer a thread where maybe they would feel free to neatly line up the facts re: President Obama results - which they personally and greatly object to - which Demi did in fact offer up (with justified, after all) reluctance.

I figured all the other threads we have here are for rebuttal of what we all have to say about everything.
I hoped that something exactly like what Don SoCal mentioned would take place over the next few threads. Perhaps that is too neat/organized of a type of thread development to take place for the sort of discussion forum such as is this one.

This is a put down of me, not of this forum as it was developed to be or of the participants of it. I really do grasp now that what I hoped for was unrealistic and probably not even possible when all is said and done. To further illustrate that point?

Ink, your last contribution is exactly how I see things to be, all in one neat paragraph.
See - I couldn't even reserve my remarks either - and I'm the one who started the thread.


Thanks you, Demi.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

The major failing I have felt was we did not get single payer health insurance.

I see the standard talking point that Obama failing is the budget. My opinion is this is not an educated intelligent opinion. It is a party brainwashing, exercise that is feed to any that do not want to try to do their own due diligence.

- Obama increased the debt by increasing spending without reducing spending elsewhere in sufficient amounts (ergo, deficit increases)
- Obama wants to redistribute wealth
- Obama wants the top income folks to pay more taxes
- but Obama isn't making the lower income folks pay taxes

How about doing some fact check?

When President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. When he ended his term, he left a $1.3 trillion deficit and a projected 10-year shortfall of $8 trillion.

Bush spent the surplus and the interest of the Bush policy haunt us to this day.

Here is a link that might be useful: Bush spending


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Ink has summed up the present situation in this nation in a nutshell. Well done!

Mylab, no one is putting you down.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

mylab, you tried. It does not work that way. Not a put down on your approach. I appreciate your effort.

I do not see how we can have a one way post though. If you have a group of adults why is it not possible to say. "I disagree because ______?" Why is that so difficult to accept?

No one knows everything and if someone can offer info to further the discussion how do we learn?


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Credit to demi for at least speaking her mind. We may not agree with her, but she put herself out there.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

No, I don't feel anyone here put me down for the attempt, what I meant was that I wasn't wanting anyone to feel I was putting them down when they chose to rebut points - in case anyone felt I was being unfair to them.

I was tring to point out that it was unrealistic of me in the first place to attempt to try to start a thread with an idea plan which runs against the current of what H.T. is all about - hot topics discussed hotly. Is hotly a word? (I don't think so)

I wish it could have happened but I wish that Santa Clause came to town too! ;)

Maybe it can continue to be an individual effort within threads - short and sweet. Demi did it here - Ingrid did it so well in the other thread I think Inky did it here too - a collection of facts and/or opinions (obviously depending upon the reader's point of view) and the mix of the two all which were, I think, certainly worthy food for thought if not for a cool discussion and debate. It has always happened enough to keep the place interesting.

Long live the Hot Topics forum!


 o
RE: Obama's failings

The major failing I have felt was we did not get single payer health insurance.

I don't know if this is so much the failure of the president as the unwillingness of members of Congress to back such a plan. Without backing the plan would have gone nowhere, just like all the other attempts at health insurance in the past. There was a load of compromising to get even this imperfect plan passed - single payer will have to wait for another Congress.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Caveat: Presidents don't have a direct effect on the general machinations of the economy. I'm reluctant to give any President too much credit or blame for bubbles and busts. Economies don't stop and start based on presidential elections. However, national leaders certainly can set a tone. A threatening tone does nothing to soothe economic worries during a recession.

A quick critique.

1. A stimulus that was too targeted to specific industries, while ignoring other industries.

2. Hope for Homeowners and now HARP 2.0 have turned out to be of little hope and little help for most underwater mortgages. Only about 20% of the 5 million projected homeowners were helped in Version 1. Version 2 doesn't appear to be much better so far.

3. Sending bundles of taxpayer money to failing businesses, like Solyndra and several others doesn't make you look presidential; it makes you look careless and out of touch with reality. Just because you like an industry doesn't mean that it deserves to become a government money pit. They were making the same product that could be made elsewhere for less money. It ain't rocket science - no one in their right mind would "invest" in such a losing proposition.

4. The "Affordable" Care Act, which does nothing to control costs, nor does it address the biggest problem - health
care inflation rates - which far outpace general inflation.

5. Related to #4, how much is this going to cost businesses? Individuals? Will income taxes go up next year? Whose income taxes? This, my friends, generates a good deal of financial uncertainty, even if it's only temporary until everything is settled. Since nothing is settled yet, it's anyone's guess. It's like trying to nail jello to the wall, financially speaking. You can't get away with this in a fragile economy.

