And don't forget the 2 B's under Obummer:
Benghazi and Bergdahl
The jokes just keep on a coming.............
Benghazi and Bergdahl
The jokes just keep on a coming.............
What has B Hussein Obama Cost the Dem party?
- Thread starter RockEyeState
- Start date
Yeah, he had a bulletproof majority for his first two years and chose to squander all his political capital on a wasteful 2800 page give away to the insurance companies that even Nancy Pelosi couldn't decipher. Trillions spent to cover less than 10 million out of 30 million uninsured. Absolutely nothing done to bring down the cost, just shift more of the burden to the middle class and business. Now Bernie comes along and promised to fix what the " other " Donkeycrats vucked up.
As " W " once said, " fool me once shame on me, fool me twice......we won't get fooled again. "
IMO, you need to look no further than who writes the history books and produces the media that teaches history to know what Raglefant says is true. Obama WILL most definitely go down in history as great. At the very least, it will be said that he was the "First African American President, and that he brought health insurance to millions of Americans who were previously uninsured." 30 years from now, the details beyond that will not be remembered, and those two things will be seen as very positive by those learning and forming opinions at the time. McGraw Hill isn't going to do a negative portrayal of Obama in a textbook, and Discovery isn't going to make a negative Obama documentary, etc..
To me, the one thing in the list of negatives that stands out is the deterioration of race relations in the country under Obama. Largely, the rest of it could have happened to any president, but Obama's impact on race relations has been decidedly negative. It would be different if he would give some lip service to the police officers being murdered, or highlight an unjust murder that isn't a white on black crime, but he doesn't, and it further drives a wedge, rather than promote healing. Instead of being a uniting force, which he had an excellent opportunity to do, he's served to further divide. I don't think that was his intent, but to this point, that's how it's been.
To me, the one thing in the list of negatives that stands out is the deterioration of race relations in the country under Obama. Largely, the rest of it could have happened to any president, but Obama's impact on race relations has been decidedly negative. It would be different if he would give some lip service to the police officers being murdered, or highlight an unjust murder that isn't a white on black crime, but he doesn't, and it further drives a wedge, rather than promote healing. Instead of being a uniting force, which he had an excellent opportunity to do, he's served to further divide. I don't think that was his intent, but to this point, that's how it's been.
So you're also super upset with GW Bush about the Karachi bombing in 2006 as well, correct? I mean, an American diplomat died there, too. You remember David Foy, right?
You don't remember? Golly, it's almost like the right has decided to blow Benghazi way out of proportion in relation to previous embassy attacks for their own political gain. But they wouldn't use a tragic event for the sole purpose of political gains, right? Right???
I think maybe a contributing factor was the simple fact that having a black president at all seems to have provided an outlet for some pent up racism in this country. Couple that with the polarizing political vitriol spewed by partisan mouthpieces on either side, and the result is the placement of "race" alongside the existing partisan hate fest. If racist leanings, however deeply hidden, exist... the result in the current climate is an amplification of the feelings caused by things that would have irked a person politically anyway, but enrage a person who now feels they are losing their country to "them" (not only libs, but blacks, muslims, socialists, etc.)
I am NOT describing all cons. I know many will ignore this fact, and it will be telling. I am describing some, perhaps even a lot, my in-laws for instance. My in-laws dislike Clinton due to his political ideology, but they FEAR Obama. They won't accept the possibility that he is Christian? They are also pretty obvious and open racists. Having a black president has brought race to the forefront of conversation, and this is not inherently Obama's fault.
When you have a President who has acted more like a Christian corporatist than a socialist Muslim, yet a large percentage of the opposing base believes he is a Muslim and would support a military overthrow of his "regime", then forgive me for not blaming the President for the great racial divide in this nation. It was already there. Having the audacity to run and win 2 general elections has certainly brought those issues that already existed out in the open, but if you don't think Obama's presidency has actually moved us FORWARD in this regard, then I don't know what to say. Just because it's hard doesn't mean we're not making progress.
Phew. It's generally understood that if you agree with a post, a huge mistake has been made. Cleared a hurdle, a very very low one, but cleared it nonetheless.
I agree that race was going to be more prominently in the open simply because he was African American. Where I think he falls short, is by not playing both sides to some degree. The message needs to be 'yes there are issues and we all need to do better' where it's more 'we need to stop racism against young black men.' He speaks up when there's white on black crime, which inevitably is spun as hate crime whether it is or not. He stays silent when a black man shoots a white cop, or when violence against police officers has elevated. He doesn't speak up and tell the 'black lives matter' folks that disrupting public events by presidential candidates and obstructing others from getting about their day isn't an appropriate way to practice free speech, and he could. Actions like this would make people realize he wants unity, whereas now it comes across like he wants "black power," which is a power struggle, and doesn't unify.
