Your opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far (2 Viewers)

[DrJ]

You know Stat, every time you (or anyone else) uses the word "Obamacare" I stop reading right there. It's a pejorative term, no different, IMO, than calling the Tea Party "teabaggers".

How is it any different than calling something that Obama himself extended the "Bush tax cuts". That's a far closer comparison than using a term that describes a deviant sexual act to label a group of people.

 

[Sarnoff]

You know Stat, every time you (or anyone else) uses the word "Obamacare" I stop reading right there. It's a pejorative term, no different, IMO, than calling the Tea Party "teabaggers".

"Obamacare" is not pejorative. Neither are "Bush tax cuts" or "Reaganomics". "Teabaggers", because of the sexual double entendre, is.

 

[cubd8]

You know Stat, every time you (or anyone else) uses the word "Obamacare" I stop reading right there. It's a pejorative term, no different, IMO, than calling the Tea Party "teabaggers".

This post should confirm for anyone who wonders where Tim falls on the political spectrum. Liberals even refer to the healthcare reform as ObamaCare. There is nothing pejorative about it, and it's not the same as using "teabagger". That's just ridiculous, and stupid.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Anyone missing Jimmy Carter yet?

 

[BoneYardDog]

President Obama Doesn't Know the First Thing About EconomicsThe president’s press conference on Monday epitomized the “do something” nature of his administration. He wants to do something about … well, everything—from getting more kids into college to fighting global warming (although the latter is less evident these days, at least in public). The trouble is that he thinks he needs more and more of our money to do it, so he wants any budget deal to include tax rises.Let’s take the example of college education grants, which the president suggested should be funded by an increase in taxes on millionaires like himself. The president’s budget request for 2012 contains an allocation of $36 billion for increased Pell grants for students from poor backgrounds to attend college. That’s out of an entire federal budget request of $3.7 trillion, which makes Pell grant expenditure just 1 percent of the total.Looking at that from the viewpoint of Mrs. Thatcher’s proverbial housewife, we can compare it to the median household income of about $46,000, which, after taxes, is about $3,000 a month. The size of the problem that President Obama singles out as requiring tax increases is equivalent to a household budget shortfall of $30 a month. A competent economic manager should be able to deal with that sort of problem by tightening his or her belt elsewhere. The president’s seeming incapability to contemplate this demonstrates just how out of control the federal spending machine is.Potential budget savings abound. The Heritage Foundation has identified about 90 programs that can be reduced or eliminated entirely at a savings of $343 billion annually. If the president were to agree to half of these, he could keep his Pell grant increases and still reduce discretionary spending by about $170 billion, no tax increase needed.When it comes to his justification for tax increases, the president’s ignorance of basic economics shows through even more. He has suggested that tax increases would stop him personally from keeping hundreds of thousands of dollars that he doesn’t need. So now we know what the president does with his book money – he throws it on a pile, like Tolkien’s dragon Smaug.However, that’s not what wealth creators do. They either spend that “excess” money, providing jobs for people who make or import the things they spend it on, or invest it, thereby creating more jobs and more wealth which they can reinvest. The obstacle in this virtuous circle is government’s intervention, which either makes the investment unviable owing to too much regulation, or takes away the profit through taxation, which is what Obama seems to want more of.The president’s “do something” government is grossly exacerbating the great jobless recovery he laments. Sixty-four percent of small businesses will not hire any new employees over the next year, while 79 percent state that taxation, regulation, and legislation make it harder for them to hire more employees, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.This should come as no surprise. As I explain in my new book, “Stealing You Blind,” regulations cost the American economy at least $1.75 trillion a year, and the burden falls harder on smaller businesses than on larger ones, which can afford to hire professionals essentially to work full-time for the government within the firm. While the president has paid lip service to the idea of reducing regulatory burdens, the savings he has identified to date are orders of magnitude too small to provide any relief to struggling businesses.For all these reasons, Mr. Obama should do something about the size of the government he heads. To the average housewife, economy means “making savings,” not adding revenues. Whatever deal is reached on the debt limit and budget deals, if it does not include substantial belt-tightening, it won’t work.

 

[timschochet]

You know Stat, every time you (or anyone else) uses the word "Obamacare" I stop reading right there. It's a pejorative term, no different, IMO, than calling the Tea Party "teabaggers".

This post should confirm for anyone who wonders where Tim falls on the political spectrum. Liberals even refer to the healthcare reform as ObamaCare. There is nothing pejorative about it, and it's not the same as using "teabagger". That's just ridiculous, and stupid.

Well first off, I'm proud to be OFF the political spectrum. But to answer your point, I have several liberal friends who object to the term "Obamacare," just as I have several conservative friends who object to the term "teabaggers." You claim that liberals even use the term "Obamacare", and I challenge that. If you can link me to an article or editorial by a liberal which uses that term in a positive manner, then I will change my view on this.