6. Economic recovery is lethargic, if "recovery" is even the correct word to apply here. That's compounded by populist threats and silly chin music. Tone down the rhetoric already. Nothing about it is inspiring economic confidence.

7. For the love of Pete, learn how to schmooze your opponents in the House and in the Senate. There is no excuse for not attempting to build relationships with the people in the opposing party. Learn how to wheel and deal a bit. You can't put up preemptive walls between you and your opponents. You may never agree on anything, but there is no excuse for being so socially uncivilized and not inviting them to talk one-on-one with you. It could only help. You're in the Presidency, not the witness protection program.

8. The USA's credit rating was lowered on your watch. That's not a good thing. What could you have done that may have prevented that? (Hints above.)


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Wow; excellent post, BH. I appreciate it when someone (not lazy like me) takes the time to do all the work, and eloquently. There's so much snipping and linking on HT, which doesn't lend any cred as far as I am concerned.

That was so refreshing.

Thank you.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

1. The Stimulus package worked. It stopped an economic downturn that place the country on the brink of another great Depression. As far as the Stimulus being "too targeted toward specific industries" this is a joke. What industries received too much and which did not? Can you be specific? Or is just a Solyndra talking point? Most of the money was spent on tax breaks, infrastructure, and State and local fiscal relief. Here read up on it a bit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

2. As far as the foreclosure crisis, this was an unprecedented economic disaster which resulted in Bush bailing our the Big banks. Bush should have required that the Banks come up with and implement plans to write down mortgage principle and also conform all recent mortgages to conform to a fixed statutory interest rate for 5 years or until the mortgage foreclosure issue abated. President Obama shares the blame on that with Republican leaders.

3. No one in their right mind would invest in Solyndra? You man like George Bush?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/06/495791/cnn-solyndra-loan-bush-started-no-evidence-of-wrong-doing-romney-attacks-are-made-up/?mobile=nc

4. The AHCA has many provision designed to cut costs over time with certain policies but I laugh at criticism by Republicans that the Government should regulate the HC industry. The fact of the matter is that the Bill was primarily designed to affect greatly expanded coverage as its primary goal.
As Ezra Klein explained: "The science of coverage is ahead of the science of cost control. We know how to do coverage. But we don't know how to bend the curve with research yet. Are we going to hold 46 million uninsured Americans hostage to figuring that out?

My view is, even if the bill did no cost control it would be an incredible thing for this country. But politically, it sets the stage for cost control in two senses. First, it puts in place all the things we can do now. It does comparative effectiveness and pilots and all the rest. But second, once you get coverage off the table, the conversation gets more focused on cost control."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/does_health-care_reform_do_eno.html

5. You argue for doing nothing rather than seeking to expand coverage for tens of millions because the costs of the plan threaten the economy with uncertainty. Unfortunately you are operating from a false predicate. The economy was already spiraling into Depression under Bush and health care costs and health insurance costs were vectoring up on an unsustainable slope.

6. The Obama Recovery is better than the Bush Depression. The rate of recovery is understandably slow given the global Recession and the explosion of the financial industry and housing bubble under Bush. Any credit at all for Obama saving jobs? Helping people stay on unemployment and allowing the sick to have health insurance? And all of that with a mindless and unprecedented degree of opposition from increasingly angry and bitter Republicans, he11 bent on wanting him to fail from day 1.

7. Obama did everything to "schmooze' Boehner and the GOPer leaders and on several occasions was met with unwelcome words, deeds and acts, like refusing invitations for dinner at the White House. This is not a credible criticism and one wonders where you got that nonsense.

8. Radical Tea Party Republicans decided to hold the debt ceiling hostage as a negotiating tool. The rest refused to compromise with any tax increases to balance out spending cuts....not even if the cuts to tax increases were 10 to 1.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

"3. No one in their right mind would invest in Solyndra? You man like George Bush?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/06/495791/cnn-solyndra-loan-bush-started-no-evidence-of-wrong-doing-romney-attacks-are-made-up/?mobile=nc"

It doesn't matter. The money walked out the door during the Obama administration, despite their own financial people raising a warning about Solyndra's financial instability.

Obama metaphorically signed the check and it was delivered with a great deal of fanfare. Then Solyndra closed their doors.

This illustrates why government, regardless of administration, should not be trying to pick winners and losers in the business world. They absolutely suck at it and chances are it's merely a financial quid pro quo of some sort, not something based on sound financial principles.

"7. Obama did everything to "schmooze' Boehner and the GOPer leaders and on several occasions was met with unwelcome words, deeds and acts, like refusing invitations for dinner at the White House. This is not a credible criticism and one wonders where you got that nonsense."

This President is notorious for shunning even members of his own party, let alone members of the opposite party. The Speaker has been to the White House only twice this year. Is this how a President establishes relationships and builds alliances?

It's easy to get your own party on board even if you snub them. It's far more difficult to deal with opposing party members. Never underestimate the power of negotiation, which is a skill this President does not appear to have. He avoids it like the plague.

At the very least, you should keep your friends close and your enemies closer. I bet Obama would have it easier if he hadn't snubbed and alienated so many people. Instead, he has employed a bunker strategy. Not a productive way to conduct business.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

You seemed to have missed the part where the Bush White House decided Solyndra would be a bad investment and nixed it. Or that Obama was in the White House for two years before he ever invited Mitch McConnell to meet with him.

demi, I must say I admire you. I do believe that mylabs intentions were good, but probably didn't realize that this has been tried before. The last time it was me who made the mistake of answering the question. Still have the claw marks lol.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

He signed NDAA that annoyed me the longest till I heard they blocked his removing I have the power to detain Americans but I won't.
I didn't know there was a tradition for there President to meet the Minority leader of the Senate Demi & K ia there really a long history of it or is that a Machiavellian approach of keeping your enemies close. I would have seen it as a sign of weakness inviting someone who claims their main objective is to keep you from a 2nd term from day ONE
I know Bush invited Pelosi to dine a Year or so after his election but not much got said & she was in line for succession heaven forefend anything happened Bush.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Re the stimulus, I think that the over-all multiplier effect wasn't all it could be, due more to the fact that the manufacturing base has been so decimated over the years than to any inherent fault with the theory. We ended up importing an awful lot of the stuff used in the stimulus because its no longer made here.

So I can put some blame somewhere that the administration, as well as most economists, hadn't realized just how much manufacturing had disappeared from the country.

But lets not discount the formal position taken by the Republican Party at the beginning of his term, that they would do anything in their power to make sure his term was a failure. As in voting "NO" on just about everything, including many of the plans and ideas that they had proposed just a few years ago.

Anyway, on to the more salient point, is the Ryan Budget, with massive cuts to gvt services, vouchers for Medicare, and tax cuts for the wealthy the way to correct the economic trajectory of the country? Or are Obama's ideas, training workers and an emphasis on education, health insurance reform, etc. more likely to help?


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Posted by mrskjun 9 (My Page) on
Sat, Jul 28, 12 at 9:58

You seemed to have missed the part where the Bush White House decided Solyndra would be a bad investment and nixed it. Or that Obama was in the White House for two years before he ever invited Mitch McConnell to meet with him.

demi, I must say I admire you. I do believe that mylabs intentions were good, but probably didn't realize that this has been tried before. The last time it was me who made the mistake of answering the question. Still have the claw marks lol.

*

Thanks for pointing that out.
Obama's ego I think has gotten in the way of accomplishing some of what he promised.

Yep--I answered by saying I did not intend to answer because if I did I would be attacked--and I was attacked for what I didn't answer, anyway, LOL!

Bitterness, resentfulness, and/or arrogance can be a catalyst for some that continually insult and denigrate other posters when the posters have done nothing to them or said nothing to them.

Lionheart submitted a good post.

We'll just have to see--it appears at this point that the election is very close and the economy is on the verge of another recession, especially if the tax increases take place.

For many people, especially seniors and people that need to sell their homes as part of their retirement plan, they are going to get hit hard. So those people aren't spending much one now.

Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride no matter who wins, but I am certain this baby's going to crash if Obama gets reelected.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Lionheart, Where do your notorious knowledge come from?

This President is notorious for shunning ............... The Speaker has been to the White House only twice this year. Is this how a President establishes relationships and builds alliances?

Maybe the Speaker has only been to the White House twice because that is as often as a party of "No" would permit him to show up? Oh the tales Conservatives spin and some like to repeat and believe.

The same John Boehner who toasted the queen in 2007 has since refused all three state dinner invitations from Democratic President Barack Obama for key U.S. allies: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Mexican President Felipe Calderon and, on Wednesday night, President Hu Jintao of China.

Here is a link that might be useful: John Boehner


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Yep same Boehner had a poker game or a prostate exam to go to.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

At the link is what I believe to be a very good description of the failures of the Obama administration, put in the necessary context. The initial wording is too partisan, but the essential elements are there. Its too long to copy and paste, but generally -

-snip - The American people wanted the perpetrators of the Great Recession held accountable, and they wanted the president and Congress to enact legislation to prevent Wall Street bankers from ever destroying the lives of so many again. Instead they saw renewed bonuses - and then they saw red. Republicans learned very quickly that they could attack Obama and his agenda with impunity. Only at election time, or when he's up against the ropes, does this president ever tell a story with a villain.

