OMG like really a C+? Comon I can't believe this. Close to 400,000 people voted for this report too.
Sorry but something smells fishy here.
Printable View
OMG like really a C+? Comon I can't believe this. Close to 400,000 people voted for this report too.
Sorry but something smells fishy here.
No surprise. Same country thanked George W. Bush.
In approval ratings Obama is just a few percentage points below Dubya at the respective times in their presidency.
not really all that bad considering the economy.
Has nothing to do with people who voted for or against George Bush. Nothing at all.
I'll play more than just devils advocate here. People tend to look in their own backyards to determine how they feel the federal government is doing. Since Obama entered office, unemployment has ballooned. That's what people see -- that's what people react to. Unemployment, to his defense, is a trailing economic indicator. You could have a healthy economy for 5-6 quarters before you start to see the unemployment numbers start to go down again. Not that any of the following are or are not directly attributed to Obama's administration, but the stock markets are moving up, GDP is growing, the economy is showing signs of health, housing starts are ramping up, manufacturing is getting better, yet unemployment lags. People vote with what they see. The masses truly are asses. Nothing fishy at all...it is what it is.
Obama has yet to deliver on a number of things.
-The Wars,
We're still Iraq there just not in the cities and it had nothing to do with Obama. There is no sign that were going to do a complete pull out anytime soon, nor that our efforts will result in stability for the region.
-Gitmo
Still open for business and keeping not only prisoners who haven't been tried but also those who have been aquitted.
-Health Care
Obama hasn't been fighting for health care as much as he could be. He's even told Democrats to stop fighting blue dogs. The final bill may be too watered down to do any good.
Health Care... he should have learned from Clinton. If the Republicans don't want change, it ain't gonna happen.
The wars... meh. More people are needed in Afghanistan, can't pull out when more is needed.
In fact... with Rush and Nugent running around comparing Obama to Hitler and telling the president that he can sit on a machine gun and twist... even if **** turned around today, people will complain about something.
There aren't enough repbublicans in congress to stop health care. There were during the clinton administration. It's not just about republicans it's about poser democrats protecting thier campaign contributions.
There's enough press to make people support non-change.
I think it's more about a representative form of government representing where most people sit on the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frets
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...429438938.htmlQuote:
However, there are some numbers congressional Democrats can celebrate. Specifically, 63% of voters agreed with the president earlier this year when he said, “We must make it a priority to give every single American quality affordable health care.” Yet while they agree in theory, only 28% are currently willing to pay higher taxes to achieve that goal.
It's funny how fancy jewelry doesn't tend to look as good once you turn it up-side down and look at the price tag. ;)
Doubt it would matter anyways since the drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million (more than McCain spent on his campaign) on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care overhaul. source. This creeps me out a lot...Quote:
Originally Posted by Frets
What creeps you out?
That a change is needed, a change might come, or no change is needed, or no change might come?
As it stands, either way, on both sides of the spectrum, there's a need for something. If you're fortunate enough to be fully covered, you don't want **** to change. If you're not, you might be one of those angry ass people shouting stuff - that's if those demonstrators aren't being paid to do that.
Anyway, as it stands... the system is getting in need of something. I just would have rather that it wasn't Obama doing it because it will inevitably be met with shock, hatred, and disgust.
That, something I want to see happen, is somehow going to benefit the drug industry, which I see as inherently bad and not having people's best interest in mind, enough for them to spend $150mil on ads for it. On top of that, they have agreed contribute $80 billion over the next ten years? Just doesn't make sense to me.
These are the same people who have been paying for ghostwriters for medical journals. source. If PhRMA is on board it makes me less comfortable that this new plan is actually going to be for the good of the people.
So... you want less lobbying from the pharmaceuticals? Not following.
Hmm
USPS, Fed Ex, UPS
The health insurance industry has lots of different providers why are they afraid of one more?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKI9be55N00
Meanwhile Rate Hikes are getting big,
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun...s/fi-lazarus14
Some people are paying more in health insurance then their mortgage.
I didn't say I want anything... just that it makes me uncomfortable how on board certain constituencies are. If it matters what I want, I'd love universal health care.
People are generally shortsighted when it comes to voting and expect overnight results. I don't think Obama should care about a C but continue his efforts without distraction from such evaluations. I think Obama's problem is that he wants to satisfy everybody, which is not possible, because then nobody in the end will be satisfied with any solution.
However, he would do good to change the morals of bankers who give themselves huge boni. This is something, which needs to be changed starting from the roots. People are very upset about that and the banks are still not negotiating new relieve contracts for houseowners. Even Wall Street is upset about that.