 

[Statorama]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...ted-twice-many-campaign-contributors-new-jobs

Obama generated twice as many campaign contributors as new jobs through second quarter of 2011

Here's an interesting couple of numbers that emerged during this past week: According to Jim Messina, his campaign manager, through the second quarter of 2011, President Obama now has 552,000 contributors to his 2012 re-election campaign.

And the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that during the same two quarters, the U.S. economy generated 260,000 jobs.

In other words, Obama attracted twice as many campaign donors as his economic policies created new jobs. That probably explains a great deal about yet a third number that received a great deal of attention this week: Gallup's finding that a "generic Republican" leads Obama by eight points in voter preference for 2012.

 

[Statorama]

You know Stat, every time you (or anyone else) uses the word "Obamacare" I stop reading right there. It's a pejorative term, no different, IMO, than calling the Tea Party "teabaggers".

"Obamacare" is not pejorative. Neither are "Bush tax cuts" or "Reaganomics". "Teabaggers", because of the sexual double entendre, is.

I never "stop reading" when someone uses a term like Reganomics, and I'm the biggest Reagan guy on the net.It's hard to help educate people that want to bury their heads in the sand and ignore a crisis like Obamacare simply because of the moniker that's used. It disgusts me that it's called the Affordable Care Act, because it's ridiculous to think about it in those terms. The name implies that it's somehow "good" or "affordable". It's more like Medical Economic Armageddon.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Yeah, "Obamacare" definitely started off as a pejorative term on talk radio and elsewhere. It has sort of hit the mainstream now, though.

And whoever described teabagging as a deviant sexual act is an uptight puritan.

 

[Phil Elliott]

As much as i disagree with Obama on most positions, I thought this was a pretty funny joke.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/18/obama_makes_joke_about_nomination_process_--_no_one_laughs.html

"Back in the 80's, Richard was also a five-time Jeopardy champion and a semi-finalist in the Tournament of Champions. Not too shabby," President Obama said as he announced the nomination of Richard Cordray to run the consumer bureau on Monday.

"That's why all his confirmation -- all the answers at his confirmation hearings will be in a form of a question," Obama said to silence.

"That's a joke," he reminded the audience.

 

[Sarnoff]

OBAMA’S LEGISLATIVE MODEL: The president says he doesn’t want a simple, short term agreement on the debt limit. He says he wants to put together a big, all-encompassing deal. And he wants it rammed together in emergency fashion. Sounds familiar — massive legislative package passed in short order without any input from the people or even most of Congress. Stimulus, Obamacare, now the debt limit …. ummm, what was that definition of insanity?

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

OBAMA’S LEGISLATIVE MODEL: The president says he doesn’t want a simple, short term agreement on the debt limit. He says he wants to put together a big, all-encompassing deal. And he wants it rammed together in emergency fashion. Sounds familiar — massive legislative package passed in short order without any input from the people or even most of Congress. Stimulus, Obamacare, now the debt limit …. ummm, what was that definition of insanity?

Quit plagiarizing and show the link where you stole this from.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Cisco to lay off thousands of employeesSAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Networking equipment maker Cisco Systems Inc. is cutting 6,500 employees -- about 9 percent of its work force -- as it follows up on a plan announced in May to eliminate thousands of jobs to reduce costs and raise profits. In May, Cisco said it planned to eliminate thousands of jobs as part of a larger plan to lower annual expenses by $1 billion, or about 6 percent. Cisco didn't say then how many jobs would be eliminated, but the number worked out to 4,000 to 5,000 if the percentage of job cuts were similar to the reduction in expenses. The exact number has been the subject of many analyst and published reports since then.

Is this ever going to end?

 

[Phil Elliott]

Cisco to lay off thousands of employeesSAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Networking equipment maker Cisco Systems Inc. is cutting 6,500 employees -- about 9 percent of its work force -- as it follows up on a plan announced in May to eliminate thousands of jobs to reduce costs and raise profits. In May, Cisco said it planned to eliminate thousands of jobs as part of a larger plan to lower annual expenses by $1 billion, or about 6 percent. Cisco didn't say then how many jobs would be eliminated, but the number worked out to 4,000 to 5,000 if the percentage of job cuts were similar to the reduction in expenses. The exact number has been the subject of many analyst and published reports since then.

Is this ever going to end?

The CEO, Chambers says there is always a bottom 10% of your workforce, and you should be worried if you are ever in that group.

 

[urbanhack]