The second mistake was squandering the goodwill that Americans felt toward the new president and their anxiety about an economy hemorrhaging three-quarters of a million jobs a month. That combination gave Obama, at the beginning of his term, a power to shape public policy that no one since Franklin Roosevelt had held. But instead of designing a stimulus that reflected the thinking of the country's best economic minds, he cut their recommended numbers by a third and turned another third into inert tax cuts designed to appease Republican legislators whose primary aim was to defeat him. He stimulated the economy - but just enough to leave the results open to interpretation, rendering questionable what should have been an uncontested success.

Obama compounded the problem a year into his presidency, when corporate profits were on the rise while job creation wasn't. The Senate was considering a jobs program much like one the House had passed. But Obama refused to throw his support behind it. To do so, he would have had to articulate a vision in which government sets the conditions for the private sector to create prosperity and jobs, and steps in when the private sector can't - or when it works against the interests of ordinary Americans. snip -

But Obama chose neither to offer that vision nor to take action to put Americans back to work directly, rebuilding our broken roads, our bridges, our crumbling schools. The stimulus was a good start, but its flaws were already apparent. Instead, he began using Republican language about how the government, like ordinary families, needs to tighten its belt, as if that were a solution for people whose belts couldn't get any tighter. "Government has to start living within its means, just like families do," he said in a weekly Web and radio address. Words like these not only undercut the vision behind the stimulus - the whole point of which was to spark a sputtering economy with deficit spending - but they came as bankers were loosening their belts, making average Americans angrier.

The third way the administration created opportunities for Republican obstructionism will someday become a business-school case study: It let a popular idea - a family doctor for every family - be recast as a losing ideological battle between intrusive government and freedom. In the 2008 election, the American people were convinced that families should never have to choose between putting food on the table and taking the kids to the doctor. They were adamant that neither they nor their aging parents should have to choose between their medicine and their mortgage.

How did the administration manage to turn one of the most popular campaign issues of 2008 into one of the major causes of Democrats- "shellacking" at the polls two years later?

In keeping with the most baffling habit of one of our most rhetorically gifted presidents, Obama and his team just didn't bother explaining what they were doing and why. To them, their actions were self-evident. But nothing is self-evident when your opponents are spending millions of dollars to defeat you. " snip

The article then goes on, in some detail, about how Obama messed it up. But again the prevailing theme is how corporate America/Wall Street have Congress and the Admin by the proverbial ....

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Great contribution, David.

I believe that Heri also made excellent counter points.

I don't understand LH's complaint that the President failed to build alliances and establish relationships.

If the road doesn't run both ways, it would be a failed attempt.

I remember the announcement and implimentation of the rep's conservative plan to prevent every proposal the President would make in the future. And then they did.

Nothing can combat such an attitude of a Party Of No, forgetting about the three and a half years of dealing with this is to miss that important point and period of Congressional history - a period when the people of this country should have insisted, with desperation, for our elected officials to work together.

Any attempt at de tante was deliberately barred over and over again. After several attempts, the President and our elected Democrat reps should have grown some sharp teeth and worked as a body of one to override the lesser percentage of majority. Democrat reps failed, too, during this period. I think the President failed big time in the continued attempts. His supporters grew weary.

Olympia Snow can explain in great detail (and did) all about the failings of our representatives. What a book she could write about the last eleven and a half years. I'd hope if she does, we all will read it. We all certainly need to.

And still, the voting public encourages further representative estrangements within the House.

I feel the voting public holds it's great share of blame for the fact that we have not made greater progress in undoing the damage we live with. We tend get the type of reps we deserve. And probably the type of recovery we deserve, too.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

Nice try Mylab (no sarcasm). Yet futile from the gitgo...

I remember the announcement and implimentation of the rep's conservative plan to prevent every proposal the President would make in the future. And then they did.

On purpose. Where I come from, it is called treason.

It also brought us 3 and a half years of whining - lying - about how the President wouldn't compromise. Until we had a thread on it, then it was guess what.

And the Republicans in Congress are the legislative equivalent of trolling.

People who behave like this should not be allowed to have any power.


 o
RE: Obama's failings

If another recession comes it will be as a result of Congress' failure to act. Taxation and spending are the responsibility of the House not the President.

The President has tried and tried to get some movement on the National Debt and has been met with total resistance on the part of the Republicans in Congress.

Responsibility needs to be placed where it belongs and that is squarely on the shoulders of Congress. As we banter back and forth the American National Debt is growing exponentially, the debt ceiling is fast approaching, the huge cuts to social and militarily spending is set to kick in Dec 31st and the tax cuts are set to expired and Congress is doing NOTHING about it.

Like I've said and comments here bear it out. All that most conservatives seem to care about this election cycle is their taxes!


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here