patrick.net

adultsupervision says

It is clear that all of the supporters of obama on this site have a couple of things in common.1 They have never been in business for themselves

I started my first businesses when I was 22 years old (and sold it when I was 24).

and 2 a complete lack of understanding of economics.

Please explain what "Obama supporters" don't understand about Economics. Last time I checked, every living nobel prize winning economist*, and 8 of the 10 richest American CEOs are on the record as Obama supporters.

* Yes, I know the Nobel Prize in economics is bullshit, but you're the one who brought up "economics".

Sorry there is one more , a total break from reality. We are in a whole lot of trouble in this country if we don't get rid of the loony left and do it quick.

In what way is the "loony left" (and please, define "loony for me) causing trouble in this country? This country has been steadily moving to the right for the last 30+ years, and getting worse and worse in the process.

To say this man is bright because he talks like a car salesman is laughable.

I'd call him bright because he knows how to properly punctuate his sentences and break writings into paragraphs.

Please point to the section in the constitution where obamacare is allowed,i can't find it. And don't use the commerce clause. you will embarrass yourself. It is a direct reflection on our government schooling that we have this kind of thinking

If you had actually studied the constitution and the history of government, you'd already have your answer.

There is a very weak constitutional argument specifically about the insurance mandate, which the supreme court will have to rule on relatively soon. It's a hairy issue and not something that there's much precedent for one way or another.

But, well, I can just about guarantee that you have no idea what "obamacare" is. Please name 5 items from the legislation that you specifically think are unconstitutional, and on what basis.

Your entire approach to "constitutionality" is fundamentally backwards. The supreme court is the final word on constitutionality, and they have repeatedly refused to rule on any matters of constitutionality before actual legislation is created. That's how our government works!

Bellingham Bill says

That's not how the constitution works. Hamilton won that argument 200+ years ago.

And don't use the commerce clause. you will embarrass yourself

Commerce clause is perfectly reasonable argument.

There's nothing within the constitution that says anything with regards to health care. "General welfare" can be debated but that can be so open ended.

There's nothing within the constitution within over 200 years of case law that mandates that the federal government can mandate that anyone buy anything (or boycott for that matter). We are not a command economy.

On the state level they can experiment with anything. States still control the number of doctors as there is no national doctors license (maybe there is something to treat military staff but that's just for them)

One could argue that under Roe Vs Wade that health care is considered a private right. By that it means that the government should not go into a market and prevent any form of procedure (abortion). With national care the federal government would then have direct records on everyone going well beyond just medicare. So how would this be legal in light of HIPAA?

If one argues the car insurance argument well not everyone has to drive and there are no mandates to have insurance when using public transport..heck buses for the most part don't have seatbelts!

I would argue it is unconstitution simply because the government cannot command anyone to buy anything.

If the democrats want to really bring healthcare to masses then simply make an amendment to the constitution of a single payer system. Then nothing would touch it. Health care within the obamacare context is not a right but rather a government program. Government programs can be cut and modified at any time. Rights cannot.

It is a weak argument to suggest that it is constitutional.

Commerce clause can be suggested to allow nearly anything but we have seen backlashes over the past 20 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morrison

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

Also keep in mind that in 2009 the democrats courted republicans on the obama care vote? Why? They had plenty of support and a majority...unless...

You want to court support if this thing is overturned by the courts. If it is then the democrats are caught holding the bag.

Let's say that someone voted against this and it is overturned in 2012. They'll be sitting pretty just like Obama was with the Iraq war.

The other sad aspect of it is if President Obama really believed in the system of this why are there so many organizations asking AND receiving exemptions to it? Either he wants it or he doesn't.

www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/business/07insure.html?_r=1&ref=business

At Thanksgiving:

Obama is a communist.

But he worked for Kissinger and Associates.

Obama was hanging out with Bill Ayers, and who paid for his schooling?

So Kissinger is a Communist who hires Communists?