Last week, I caught some of the grilling of Elizabeth Warren by GOP Congressmen during the House Oversight Reform Hearing. At one point, a Republican Congressmen asked Warren if she was “running a campaign” to convince people of the validity of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau she is in the midst of setting up. The two of them went back and forth, because she didn’t really understand the question. He was trying to peg her as overtly political, using government resources to travel the country and do advocacy. Suddenly, she got the nature of the question, and turned to him and said, pointedly, “I always try to convince people that I’m right.”There was some laughter in the room, but she wasn’t kidding. Warren believes that consumer protection is necessary for a just society, and spends a great deal of time trying to persuade the public of the necessity and legitimacy of government. Imagine that – a public servant who thinks that communicating with and persuading the public of the merits of their ideas.Contrast this with Barack Obama, a person who never fails to wrap his true agenda in gauzy opaque process jargon. Obama won’t back his own NLRB or Boeing workers, or even Boeing itself; he thinks that neither side should waste time in court. He won’t announce Social Security or Medicare cuts, he wants it to be part of a Grand Bargain for whom no one has to take responsibility. He demands an end to earmarks, or something, but we need an infrastructure bank or something. As a result, the Democratic Party is enmeshed right now in a guessing game about the true goals of their leader, paralyzed and unable to govern. When Warren is present, by contrast, the Republicans are able to argue strongly that they do not believe in government as an agent of good, while Democrats are able to articulate the opposite. It’s a real, open, honest debate. There’s no sliding around with 11 dimensional chess nonsense, it’s straight up democracy.The books written by Warren and Obama reveal their differing styles. I spent some time reading Warren’s The Two Income Trap, which she co-authored with her daughter, and it’s remarkable pre-crisis work. She wrestled with the guts of our society, with debt and bankruptcy, with how America treats you not when everything works well, but when everything fails. She tells the story of how Hillary Clinton stopped the bankruptcy bill when she was in the White House, but voted for it when she was in the Senate because of campaign contributions (Update: As first lady, Mrs. Clinton worked against the bill. She helped kill one version of it, then another version passed, which her husband vetoed. As a senator, in 2001, she voted for it, but it did not pass. When it came up again in 2005, she missed the vote because her husband was in the hospital, although she indicated she would have opposed it.). She talks about the problems of the housing bubble in the context of a failing education system, and the flip side of the Reagan revolution – the economic persecution of women and families. She named names, but more than that, she grounded her book in real data and the pain of millions of people she tried to protect. It is this research that led her to note that the stimulus, absent debt restructuring, would not work.I’ve seen Warren in crowds before; they love her, they feel like finally, here’s a person who is stronger and smarter and better than the bankers. They crowd around her, tell her their stories, of bankruptcy, of joblessness, of sick kid or parent, as if to say “finally someone is listening”, someone who understands. It’s who she is. It’s real leadership. And it’s why she’s been able to coherently assemble a bureaucracy that has already won accolades for its attempts to simplify lending regulations, and why the Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel served as a remarkable oasis of intellectual honesty in Washington during the bailouts.Obama could have chosen Warren just as easily as he could have chosen anyone else, since the GOP has vowed to filibuster any nominee. He just doesn’t think she’s right for the job. But again, this shouldn’t be surprising.Many people are “disappointed” with Obama. But, while it is certainly true that Obama has broken many many promises, he projected his goals in his book The Audacity of Hope. In Audacity, he discussed how in 2002 he was going to give politics one more shot with a Senate campaign, and if that didn’t work, he was going into corporate law and getting wealthy like the rest of his peer group. He wrote about how passionate activists were too simple-minded, that the system basically worked, and that compromise was a virtue in and of itself in a world of uncertainty. His book was a book about a fundamentally conservative political creature obsessed with process, not someone grounded in the problems of ordinary people. He told us what his leadership style is, what his agenda was, and he’s executing it now.I expressed skepticism towards Obama from 2005, onward. Paul Krugman, Debra Cooper, and Tom Ferguson among others pegged Obama correctly from day one. Obama broadcast who he was, through his conservative policy focus (which is how Krugman pegged him), his bank backers (which is how Ferguson pegged him), his political support of Lieberman (which is how I pegged him), and his cavalier treatment of women’s issues (which is how Debra Cooper pegged him). He is doing so again, with his choice to effectively remove Elizabeth Warren from the administration.The news that Elizabeth Warren won’t be leading the CFPB isn’t good news, but it isn’t surprising. It’s more of a clarification, in fact, that Obama has illiberal beliefs. And where Warren goes from here is a good guessing game. Many Democrats are trying to distract from Obama’s choice by pretending that a risky Senate run in Massachusetts for a freshman seat in a broken institution is a step up for Warren. It may be. I suspect it could be tough for her to run for the Senate in a party in which the party leader has already shown he simply cuts against your core beliefs; inherently a Senate Democratic candidate will have to defend the administration’s record of the last few years. Regardless, I hope she continues to project her views widely in the broadest platform possible.Obama has constructed a Presidency around the glory of radicalism through inaction, and has dominated our politics so thoroughly it’s hard to recall any other mechanisms of governance. Still, It is important to remember what real leadership can look like, which is why Elizabeth Warren can be a pivotal figure. After all, we may need real leaders one day.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/07/matt-stoller-elizabeth-warren-versus-barack-obama-on-leadership.html

 

[tommyboy]

You know Stat, every time you (or anyone else) uses the word "Obamacare" I stop reading right there. It's a pejorative term, no different, IMO, than calling the Tea Party "teabaggers".

This post should confirm for anyone who wonders where Tim falls on the political spectrum. Liberals even refer to the healthcare reform as ObamaCare. There is nothing pejorative about it, and it's not the same as using "teabagger". That's just ridiculous, and stupid.