Unfortunately, he HAS to pay attention to it. When you get elected President, your first order of business is to get re-elected. Presidents don't build their legacy in their first term, it's always their second term which makes or breaks them.Quote:
Originally Posted by cancerinform
Presidential to-do list
- Get elected
- Get re-elected
- Make long lasting policy
I could be wrong but i think both Reagan and Clinton took on some pretty big issues in their first terms.
The current healthcare was who's policy?
Yes, but many times, the legacy issues fall into the second term. Obama is dealing with economy issues (certainly about as big as they get) but I don't think that he wants his legacy to be defined by that. Anything done in the first term is usually in line with the 'getting re-elected' mantra.Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
I think it's pretty evident that Obama will be a one-term president unless he somehow makes this financial issue go away by early next year.
Well, prior to the election, the best odds bet in Vegas was that no matter who won, that they would only be a one term president. I think the financial situation is well on it's way out of the dungeon, but for the masses to 'see it' unemployment will have to turn around. Unfortunately for him, it will be another 4-6 quarters of lagging employment. Mid to late 2010 should be the turning point on the employment front. Many large employers have been putting off layoffs as evidenced by the most recent numbers, but may still be forced to go down that road. No matter which party they come from, I don't like one term presidencies. It always turns into a 'lost' 4 years.
You're about my age... the last one term president was Carter.
I don't think that analogy holds much weight unless you're a history buff and you're stuck in time. As it stands, the odds in Vegas - which I was unaware of until now - seem to be the best ones... Obama will be a one-term president.
And it's mostly because of the outcry from the folks from Glenn "Obama's a racist" Beck, Rush "I hope he fails/Obama is like Hitler" Limbaugh, Sarah "Healthcare reform is evil" Palin, Sean "Obama is against white people" Hannity and basically the others that seem hell bent on allowing ****tards like Beck and Rush run rampant as the new voice of the GOP/people... which in itself is downright sad.
I've said it before. I didn't want him to run, win or stay in office simply because nothing will make people happy when unemployment stays near 10% and people aren't making as much money as they once were.
Healthcare, Clinton got his ass handed to him. Twice.
Ummm...Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/GRAPHICS3/BUSHSR2.JPG
You can't call his years "lost" at all. That's what I was alluding to.
Gulf War, "read my lips", the continuation of Reagonomics... Dan "Potato" Quayle. Not lost at all.
Now... if you say that Bush was a one-term president that's forgettable like Carter... you're sadly mistaken.
Or one big ass crackhead.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sarha...files/Bush.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Somebody looks angry for being forgotten
Beck is a flash in the pan. He will be forgotten by '12. Limbaugh.. well limbaugh couldn't get McCain elected. Those listening to Limbaugh would never vote for a D anyway. Sarah.. she only helps democrats.Quote:
And it's mostly because of the outcry from the folks from Glenn "Obama's a racist" Beck, Rush "I hope he fails/Obama is like Hitler" Limbaugh, Sarah "Healthcare reform is evil" Palin, Sean "Obama is against white people" Hannity and basically the others that seem hell bent on allowing ****tards like Beck and Rush run rampant as the new voice of the GOP/people... which in itself is downright sad.
he could luck out. If the economy recovers.. it should be recovering quickly starting in 12.. maybe 11 if we are lucky. Obama can ride that. he may lose congress in 10.Quote:
I've said it before. I didn't want him to run, win or stay in office simply because nothing will make people happy when unemployment stays near 10% and people aren't making as much money as they once were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
Perhaps those that get a second term to think about legacy are not those that worry about it in their first term.
Nixon - did some great things in his first term. Forgotten due to Watergate.
Ford - More people remember Chevy Chase than him.
Carter - Diplomacy god. Egypt/Israel coup d'grace. Forgotten due to being a peanut farmer.
Bush Senior - Was basically Reagan's 3rd term. If there were no term limits in 1988, you'd have FDR II on your hands.
All forgettable 'one-term' (using the term loosely) presidents.
Was the 55mph - Google's actually failing a bit here - Nixon's first or second term?
Ford... can you really count him?
Bush Sr. - I still don't think his years will be considered "lost". Not when it was basically - as you stated it - a third Reagan term.
55 mph - early 2nd term - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergen..._Act#Enactment
1974Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
I saw that it was recommended earlier, but was drawing some odd things.
Thanks for the links/info guys.
Romney 2012
Economic problems are best handled by leadership that understands business.
if the economy is still and issue in '12 the repubs could run mccain/palin again and probably win.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey