{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/31/2013 7:09:23 PM
28
Obama isn't a bad president. A lot of his laws make sense if you look at it with an open mind and compare it with other successful countries in the world. However, Congress is the main reason nothing is happening. Obama gets all the flak for Congress's stupidity.
English
-
I find it funny how this is the typical scapegoat claim when the country is clearly doing poorly economically.
-
you know, it's not 100% Obama's fault that the economy is at its state. All he is to America is the figurehead. If you want to talk about real power, look at Congress. They decide the laws and pretty much the budget at this point. Also, let's make a comparison of Bush's Administration and Obama's when it comes to jobs. Again, there's job growth. People never realize it because they spend most of their free "unemployment" time bashing on Obama's administration rather than going out of the house and getting a job. If I can get a job, anyone else can. I'm pretty damn lazy, but I decided to get up off of my ass and look around for jobs.
-
Jobs during Bush's presidency was plentiful. Unemployment literally doubled during Obamas first term and yet to decline to the percentage before his presidency. If you count the people who have stopped looking for a job, the unemployment rate is projected at around 8.3 percent. You have to have low standards to consider that job growth. Also, the only reason some teens can get a job (even though we have the highest unemployment rate for obvious reasons) is because we settle for low paying jobs. People with degrees aren't trying to settle for these jobs, and they usually get denied because they're overqualified anyway.
-
I'm 100% sure that the Bush Administration didn't have their unemployment rate at 4.15% the entire 8 years. During that time after 9/11, not only did the economy begin to decline because of Bush spending money over two unnecessary wars, but so did housing and jobs. Bush literally spent billions of dollars trying to get oil, when we have enough in Alaska. He also spend billions trying to find one man hiding in his own house. Obama inherited all of that. Since then, he's created millions of jobs around the US, but will we be able to have 0%? No. Obama's trying, and he's succeeding, if only a little. Not his fault he had to inherit a bad economy and he's getting shot down by the least progressive Congress in all of US history.
-
I find it funny how people call these wars unnecessary while Europe and the United States was being barbarded with terrorist attacks. Iraq may not have been completely necessary, however establishing a democratic government in a region where people were constantly bein oppressed and killed doesn't seem like a bad thing. Also, we don't have enough oil in Alaska. If you want to keep prices low, you need to have a large quanitity of the product so you don't have to ration it. Also, Bin Laden wasn't just hiding in his own house. He was constantly on the move and hadd an entire government hiding him, as well as him being gaurded by an informal army. Obama inhereted it, but failed miserably to imporove the situation. Instead he increased the unemployment rate, made it harder for businesses to produce, and undermined the economy with his tax plans. And a little bit of improvement isn't succeess. The millionsn of people who are unemployed don't consider that success. And congress was majority democrat for most of his first term, so saying congress was holding him back because they disagreed with him isn't a valid statement.
-
Just going to say this: Stating that Bin Laden was in Iraq when he wasn't the entire time, yeah, you can't lie about things just to get oil. Lesson? If you don't want to spend so much money on gasoline, just buy a bike. But if your work is so far away, commute, get a carpool, a hybrid car. Think of Supply and Demand. Inherited the position and made it worse? His administration and the SEALS with his approval found Bin Laden in his house and killed him. If that's a step backwards, I must be living in assbackwardsmurka. Yes, because Obama controls all, you know, like a monarchy. Except there's checks and balances and Congress pretty much controls it with laws, the way they set the budget, etc. Obama can propose a budget, but there's a high chance that it will get shot down by Congress. Also, undermining America with tax breaks, cute. Bush did the same thing and apparently, everyone was happy. That's funny. Also, Congress was majority democrat? Even funnier, since it was changed around Midterm time and Republicans got control of House. That's when Obama started getting all the real stuff he wanted to get done. But guess what? Nah, House just going to say no to everything. Because Obama is a Democrat.
-
Nobody made the claim Bin Laden was in Iraq, hence why every acknowledges that the Iraq War and War on Terror are separate. Let's be realistic here. Millions of people aren't going to go out of their way to buy a bike or commute with buses or use a car pool. The demand for personal transportation and oil is so high and it will be until the last drop is used. I don't think you're thinking of supply and demand. All you're thinking about is alternative goods to a product with a high demand. And let's get this straight as well. Obama piggybacked on the logistics and intelligence of decades of work from Bush and Clinton. The DoD did most of the work anyway. To credit Obama with the capture of Bin Laden is inaccurate. All he did was approve it. He didn't even bother to show his body to the public. It's obvious Obama doesn't control everything. I literally made is clear that congress had a hand in running the country, which you seem to ignore to fit your own argument. Like I said, there are plenty of democrats in Congress and claiming that congress disagrees with Obama and doesn't want him to succeed is foolish. How about you take a look at why Congress denies some of the policies he tries to push. And Obama has proposed multiple times to raise taxes on the rich, and resently raised taxes on the middle class. He blatantly lied about trying to support the middle class. So no, he doesn't give tax breaks. The 112th congress senate is majority democrat. The 111th congress senate and house is majority democrat. It's pretty obviosu you don't know what you're talking about.
-
He's an absolutely horrible president just like his carbon copy George Bush. He has helped destroy our economy, flip flopped on the majority of his promises and he's a murderer. What good has he done?
-
It is an objective fact that the economy has improved under the Obama administration.
-
No, he's pretty bad.
-
Edited by M37h3w3: 1/31/2013 7:23:26 PMDidn't know that Obama creates and passes the federal budget. Oh wait... that's Congress. And didn't Bush just massively increase the debt by going into the two wars and paying for it all with a credit card?
-
Obama can propose and then sign passed budgets. He could have vetoed some of the budget bills but he decided not to. [url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/]This might help your perspective.[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt#Historical_debt_levels]This too.[/url] In no way do I support Bush, but I think you are forgetting why we went into two wars in the first place. Do I need to remind you? It has something to do with the numbers 9/11 and 3,000. What would you have done? Just sit on your ass and hope that the terrorists go away?
-
Yeah, because I don't think they would let an 8 year old go to war in 9/11. Common sense, really. Reasons why we went to war: To kill Saddam Hussein, who was in no way affiliated with Bin Laden. We also wanted their oil. Bush searched high and low all over Afghanistan and Iraq to find Bin Laden. Obama's administration found him in his own house.
-
[quote]Yeah, because I don't think they would let an 8 year old go to war in 9/11. Common sense, really.[/quote] I'm not even sure where 8 year olds came from.
-
You implied that I was a lazy ass when 9/11 happened and I would never go to war. I was 8 at the time, and I'm pretty sure that America wouldn't use children as soldiers or for anything military related.
-
No no no, you're getting me all wrong. I was saying in hypothetical land if you were the president at that time (assuming you were presidential age), would you have just sat on your ass and done nothing about the attacks?
-
Obama can propose budgets, but that shouldn't be his primary focus because it's supposed to be Congress'. He could have vetoed unsatisfactory budgets but as much I hate it, pork barrel spending is part of politics, and doing so would likely get him labeled as an obstructionist. Not to mention that just vetoing bad budgets doesn't mean that the next one is going to be any better. Getting a bad budget out is better than no budget and defaulting. And the Iraq war was unjustified. As much as Hussein being a dictator that deserved to be disposed and tried for his crimes, we don't have the manpower or funding to fight two wars well simultaneously and we botched the job, looking for WMDs in the sand (our reason for going in there to begin with) that didn't exist. Even then, we funded those wars on credit, which just increased our debt.
-
Afghanistan was justified--for a time. Iraq was an completely unjustified war urged by the neoconservatives who knew there no WMDs in Iraq. Don't use a tragedy to justify unjustifiable acts. 9/11 was an atrocity, and Obama was largely responsible for taking out the man responsible. In no way was two wars for this long justified.
-
We just wanted their oil, that's about it.
-
I'm benefiting from the Obama administration, so I don't see anything bad happening. I'm not part of the 7% unemployed anymore, so I'm happy.
-
You won't be benefiting from him if he manages to spend this country into oblivion.
-
Because inheriting a terrible economy and a terrible Congress has nothing to do with it, right?
-
Edited by A Good Troll: 1/31/2013 7:27:25 PMEarly in his first term, Obama had a supermajority in both houses of Congress. How do you think Obamacare got shoved through Congress even when the majority of Americans polled didn't want it? That has only happened three times in history.
-
I never noticed a 60/40 for that long. Maybe for a few weeks, but the entire first term? No.
-
The majority of Americans support the provisions of Obama Care. Thanks to our friends and Fox and the political machine that is the right wing in this country, the conservatives successfully demagogued the Affordable Care Act to "Obama" Care or government care. Americans were found to not support "Obama Care," but would agree with all of its provisions.