Well first off, I'm proud to be OFF the political spectrum. But to answer your point, I have several liberal friends who object to the term "Obamacare," just as I have several conservative friends who object to the term "teabaggers." You claim that liberals even use the term "Obamacare", and I challenge that. If you can link me to an article or editorial by a liberal which uses that term in a positive manner, then I will change my view on this.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/ryancare-versus-obamacare/

 

[timschochet]

You know Stat, every time you (or anyone else) uses the word "Obamacare" I stop reading right there. It's a pejorative term, no different, IMO, than calling the Tea Party "teabaggers".

This post should confirm for anyone who wonders where Tim falls on the political spectrum. Liberals even refer to the healthcare reform as ObamaCare. There is nothing pejorative about it, and it's not the same as using "teabagger". That's just ridiculous, and stupid.

Well first off, I'm proud to be OFF the political spectrum. But to answer your point, I have several liberal friends who object to the term "Obamacare," just as I have several conservative friends who object to the term "teabaggers." You claim that liberals even use the term "Obamacare", and I challenge that. If you can link me to an article or editorial by a liberal which uses that term in a positive manner, then I will change my view on this.

http://krugman.blogs...rsus-obamacare/

Fair enough. It's the first I've seen, but I guess I was wrong about this. I will no longer regard this as a pejorative term. Thanks.

 

[17seconds]

You know Stat, every time you (or anyone else) uses the word "Obamacare" I stop reading right there. It's a pejorative term, no different, IMO, than calling the Tea Party "teabaggers".

This post should confirm for anyone who wonders where Tim falls on the political spectrum. Liberals even refer to the healthcare reform as ObamaCare. There is nothing pejorative about it, and it's not the same as using "teabagger". That's just ridiculous, and stupid.

Well first off, I'm proud to be OFF the political spectrum. But to answer your point, I have several liberal friends who object to the term "Obamacare," just as I have several conservative friends who object to the term "teabaggers." You claim that liberals even use the term "Obamacare", and I challenge that. If you can link me to an article or editorial by a liberal which uses that term in a positive manner, then I will change my view on this.

http://krugman.blogs...rsus-obamacare/

Fair enough. It's the first I've seen, but I guess I was wrong about this. I will no longer regard this as a pejorative term. Thanks.

This article doesn't convince me that Krugman uses the term Obamacare. He calls it the ACA in the article. The headline was probably written for him to get website hits.I'd say Obamacare is a minorly pejorative term. Conservatives love using it because it's "Obama taking care of you" which they love to launch in on. On par with calling people "Libs".

 

[Sarnoff]

Steve Wynn's opinion:

Well, here's our problem. There are a host of opportunities for expansion in Las Vegas, a host of opportunities to create tens of thousands of jobs in Las Vegas. I know that I could do 10,000 more myself and according to the Chamber of Commerce and the visitors convention bureau, if we hired 10,000 employees, it would create another 20,000 additional jobs for a grand total of 30,000. I believe in Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. But I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what's going on on this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year that the discussion in Washington is nauseating.

And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems, that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration.And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America.

You bet and until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, their holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Waiting for Timschochet to claim Wynn is a teabagger. lol

Seriously dude how about a comment about this Democratic businessman and what he says wont change until Obama is gone?

 

[timschochet]

Waiting for Timschochet to claim Wynn is a teabagger. lolSeriously dude how about a comment about this Democratic businessman and what he says wont change until Obama is gone?

I think he makes some fair points, though some of it is a little over the top, IMO. As I've written several times, I do not approve of Obama's economic philosophy. If the Republicans simply put up a reasonable candidate, like Romney, Pawlenty, or Huntsman, I will vote for that candidate. If they put up a Tea Partier like Bachmann or Perry, I'll vote for Obama as the lesser of two evils. For me, it's up to the GOP.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Waiting for Timschochet to claim Wynn is a teabagger. lolSeriously dude how about a comment about this Democratic businessman and what he says wont change until Obama is gone?

I think he makes some fair points, though some of it is a little over the top, IMO. As I've written several times, I do not approve of Obama's economic philosophy. If the Republicans simply put up a reasonable candidate, like Romney, Pawlenty, or Huntsman, I will vote for that candidate. If they put up a Tea Partier like Bachmann or Perry, I'll vote for Obama as the lesser of two evils. For me, it's up to the GOP.

Really you think Steve Wynn is over the top?

There are a host of opportunities for expansion in Las Vegas, a host of opportunities to create tens of thousands of jobs in Las Vegas. I know that I could do 10,000 more myself and according to the Chamber of Commerce and the visitors convention bureau, if we hired 10,000 employees, it would create another 20,000 additional jobs for a grand total of 30,000.

this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime.

My customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration

And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.

Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs.

So which parts of the above are you calling him out on?The mans net worth is 1.9 billion dollars. Do you think maybe you should give his opinion a little more weight?

 

[timschochet]

I have a lot of respect for Steve Wynn. The part I thought was over the top was when he said, "this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime." I have met and listened to a lot of other business owners, both conservative and liberal, who simply don't agree with him on this.

That is not to say that he doesn't have a point- I think he does. But I consider Obama an average to good president, not a terrible one. I probably agree with Obama's views on 8 out of 10 issues, so you know that I'm going to like the guy. The problem for me is that the two issues I don't like tend to be the decisive ones, and that's why I probably won't be able to vote for him.

 

[Widbil83]

Wynn sticking it to his friends in the "leave Obama alone crowd."

And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.

 

[Fensalk]

The latest poll of Michigan has Romney beating Obama 46-42. Michigan has not voted republican for president since 1988. Even Rick Perry enjoys a 45-42 edge over Obama in Michigan. Ruh-roh.

 

[WalrusMan]

Obama has essentially been a continuation of Bush except black and with "hope" and "change" as his slogans. because he has more support than B had, he has been able to expand wars and start new ones. He's a miserable failure as a president and as a human being.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Obama has essentially been a continuation of Bush except black and with "hope" and "change" as his slogans. because he has more support than B had, he has been able to expand wars and start new ones. He's a miserable failure as a president and as a human being.

 

[timschochet]

The comments by Wynn are pretty devastating. Here you have a guy who has been a life long Democrat bashing Obama, and he is bashing Obama on the president's key weakness: the economy. For months now, liberals have been attacking the conservative argument that Obama's policies have created economic uncertainty- that is not the reason for the lack of jobs, they say. Yet here we have the opposite claim, direct from the horse's mouth: a Democrat billionaire who says that indeed the uncertainty IS hurting.

Of course there is a caveat to this argument, and that is that the uncertainty created by this debt ceiling crisis, which is largely the fault of the Tea Party, is as great or greater than any uncertainty created by Obama. So in truth, both parties are to blame for the situation that we're in. Still, Wynn's arguments are among the strongest I have read as to why, if the GOP is only willing to put up a respectable candidate, Barack Obama really should not serve a second term.

 

[skycriesmary]

Obama has essentially been a continuation of Bush except black and with "hope" and "change" as his slogans. because he has more support than B had, he has been able to expand wars and start new ones. He's a miserable failure as a president and as a human being.

Wow, lay off the medication.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The latest poll of Michigan has Romney beating Obama 46-42. Michigan has not voted republican for president since 1988. Even Rick Perry enjoys a 45-42 edge over Obama in Michigan. Ruh-roh.

And yet he enjoys a lead over Romney nationally of between 2 and 7 points in the polls, according to the same site you linked. I'm guessing that if he wins the election, he probably wouldn't be too upset about his potential failure to win Michigan.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

The comments by Wynn are pretty devastating. Here you have a guy who has been a life long Democrat bashing Obama, and he is bashing Obama on the president's key weakness: the economy. For months now, liberals have been attacking the conservative argument that Obama's policies have created economic uncertainty- that is not the reason for the lack of jobs, they say. Yet here we have the opposite claim, direct from the horse's mouth: a Democrat billionaire who says that indeed the uncertainty IS hurting. Of course there is a caveat to this argument, and that is that the uncertainty created by this debt ceiling crisis, which is largely the fault of the Tea Party, is as great or greater than any uncertainty created by Obama. So in truth, both parties are to blame for the situation that we're in. Still, Wynn's arguments are among the strongest I have read as to why, if the GOP is only willing to put up a respectable candidate, Barack Obama really should not serve a second term.

Wynn also raised huge amounts of money for McCain and was bashing Obama long before any of his policies would have had any effect. He may call himself a "lifelong" Democrat, but everything out of his mouth for the last 3 years has been a rehashing of Republican talking points.

 

[Statorama]

Obama breaks yet another law

ABC News’ Devin Dwyer (@devindwyer) reports: The Republican National Committee has asked the Justice Department to investigate what it calls a matter of “grave concern:” President Obama’s appearance in a campaign video filmed inside the White House.

“If President Obama recorded the video in the Map Room, then it appears he has committed a crime under federal law,” RNC chairman Reince Priebus wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.

The letter attempts to revive an issue Republicans first raised weeks ago but that has failed to gain much attention or traction. Many good government groups and independent legal experts have dismissed the claims.

Still, Priebus says Obama’s use of a “place of official government business” to solicit political contributions is against the law, and that all money collected in response to the video should be returned. He stopped short of calling for the appointment of a special counsel.

The Map Room has been “used for a myriad of official functions, including the administration of the oath of office” and the launch of the administration’s effort to reduce government waste, Priebus wrote in the letter. “As the facts of this case strongly suggest a crime was committed,” he said.

 

[WalrusMan]

Obama has essentially been a continuation of Bush except black and with "hope" and "change" as his slogans. because he has more support than B had, he has been able to expand wars and start new ones. He's a miserable failure as a president and as a human being.

Wow, lay off the medication.

I'd be happy to debate you on the veracity of my comments.