Obama's schooling was paid for by rich Indonesian Communists.

etc. etc. etc.

mdovell says

I would argue it is unconstitution simply because the government cannot command anyone to buy anything.

I'm sorry, which article (or amendment) states that the government can't command citizens to buy something?

The basis of most federal power (outside of the clearly enumerated stuff) is in the necessary and proper clause. The supreme court has ruled on these issues numerous times in the last 200+ years. They're the ones who get to decide if something is constitutional or not, not some random guy on an internet forum.

Kevin says

I'm sorry, which article (or amendment) states that the government can't command citizens to buy something?

The basis of most federal power (outside of the clearly enumerated stuff) is in the necessary and proper clause. The supreme court has ruled on these issues numerous times in the last 200+ years. They're the ones who get to decide if something is constitutional or not, not some random guy on an internet forum.

Huh? Can't?

The Constitution has to say what powers the government has. Logically you cannot disprove a negative..that's like saying (like southpark said) that there was no evidence that there were no aliens at Thanksgiving so that means there were.

Obviously the supreme court makes the decisions. But necessary and proper have limits. To have something be open ended frankly won't make sense.

More importantly the obamacare system (it is really romneycare..I've lived in mass all my life) makes a bit of an assumption that people will pay.

If they don't pay what's the recourse? Jail? A fine? it is one thing to suggest that the payment of taxes requires someone to keep records..ok fine since the government collects it as a source of revenue. But with this what is the argument...there are plenty of people that cannot legally work so how does that work for them? Children under 18, people in jail, people that are mentally disabled etc.

It isn't that hard to see as to how this would work out given how some have ruled in the past. I'd bet this just doesn't pass. There is nothing within the context of the plan (or in mass) that increase the number of nurses and doctors so waiting times will increase. That's what happened in Mass.

Has Obama ever had a real job in private industry?

I didn't think so.

Obama couldn't run a lemonade stand.

Did Bush?

Most presidents seem to have had mostly political careers.

So why do you hate Obama so much? It definitely has nothing to do with whether he worked in private industry, and you know it.

Tell the truth, please.

mdovell says

Logically you cannot disprove a negative

Actually, the common claim is "you cannot prove a negative". Obviously, one can disprove a negative. For example, I can disprove the statement "There are no dogs in Philadelphia." simply by going to Philly and seeing one of the many dogs there.

James Randi has a nice lecture on why you cannot prove a negative. However, he is incorrect. Go watch the video, and then continue reading this post.

Randi claims that is impossible to prove a negative statement and then he uses a flying reindeer example to demonstrate why. The negative statement he tries to prove is "There are no flying reindeer.".

Of course, the noun reindeer is not special. If Randi is correct and it is logically impossible to prove any negative statement, then I should be able to substitute the noun "reindeer" with any other noun. So let's do that.

Consider the statement, "There are no perpetual motion machines.". I can easily disprove this by quoting the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that the entropy of a closed system can never decrease and as a result, any system loses usable energy as it performs any motion. This means that a perpetual motion machine must have an infinite amount of energy, which is impossible. With only a finite amount of energy, the machine will eventually lose all usable energy and cease functioning.

I have proven the statement "There are no perpetual motion machines." using only logic and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Now I have assumed the correctness of a well-established law of physics, but if you want to verify that law, take a class in advance physics. For this subject matter, I have shown that it is possible to use existing accepted laws plus logic to prove a negative statement.

Although there are many patents for perpetual motion machines, this proof of their non-existence isn't very interesting since no one believes in such machines. However, I could replace "perpetual motion machines" with "god" and try to prove the negative statement, "There are no gods." This is a bit more interesting to people, because so many people believe in a god. Actually, I've already done that in other threads.

So I've proven the negative statements:
There are no perpetual motion machines.
There are no gods.

I can do the same for "There are no flying reindeer.", at least in principle. Now I'm not doing to do through the whole process since it would be a costly adventure. I'm just going to show you what the process would be.

First we have to define exactly what constitutes a reindeer. We'll need to consult biologists and geneticists to do that. With this information, we can model both the standard reindeer as well as all possible variations that would still meet our definition. I.e., we'll understand how significant the genetic differences among reindeer are for the purpose of flying, as well as the contribution of environment.

Unlike Randi, I see no need to push reindeer off the World Trade Center or any equivalent skyscraper after 2001. (The video was from 1992.) As Randi concluded, doing so would not prove that they cannot fly. However, I think we can at least assume that magic shit doesn't randomly happen in the universe. I.e., the well-known laws of physics are obeyed by reindeer as well as any other object. Otherwise, we could claim that reindeers are the only objects that can travel faster than light or other such ridiculousness.

OK, so I know what a reindeer is and what physical variations it can take. Consulting with physicists and aerodynamic engineers, I can easily verify whether or not reindeer can fly. After all, the laws of aerodynamics are very, very well known. We need to know these things to make ultrasonic fighters, stealth bombers, and even bullets (which need to be aerodynamically neutral).

So we apply our knowledge of aerodynamics to reindeer by asking what are all the possible ways to fly in an Earthlike atmosphere. No, there aren't an infinite number of ways to fly. It turns out that given about 4 billion years of evolution, life itself has come up with only a couple of ways to either fly or swim (both of which are essentially movement in fluids). With all the trillions upon trillions of creatures in the oceans and air, all of evolution converges to a handful of solutions. It turns out that the physics allows for multiple solutions to the problem of locomotion in fluids, but only a relatively small number of solutions.

So we can go through the possible types of flight and see if the reindeer, given the restrictions of its physical form, could possible accommodate just one of the types of flight. We do this by asking questions like, "Are there any air foils on the reindeer?" and "Are there any control surfaces?" and "How fast would the reindeer's muscles have to move to generate sufficient thrust and lift?". We can measure the aerodynamic properties of the reindeer in a wind tunnel, or better yet, calculate those properties for all possible reindeers given the genetic restriction on what constitutes a reindeer. Using Computer Assistant Design (CAD) or even traditional pencil and paper analysis, we can say with quite certainty that no reindeer could every fly.

And we can do all of these in real life for probably under $3 million. If anybody could get me this grant money, I'd be willing to hire the necessary scientists and engineers and spearhead the project.

In conclusion, I've now proven three negative statements. Since I've done that, it must be possible. Now I will say that it is not necessarily true that you can prove any given negative statement. And this is what Randi should have said.

But I would argue that any negative statement that cannot be proven and has never been disproved despite having many advocates, is probably the negative of a statement that is complete bullshit and that's why it cannot be proven.

zzyzzx says

People like Obama make things like this possible:

Still better than letting people use food stamps at McDonalds. At least I don't have to pay for their quadruple bypass and supersize it.

TMAC54 says

I beg to differ.

Funny how the Obama haters can't say exactly why they hate him

Although, I don't think Patrick was addressing the question to me, I'll give my two cents.

Well, I've now read through all the postings, and it seems Patrick is right. I haven't read a single decent reason to hate Obama from all his opposers except mdovell. This is utterly pathetic since I've posted ten good reasons to hate Obama back in this old thread. Funny, how I never got a response from any conservatives admitting that Bush ever fucked up.

In any case, I've repeatedly stated reasons why Obama is bad, really bad. Here's a great example provided by a wonderful Rachel Maddow video with clear and accurate analysis. Yet, no responses from either Obama supporters or detractors.

In fact, I've notice that whenever I say exactly what evil actions or even non-evil but bad economic/political action that Obama has taken, everyone seems to shut up. No Obama supporter dares objects to what I've said because it's so easy to verify. Yet, no Obama detractor speaks up in agreement either because Bush/Cheney and all the current and previous Republican presidential candidates except Ron Paul also are in favor of the very evil policies or economically foolish policies that Obama sponsors.

Everything I've read on this site confirms my belief in the following graph I originally posted in this thread.

Bush got 4000+ US servicepeople killed in Iraq, plus destroyed thousands of servicemember families, all over a neocon adventure. Obama has not made any mistakes as egregious as that.

Bush appointed Scalito and Roberts, two first-class apparatchik shitheads. Obama has appointed two lesbians.

Bush stood by while the country went $25T further into debt.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TCMDO

Total systemic debt has actually DECLINED $200B since Obama took over.

Debt leverage has actually reversed since 2009:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3x6

Now, I agree that anyone who loves Obama is an uncritical moron. And anyone who hates him is just an ideological idiot.

But I certainly could not have done a better job as president. The situation is fucked all to hell.

While Obama is certainly no FDR, FDR had 70%+ majorities in Congress, which makes it easier to bang on the bully pulpit to get shit done.

economically foolish policies that Obama sponsors

Obama has not "sponsored" any economically foolish policies (TMK).

Bellingham Bill says

Now, I agree that anyone who loves Obama is an uncritical moron. And anyone who hates him is just an ideological idiot.

Can't entirely agree with that. I hate Obama, and the only ideology that is based on is respect for human life. To quote the reasons I stated earlier on this old thread (see old thread for links to references):

1. Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay as soon as he took office. He kept it open. This makes him as responsible for the atrocities committed there as Bush is.

2. When Obama finally ended torture at Gitmo, he continued international extradition, which is just code for outsourcing torture. He should be tried as a war criminal for this, too.

3. Obama has ordered the assignation of U.S. citizens. Today, both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield. Article No matter what you think of al-Alwaki, every person especially a U.S. citizen is entitled to a fair trial before execution. Obama is guilty of attempted first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. What is even scarier is that our government now has a list of citizens it wants to execute. We don't know who's on the list, but we know it's more than just one person.

4. Obama failed to bring charges against the Bush/Cheney administration, thereby condoning the crimes against humanity committed by that administration. At least Kucinich had the balls to say he would do that if elected.

5. Obama has murdered hundreds of innocent civilians in drone attacks including children accomplishing only deteriorations of relationships with Pakistan and other Middle Eastern nations.

Scary stuff.

So, I'd like to modify your statement to:

And anyone who hates Obama but loves Bush is just an ideological idiot.

Hmmm, just like my multi-color table above.

Dan8267 says

Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay as soon as he took office. He kept it open. This makes him as responsible for the atrocities committed there as Bush is.

To be fair the closing of it would have been symbolic but where would they have been tried? Security would be pretty damn high...also remember it wasn't the closing of Guantanamo Bay but camp x ray at Guantanamo Bay..big difference. The base itself exists a bit from the spanish american war..the camp itself is newer.

#3 is right...one might say that it opens up the government to more that wasn't anticipated. Others would say it would just happen once..yeah and now we have drones on the US border...

Dan8267 says

Obama failed to bring charges against the Bush/Cheney administration, thereby condoning the crimes against humanity committed by that administration. At least Kucinich had the balls to say he would do that if elected.

We never had the political capital to do that though. Technically speaking one could argue that if congress didn't go along with the president that bush wouldn't have been able to do a damn thing.

Dan8267 says

Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay as soon as he took office. He kept it open. This makes him as responsible for the atrocities committed there as Bush is.

No it doesn't, if the actual abusive treatment of prisoners has been stopped.

he continued international extradition, which is just code for outsourcing torture. He should be tried as a war criminal for this, too.

shrug. Arguing that accused terrorists have rights is not a winning political position in this country.

Today, both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield

Good. If al-Alwaki doesn't want to end up in the midst of a rapid thermobaric expansion he needs to surrender his person to the nearest US embassy forthwith.

Oh, wait, too late.

Obama failed to bring charges against the Bush/Cheney administration

again, political considerations -- the 'optics' -- are involved.

Obama has murdered hundreds of innocent civilians in drone attacks including children accomplishing only deteriorations of relationships with Pakistan and other Middle Eastern nations

This is the one that I can agree with. But Obama is attempting to reign in the military on this.

Obama is Commander in Chief, but it's not quite that simple.

Well it is if you're a simpleton who can only see black & white.

I'm not entirely pleased with Obama's performance, but the above is no reason to hate him.

This is a shitty country with shitty politics, and to change things is going to take more than one man.

mdovell says

We never had the political capital to do that though.

The commander in chief does not need political capital to bring war criminals to trial. Send in Seal Team 6.

Bellingham Bill says

No it doesn't, if the actual abusive treatment of prisoners has been stopped.

Agreed. If the abusive treatment stopped. It didn't. It was just transferred elsewhere. Obama had the opportunity to take the high moral ground. He didn't. No words can change that.

Bellingham Bill says

Arguing that accused terrorists have rights is not a winning political position in this country.

Accused terrorists do have rights. Accused anything has rights. Simply being accused of a crime does not make you guilty of it. Have we learned nothing from McCarthyism? How about the Nuremburg Trials?

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

And even if the party is guilty, there is still rule of law. Any society that says otherwise does not deserve to exist.

So screw politics. Obama wasn't elected to be a politician. He was elected to be a leader. If he doesn't know the difference, then he does not deserve the crown. The only reason he's going to keep the crown is that the Republicans will nominate someone worse.

Bellingham Bill says

Good. If al-Alwaki doesn't want to end up in the midst of a rapid thermobaric expansion he needs to surrender his person to the nearest US embassy forthwith.

Oh, wait, too late.

This just proves that America is not a nation of laws and there is no reason for any other nation to take us seriously when we talk about Democracy, rule of law, and human rights issues. How is that a good thing?

If al-Alwaki was guilty of any crimes, he should have been brought to trial in a fair and open court. To have killed him without trial was an act of cowardice and a betrayal of every principle our nation claims to believe. There is no honor in that.

Furthermore, the long term consequences of such cowardice far outweigh any short term gains. America is destroying its reputation by doing such things, and thus we are destroying our ability to negotiate peacefully with other nations. It's not how righteous your own citizens think your country is, it's how righteous people in other countries think you are. And that is the most important political capital.

America totally fucked up the opportunity it had in the 1990s right after the cold war, when it was the uncontested superpower. We could have used our credibility to drastically change the world for the better. Instead, we blew it.

Bellingham Bill says

But Obama is attempting to reign in the military on this.

I'm sure eventually even Kadafi would have "reigned in his military" after all the rebels were dead. That doesn't forgive the war crimes.

Bellingham Bill says

Well it is if you're a simpleton who can only see black & white.

I'm not saying warfare or the political situation in the Middle East is simple. But complexity is no excuse for war crimes. Oh, it's complicated. Therefore, we have to blow apart kids. A leg here, a head there, a torso spelled along the road.

Even in war, there are laws. I expect my president to obey them even when the laws aren't convenient. The same laws that protect Afgan civilians from our military, protect our civilians from other country's militaries. It goes both ways or it goes neither way. So even if you don't care about people in other countries, care about International Law because it protects your ass and your family.

Bellingham Bill says

This is a shitty country with shitty politics, and to change things is going to take more than one man.

Of course. But anyone running for president should still expect to be judged based on his policies. If that's too much for him, then don't run. There are plenty of other people who would be willing to offer solutions. The office comes with accountability.

Now, I would be open to getting rid of the post of president if it's too much for any one man to handle. We could discuss that.

Kevin what does being rich have to do with an understanding of economics?..Obama gets support from people in these positions because they will get something in return. You really need to read the federalist papers so you can get a grasp on the meaning of things. No, the supreme court is NOT the final word. Re read the 10th amendment. As far owning a business i don't mean a little internet thing. I am not trying to to be harsh here but trying to defend what will be known as the worst president in our country"s history is a little embarrassing. Also instead of worrying about periods and comas open your mind to the fact that free market capitalism is the only economic system that is moral and allows for true freedom. I can suggest a lengthly reading list if you like.

Why can"t the obots get over Bush. It's not about him he is gone. We are talking about what we have right now. The argument always seems to be, well he is not as bad as bush. What is it you like about him. Is it gun walker, fast and furious, corrupt green companies, tony rezko. I could go on but you get the point.

adultsupervision says

No, the supreme court is NOT the final word. Re read the 10th amendment

The supreme court pretty much is the final word. The 10th amendment doesn't make any exemptions If it isn't specifically written in the us constitution then states can do what they want. If CA wants really high building codes that's fine, if VT wants single payer health for their citizens that's fine, if ID wants to prop up makes of vodka that's fine....Dan8267 says

The commander in chief does not need political capital to bring war criminals to trial. Send in Seal Team 6.

On what charge(s) though? If we make the argument of lying over wmd's well we were still bombing iraq on a weekly basis for eight years. If it is OK for a democrat to go to war but not ok for a republican then that's a tad screwed up. Congress gave the OK for use of force (John Kerry claims he thought it would be sanctions...even though Iraq was under sanctions already). Hillary voted for the war and now she's the secretary of state!! The democrats didn't purge their membership of those that voted for the war. Without doing that first Obama would appear to be a bit hypocritical.

I don't hate Obama. I'd respect him more if it seemed like he was trying. Even if he did something I didn't agree with I can recognize an attempt. I just don't get that same feeling of someone being "in charge" with Obama vs The prior 28 years.. I can go days if not weeks without seeing the president on TV...30 years ago that would have been impossible.

Most of my republican friends hate Obama because they think he spends all of their tax dollars on "welfare for lazy blacks". That pretty much sums up the theme that I've heard from everyone. Nevermind that Clinton ended welfare and that the remaining programs such as foodstamps and temporary assistance for needy families make up something like 2.5% of the federal budget - and whites are largest recipient group, by race.

Bingo.

@billy bell ..so many incorrect assumptions here. No i have never voted republican. No i don't agree with any of the wars this country has been in. You have embarrassed yourself. I ask you not to. Go read the intent of the commerce clause. My definition of loony is anyone who will actually call himself a democrat. We all believe it is ok to take other peoples money when we are young,then we grow up and realize that it is a crime . It does not matter how noble you think the cause is. Why don't you research the cause of the housing implosion and be honest. Its right there with Bawny frank and the rest of the leftist.I understand the republicans are nut jobs, but there is such a thing as the lesser of two evils and we are talking a chasm here.

Hate is too strong of a word, but here are the reasons I think Obama should not be re-elected.

1. The lifeblood of an economy is energy. Obama has done nothing to lower the cost of energy. In fact, the environmentalist under Obama hurt energy production, delay production, etc. in their pursuit of a green job pipe dream. This policy mistake is cost America millions of Jobs. Back in the Great Depression, Democrats were building dams and power plants like crazy and this action greatly helped grow the west coast cities and win WWII.

2. The stimulus plan has ultimately made our economic problems worse, because so much of the stimulus just went to prolonging what is now happening without fixing the problem. For example, Bailing out overly rich public employee pensions is not solving the problem. We have a structural economic problem in America, not a "stimulative" problem. Structural problems need to be fixed structurally. For example, Medicare has a huge financial problem -- structural fixes are raising the age to get benefits, reducing benefits, etc. For example, in my field companies cannot build fabs time effectively in this country -- yet instead of making it easier, federal, state, and local governments continue to pile on regulations and worse permit delays driving out jobs.

3. Sarbanes Oxley has cost America at least 2 million jobs over the last ten years. Bush didn't fix it, Obama hasn't fixed it. We need to make Sarbanes Oxley less costly for young companies. IPOs are down 75% over the past 10 years = 2 million jobs.

4. Obama and leadership: we are in a very tough economic time. For Obama to Golf 30+ times this year, plus basketball, plus vacations all over, taking vacations on the Spanish Rivera, taking his and her jets to Martha's vineyard ... sends the wrong message.