There are some people in each race who will always be racist, and that's how it will be, but for the most part, people do not desire skin color to be a dividing force in the country. Obama was in prime position to unify this large 'middle-ground' group on that issue, and has done, intentionally or unintentionally, the opposite.
People have a tendency to see what they want to see and discount or flat out ignore the things that don't fit their narrative. I appreciate what you're saying, but will say that I fundamentally disagree with your characterization of Obama's actions and speech regarding black, white, police, etc. My feelings along these lines are the polar opposite, it amazes me how people can see and hear the same things and have such different take aways... interesting for sure.
Unemployment is down, consumer confidence is up, wages are finally starting to rise.
Presidents get too much blame and credit for the economics of the country. Obama on balance has been a good president I think. A lot of people think Bill Clinton was a good president because of the late 90's tech boom. Well, he repealed glass steagall, he signed the communications act of 96 and other legislation that has been a disaster.
For those looking only at debt, you have to look at it as a % of GDP
For those looking only at debt, you have to look at it as a % of GDP
Is this an example of what you were unaware of, or aware but think he should do more of?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ce-against-police-is-completely-unacceptable/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ce-against-police-is-completely-unacceptable/
I don't believe "race relations" have diminished one iota. Not in the least. Shit happens all the time and we find it more convenient and easier to understand if we use the race card. Race relations have mile to go........but they have had much greater distances in the past. We get better one day and one understanding at a time. You will have to agree with me that "understanding" has been a slow go the past 15 years.
Although estimates have changed, the law's provisions continue to curb healthcare costs. This helps offset the current estimated $1.207 trillion net cost of ObamaCare's insurance related provisions. (The gross cost of ObamaCare is $1,707 billion, offset by a projected $500 billion in revenue for 2016–2025.)
I assume you think this is a bargain to cover 10 million people?
You're the one who scoffed at the trillion dollar cost. Now you know the rest of the story. The 10 year cost of Obamacare was always OMB was projecting.
You said: "Trillions spent to cover less than 10 million out of 30 million uninsured."
I scoffed because I am well aware it will cost $1.2t, which is less than trillions (plural), it hasn't been "spent", but will be by 2025, and 10m is what's covered so far and will likely increase.
Considering what we've spent on wars and other shit, yes, I do think saving American lives is worth it. In fact, I wish we could get all 30 million covered. Why do you hate Americans?
james..respectfully I submit you do not understand what you are trying to (dis)prove.
A ham sandwich could of been president for the last 8 years and the same thing would of happened. Just get the f**k out of the way of the U.S. economy and let capitalism work.
What I was initially alluding to was that for his first 2 years OB had control of both The Senate and Congress and wasted it on a crappy give away to the insurance industry. He railed about " 30 million " uninsured and now there are " only " 20 million uninsured. This is the first year the 650 dollar penalty kicks in too. This is his only real " accomplishment " other than a rebounding market thanks to the Feds and their quantitative easing program. ( adding 9 trillion, I mean kijillion to the national debt )
That sure is a lot of paper clips.
Obamacare is set to add more than a quarter-of-a-trillion—that's trillion—dollars in extra insurance administrative costs to the U.S. health-care system, according to a new report out Wednesday. (Tweet this)
The $273.6 billion in additional insurance overhead represents an average of of $1,375 per newly insured person, per year, from 2012 through 2022.
The overhead cost equals a whopping 22.5 percent of the total estimated $2.76 trillion in all federal government spending for the Affordable Care Act programs during that time, according to the authors of the online report on the Health Affairs blog.
In contrast, the federal government's traditional Medicare program has overhead of just 2 percent, according to the report.
This is one of biggest lies the GOP likes to throw out. Obama had a 60 vote majority for about six weeks. Before that the GOP refused to seat the senator from Minnesota, the dems only had 59 votes, and could not stop discussion and call a vote. Once the Minnesota Senator was seated, Obamacare was passed, before anything else was done, Kennedy passed away, and the Senate Dems, only had 59 votes again, and the GOP stonewalled everything. A Rep, won the election in Mass, thereby insuring no 60 votes for the Dems. and the GOP could block anything Obama has done since.
seiowa....don't use facts when trying to discuss politics with these guys. Facts are just not necessary.
Similar threads