 

[Statorama]

I consider Obama an average to good president

Your standards are awfully low. How do you measure his success? By how much he skyrockets the national debt? Taking it from billions to trillions? By every single measure of his presidency, nationally and internationally, he has been an incredible failure. The only areas where he's recorded even modest success is in the continuation of some policies of former President Bush. I would say the one good thing he's done is demonstrate that Keynesian economics don't work when applied to real life situations. He's also proven that you can't grow the economy by growing government. His many, many failures have presented incredible learning opportunities for future generations. In that regard he was helpful.

 

[Statorama]

The comments by Wynn are pretty devastating. Here you have a guy who has been a life long Democrat bashing Obama, and he is bashing Obama on the president's key weakness: the economy. For months now, liberals have been attacking the conservative argument that Obama's policies have created economic uncertainty- that is not the reason for the lack of jobs, they say. Yet here we have the opposite claim, direct from the horse's mouth: a Democrat billionaire who says that indeed the uncertainty IS hurting. Of course there is a caveat to this argument, and that is that the uncertainty created by this debt ceiling crisis, which is largely the fault of the Tea Party, is as great or greater than any uncertainty created by Obama. So in truth, both parties are to blame for the situation that we're in. Still, Wynn's arguments are among the strongest I have read as to why, if the GOP is only willing to put up a respectable candidate, Barack Obama really should not serve a second term.

Wynn also raised huge amounts of money for McCain and was bashing Obama long before any of his policies would have had any effect. He may call himself a "lifelong" Democrat, but everything out of his mouth for the last 3 years has been a rehashing of Republican talking points.

Wynn maxed out contributions to Harry Reid and several other Democrats (including Charlie Rangel, unfortunately) [QUOTE='Barack Obama]What does Steve Wynn know about job creation?
[/QUOTE]

 

[tommyboy]

good luck convincing Liberals that growing gov't is a bad thing, even if all economic evidence says contrary. They don't care about the economy, what they care about is equality, diversity, fairness and furthering Democrat/Liberal power. Even if that means denying reality.

 

[timschochet]

I consider Obama an average to good president

Your standards are awfully low. How do you measure his success? By how much he skyrockets the national debt? Taking it from billions to trillions? By every single measure of his presidency, nationally and internationally, he has been an incredible failure. The only areas where he's recorded even modest success is in the continuation of some policies of former President Bush. I would say the one good thing he's done is demonstrate that Keynesian economics don't work when applied to real life situations. He's also proven that you can't grow the economy by growing government. His many, many failures have presented incredible learning opportunities for future generations. In that regard he was helpful.

Statorama, I formally challenge you to a debate about Barack Obama. We;ll choose a day next week, have a whole day devoted to it. We'll take questions (serious ones) from posters, allow for rebuttals, and we'll run a poll to determine the popular winner. What do you say?

 

[Sarnoff]

The latest poll of Michigan has Romney beating Obama 46-42. Michigan has not voted republican for president since 1988. Even Rick Perry enjoys a 45-42 edge over Obama in Michigan. Ruh-roh.

And yet he enjoys a lead over Romney nationally of between 2 and 7 points in the polls, according to the same site you linked. I'm guessing that if he wins the election, he probably wouldn't be too upset about his potential failure to win Michigan.

As I've said before, we're again looking at a situation in 2012 where the electoral vote and popular vote are probably going to produce different results. Obama is very strong in very blue states. But he has a slight deficit in the purples right now, and the red states aren't as red as the blue states are blue.

Looking at the national poll is more irrelevant than ever.

And yes, I realize we're probably looking at some sort of electoral college fiasco on 12/21/12.

 

[timschochet]

The latest poll of Michigan has Romney beating Obama 46-42. Michigan has not voted republican for president since 1988. Even Rick Perry enjoys a 45-42 edge over Obama in Michigan. Ruh-roh.

And yet he enjoys a lead over Romney nationally of between 2 and 7 points in the polls, according to the same site you linked. I'm guessing that if he wins the election, he probably wouldn't be too upset about his potential failure to win Michigan.

As I've said before, we're again looking at a situation in 2012 where the electoral vote and popular vote are probably going to produce different results. Obama is very strong in very blue states. But he has a slight deficit in the purples right now, and the red states aren't as red as the blue states are blue.

Looking at the national poll is more irrelevant than ever.

And yes, I realize we're probably looking at some sort of electoral college fiasco on 12/21/12.

Would you mind please providing a link to the last presidential election in which the results could be safely predicted 14 months prior to the voting date? TIA

 

[Fensalk]

The latest poll of Michigan has Romney beating Obama 46-42. Michigan has not voted republican for president since 1988. Even Rick Perry enjoys a 45-42 edge over Obama in Michigan. Ruh-roh.

And yet he enjoys a lead over Romney nationally of between 2 and 7 points in the polls, according to the same site you linked. I'm guessing that if he wins the election, he probably wouldn't be too upset about his potential failure to win Michigan.

As I've said before, we're again looking at a situation in 2012 where the electoral vote and popular vote are probably going to produce different results. Obama is very strong in very blue states. But he has a slight deficit in the purples right now, and the red states aren't as red as the blue states are blue.