5. I have no idea what is trying to be accomplished in Afghanistan. Under Bush it was clear that we had a minimal force just large enough to keep any terrorist group from having a safe haven. Obama's surge and promise to then leave completely confuses me ... Even if Afghanistan becomes stable once we leave -- instability will return with a single minor coup that a country like Pakistan or Iran could accomplish in a few weeks. So I see us spending billions and billions for ???. I don't get it.

6. I don't like the Obama foreign policy of being critical of the US when he travels the world. That might seem like a good idea in the liberal mindset to show how reasonable and kind we are, but that is extrapolating our culture naively onto others. I travel a lot and these negative comments are viewed as weak, give opponents fresh ammo, and reopen old wounds while gaining us nothing. A weak president cannot accomplish much and so we see that Obama is getting increasingly ignored worldwide. And an ignored American president is very dangerous for our interests and allies.

7. Obama promised many things - Gitmo would close. I'm glad he didn't close it, but his promise and then subsequent realization that the Bush policy was actually pretty good really showed how naive he was when entering the office. I'm glad Obama made the decision to go after OBL and his general conduct in killing terrorists.

8. Obama really lost a lot of support on Obamacare. I really wish the Government would fix the things they are responsible for rather than continue to try to grab more responsibility. Medicare is going broke. Fix it first, and show the citizens how great of job you are doing before grabbing even more the private economy. And while you are at it, fix Social Security, the Post Office, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, SSI, the Federal Employee Pension Plan, and get an SEC that actually does their job, etc. Why aren't mortgage fraud executives in Gitmo :-). Obama has done essentially nothing to bring anyone in the meltdown to justice.

9. Smoke and Mirrors. This is a problem with both parties. The whole debate over raising the debt limit vs. cutting spending and the super committee was all nonsense on both sides. Voters are really tired of meaningless political theater. $1.2T in cuts are basically nothing when spread over 10 years, and all back loaded so the next Congress can rescind them. Yet, the voters were lied to by Obama and the Democrats that the US could default, and lied to by the Republicans that they were actually fighting for cuts. Both parties got what they wanted an increase in the debt limit, political points to get their base fired up, and no change in the status quo.

John McDonald says

Obama has done nothing to lower the cost of energy. In fact, the environmentalist under Obama hurt energy production, delay production, etc.

I wouldn't exactly call him an environmentalist but at the same point the government generally should be neutral with prices.

Natural gas is how most people heat their homes (outside of the northeast)
It has tanked over the past few years. I'm not saying Obama is responsible but the prices have dropped to the point where the USA might switch from being a net importer to net exporter pretty soon

This is probably one of the most underreported pieces of news in the past few years
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/energy-future-lurks-where-sun-dont-shine/story-e6frg8y6-1226206430096

http://markets.financialcontent.com/pennwell.ogj/news/read/20047451/u.s._shale_boom_reduces_russian_influence_over_european_gas_market

"In 2009, the US surpassed Russia as the largest producer of natural gas, while shale gas production in the US has increased from almost nothing a decade ago to about 30 per cent of its natural-gas supply, and likely to be 50 per cent in the next few years. This has created more than 200,000 jobs, no small boost at a time of mass unemployment in the US. More importantly, it has kept gas prices down while other energy prices are rising."

If anyone owns property in the northeast I'd highly recommend they convert to natural gas.

John McDonald says

For Obama to Golf 30+ times this year, plus basketball, plus vacations all over, taking vacations on the Spanish Rivera, taking his and her jets to Martha's vineyard ... sends the wrong message.

You have some good points, but this one is classic Fox News bullshit. Obama took less than half as much vacation as Bush:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/

No, I take that back. Obama toook about one third as much vacation as Bush:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/17/eveningnews/main20093801.shtml

John McDonald says

I don't like the Obama foreign policy of being critical of the US when he travels the world.

More spin and bullshit. Example quotes please, with places and dates.

John McDonald says

Obama really lost a lot of support on Obamacare. I really wish the Government would fix the things they are responsible for rather than continue to try to grab more responsibility.

Obama GAINED a lot of support because of Obamacare too. We have a desperately bad health insurance system in America (notice I said "insurance", not "care") and he's the only president who has gotten any kind of universal coverage laws passed.

It was gamed by the insurance companies to prevent the necessary government insurance option, and we should not be forced to pay private insurers (the Republican wet dream is enslaved customers by law), but it's still better than what we had.

John McDonald says

Obama has done nothing to lower the cost of energy. In fact, the environmentalist under Obama hurt energy production, delay production, etc. in their pursuit of a green job pipe dream. This policy mistake is cost America millions of Jobs.

No it hasn't.

I agree though that Obama hasn't done much to address one of the most pressing issues we face this century.

There's nothing we can do to lower the cost of oil (on the supply side). That's going to be set by the market, and we done pumped most of our oil already. The price of oil is going to be determined by what Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Venezuela can produce, not us.

Obama was actually making a push for nuclear investment, then Fukushima happened.

John McDonald says

Voters are really tired of meaningless political theater.

So why are you blaming Obama for this?

It's the Republicans doing the song & dances. The Bush tax cuts were obviously a colossal mistake, but they don't want to reverse them, since it's going to be a painful shock to the economy (which has grown increasingly reliant on free money).

Obama proposed a compromise that only the top 2% of the country go back to the Clinton rates. I think this is much too weak but it was a start on the road to fiscal sanity.

The bottom line though is that this country is going to have to decide whether it wants guns or butter, socialism or corporatism.

This is a bitterly divided country, and I doubt we're going to be able to get our shit together this decade or next.

and we should not be forced to pay private insurers

This is just an extension of car insurance mandates.

By getting more people into paying their insurance we can reverse the cost of hospitalization, which is the long pole in the tent wrt costs.

Theoretically.

John McDonald says

the voters were lied to by Obama and the Democrats that the US could default

No, the debt limit is a very hard limit in law, rightfully so since Congress has the power of the purse, not the Executive.

Without sufficient tax revenue coming in, bills won't get paid. If debt isn't repaid, that's default.

Whether or not Geithner could do some shuffling with the trust funds to keep Congress' game going is neither here nor there. The Republicans were playing with some very dangerous fire May - August, and the Administration danced to their insane tune long enough.

John McDonald says

Medicare is going broke. Fix it first, and show the citizens how great of job you are doing before grabbing even more the private economy

PPACA is not "grabbing the private economy". It's main problem is that it is not doing so, it's trying to patch the inefficiencies and rent-seeking in the private economy with tax subsidies, not that great idea but it's all that the 40th least progressive senator would let pass in 2009.

John McDonald says

And while you are at it, fix Social Security, the Post Office, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, SSI,

Social Security is not broken, thanks to the Greenspan Commission it's got enough money to last up to two decades as it is.

The Executive can't "save" the Post Office, since it is a creature of the Constitution and its operations are regulated by law and thus Congress.

Congress makes the law in this country, not the Executive.

The GSEs are beyond fixing. They were destroyed 2005-2007 when pushed themselves into the maw of the housing bubble just before it collapsed.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/HHMSDODNS

John McDonald says

Obama has done essentially nothing to bring anyone in the meltdown to justice.

In 2009 the optics on this were bad. Wall Street has some very powerful rich friends in this country -- and money controls the mass media after all. If the Obama team had demonized Wall Street, conservative like you would have slimed the administration for attacking capitalism and thus preventing the recovery from happening.

What conservatives like yourself fail to understand though is that the pump & dump of 2002-2007 was entirely legal. Unethical, but legal.

Asking for more government involvement now -- after the $5T of the bubble has been burned -- but wanting government out of the enforcement business while the actual market insanity is occurring is why I don't like conservatives.

You guys are all talk and no action. Well, no action that actually improves anything, you guys are really good at making problems worse.