Looking at the national poll is more irrelevant than ever.

And yes, I realize we're probably looking at some sort of electoral college fiasco on 12/21/12.

I read recently Obama is scrapping all comparisons to Reagan in 1984 as the economy clearly will not turn around, and that the new strategy is to follow Bush's 2004 strategy. That strategy was to rally the base and try to generate high turnout from within party ranks, instead of reaching across the aisle. Obama will turn further left in the coming months.

 

[Statorama]

Statorama, I formally challenge you to a debate about Barack Obama. We;ll choose a day next week, have a whole day devoted to it. We'll take questions (serious ones) from posters, allow for rebuttals, and we'll run a poll to determine the popular winner. What do you say?

Wow, people that guessed you were a Mr. Ham alias were right on the money. J/K. Ham just offered the same proposal in 2008. I'm intrigued by the idea, but if it happened at all I'd like to do it closer to the election. That's the kind of potential shtickfest that you have to let simmer and build up over time. It won't really accomplish anything, so people may as well get a laugh out of it. You need to have a good moderator for that kind of thing too. Someone witty that's mostly apolitical and neutral would be best. Could Shick! be prodded out of retirement? Fucla? Zartan? Dr. Gunks?I'm content for the most part to let this thread do the debating for me. There's 40+ pages of anecdotal evidence as to why he's the laziest, dumbest, most corrupt anti-American thug President this country has ever seen. He openly breaks laws, lies to the American public, uses the DOJ as a tool to punish his enemies and protect his supporters, etc.ETA: Tim, one other thing. I think the last thing people on the board want is even MORE posts from either of us.

 

[Statorama]

Consumer confidence hits seven month low

Obama continues to make things worse

Consumer confidence dropped to a seven-month low in June as Americans grew concerned about the outlook for jobs and wages.

The Conference Board’s sentiment index decreased to 58.5 from a revised 61.7 in May that was higher than previously estimated, figures from the New York-based private research group showed today.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The latest poll of Michigan has Romney beating Obama 46-42. Michigan has not voted republican for president since 1988. Even Rick Perry enjoys a 45-42 edge over Obama in Michigan. Ruh-roh.

And yet he enjoys a lead over Romney nationally of between 2 and 7 points in the polls, according to the same site you linked. I'm guessing that if he wins the election, he probably wouldn't be too upset about his potential failure to win Michigan.

As I've said before, we're again looking at a situation in 2012 where the electoral vote and popular vote are probably going to produce different results. Obama is very strong in very blue states. But he has a slight deficit in the purples right now, and the red states aren't as red as the blue states are blue.

Looking at the national poll is more irrelevant than ever.

And yes, I realize we're probably looking at some sort of electoral college fiasco on 12/21/12.

Interesting. As far as I know, a significant disparity between the popular vote and the results of the electoral college would be unprecedented, but obviously not impossible or even that improbable. Long way to go, but so far it's shaping up as an interesting one for political junkies on a number of fronts. It's also weird that Obama continues to run strong in blue states considering how many things he's done that anger the far left. I wonder if that's a product of Obama vs. generic Republican, i.e. the Bachmann/Palin/Cain frothing at the mouth type, and whether that will change if the nominee is a moderate like Romney and people in those states get to know more about his politics and personality.

 

[jonessed]

The latest poll of Michigan has Romney beating Obama 46-42. Michigan has not voted republican for president since 1988. Even Rick Perry enjoys a 45-42 edge over Obama in Michigan. Ruh-roh.

And yet he enjoys a lead over Romney nationally of between 2 and 7 points in the polls, according to the same site you linked. I'm guessing that if he wins the election, he probably wouldn't be too upset about his potential failure to win Michigan.

As I've said before, we're again looking at a situation in 2012 where the electoral vote and popular vote are probably going to produce different results. Obama is very strong in very blue states. But he has a slight deficit in the purples right now, and the red states aren't as red as the blue states are blue.

Looking at the national poll is more irrelevant than ever.

And yes, I realize we're probably looking at some sort of electoral college fiasco on 12/21/12.

Would you mind please providing a link to the last presidential election in which the results could be safely predicted 14 months prior to the voting date? TIA

Anybody that would voluntarily have a discussion with you for a whole day has a screw loose.

 

[ericttspikes]

The latest poll of Michigan has Romney beating Obama 46-42. Michigan has not voted republican for president since 1988. Even Rick Perry enjoys a 45-42 edge over Obama in Michigan. Ruh-roh.

And yet he enjoys a lead over Romney nationally of between 2 and 7 points in the polls, according to the same site you linked. I'm guessing that if he wins the election, he probably wouldn't be too upset about his potential failure to win Michigan.

As I've said before, we're again looking at a situation in 2012 where the electoral vote and popular vote are probably going to produce different results. Obama is very strong in very blue states. But he has a slight deficit in the purples right now, and the red states aren't as red as the blue states are blue.

Looking at the national poll is more irrelevant than ever.

And yes, I realize we're probably looking at some sort of electoral college fiasco on 12/21/12.

Interesting. As far as I know, a significant disparity between the popular vote and the results of the electoral college would be unprecedented, but obviously not impossible or even that improbable. Long way to go, but so far it's shaping up as an interesting one for political junkies on a number of fronts. It's also weird that Obama continues to run strong in blue states considering how many things he's done that anger the far left. I wonder if that's a product of Obama vs. generic Republican, i.e. the Bachmann/Palin/Cain frothing at the mouth type, and whether that will change if the nominee is a moderate like Romney and people in those states get to know more about his politics and personality.

Obama sold out the left long ago, despite the right not realizing that. The problem for the right is Obama made them run father right than anytime in my lifetime. Reagan looks like a RINO these days, which is incredible. The right wanted to paint Obama as a Socialist and there isn't much room to move when he presides in the center and still get's called a Socialist. I think most liberals see the rights over reach and are frankly more scared of extreme right positions than any damage Obama does to liberal causes. Obama is beatable, but there isn't any serious moderates on the right anymore. Romney will probably be their pick, and will try to paint himself as a moderate. His problem will be to convince anyone what he stands for; the right doesn't trust him and neither does the left. He's clearly making it up as he goes.

 

[Statorama]

The latest poll of Michigan has Romney beating Obama 46-42. Michigan has not voted republican for president since 1988. Even Rick Perry enjoys a 45-42 edge over Obama in Michigan. Ruh-roh.

And yet he enjoys a lead over Romney nationally of between 2 and 7 points in the polls, according to the same site you linked. I'm guessing that if he wins the election, he probably wouldn't be too upset about his potential failure to win Michigan.

As I've said before, we're again looking at a situation in 2012 where the electoral vote and popular vote are probably going to produce different results. Obama is very strong in very blue states. But he has a slight deficit in the purples right now, and the red states aren't as red as the blue states are blue.

Looking at the national poll is more irrelevant than ever.

And yes, I realize we're probably looking at some sort of electoral college fiasco on 12/21/12.

Would you mind please providing a link to the last presidential election in which the results could be safely predicted 14 months prior to the voting date? TIA

Anybody that would voluntarily have a discussion with you for a whole day has a screw loose.

 

[timschochet]

Statorama, I formally challenge you to a debate about Barack Obama. We;ll choose a day next week, have a whole day devoted to it. We'll take questions (serious ones) from posters, allow for rebuttals, and we'll run a poll to determine the popular winner. What do you say?

Wow, people that guessed you were a Mr. Ham alias were right on the money. J/K. Ham just offered the same proposal in 2008. I'm intrigued by the idea, but if it happened at all I'd like to do it closer to the election. That's the kind of potential shtickfest that you have to let simmer and build up over time. It won't really accomplish anything, so people may as well get a laugh out of it. You need to have a good moderator for that kind of thing too. Someone witty that's mostly apolitical and neutral would be best. Could Shick! be prodded out of retirement? Fucla? Zartan? Dr. Gunks?I'm content for the most part to let this thread do the debating for me. There's 40+ pages of anecdotal evidence as to why he's the laziest, dumbest, most corrupt anti-American thug President this country has ever seen. He openly breaks laws, lies to the American public, uses the DOJ as a tool to punish his enemies and protect his supporters, etc.ETA: Tim, one other thing. I think the last thing people on the board want is even MORE posts from either of us.

I'm not Ham. I had no idea he proposed a debate. I've always thought a formalized debate would be a fun thing to have. Years ago I proposed this and was turned down. Actually, your debate really should be with someone like Tgunz, who loves Obama much more than I do. But since I can't speak for anyone else I'm willing to do it. As far as your last point, who care what other people think about us posting too much? I certainly never have, and I don't think you have either. A debate would be fun- fun to participate in, fun to read, fun to argue about. Hopefully it would be informative as well. That's really the only thing to consider. Hope you change your mind.

 

[timschochet]

Anybody that would voluntarily have a discussion with you for a whole day has a screw loose.

Have you been talking to my wife?

 

[StrikeS2k]

I'm not Ham. I had no idea he proposed a debate. I've always thought a formalized debate would be a fun thing to have. Years ago I proposed this and was turned down. Actually, your debate really should be with someone like Tgunz, who loves Obama much more than I do. But since I can't speak for anyone else I'm willing to do it. As far as your last point, who care what other people think about us posting too much? I certainly never have, and I don't think you have either. A debate would be fun- fun to participate in, fun to read, fun to argue about. Hopefully it would be informative as well. That's really the only thing to consider. Hope you change your mind.

The problem with debating with you is your lack of actual facts when you post. Your idea of backing up your statements is always "I know some people who believe this" or "I heard this on some unnamed radio show". Anecdotal evidence doesn't fly in formalized debates. You'd get your butt kicked.

 

[Sarnoff]

Anybody that would voluntarily have a discussion with you for a whole day has a screw loose.

Have you been talking to my wife?

I hear your wife would rather face Hurricane Ike than talk to you.