Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Can Someone Provide a list of Good things Obama has done?

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 31, 2011, 2:26 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I find the list lacking. I can only think of about 3 good things and about 20 or 30 bad things.

If someone can give me a reason why Obama should be president again in 2012, that would be great.

And you have to solely base it on Obama. Don't tell me about Newt Gingrich or any of the other republicans. I already know Gingrich is an asshole. I'm asking for an impacting list of good things Obama has done.

341 Comments

341 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 15 points by Windsofchange (1044) 2 years ago

Well, after signing off on one of the most fascist piece of legislation, it completely overshadows any good he did.

Sorry, all I could think of right now is how he betrayed the American People. He can forget re-election, it's not happening.

[-] 1 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

It's not like Obama is like SURPRISE FASCIST all the sudden. He's been doing horrible shit since the first day he got in office. Here's a cool reddit post listing many of his betrayals.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Shit storm of derision?

Wind pretend I didn't stop in to make this statement, reply to it or not. Because I am going back to bed right after I make this next statement, which may very well touch off a shit storm of derision.

Now take this into consideration up-front. This will sound like the wildest flight of science fiction or fantasy,

But if it gets the Corrupt/Greedy to piss their pants or stay up sleepless at night considering the possibilities, then I consider it a worthwhile endeavor.

Here goes:

What if Obama has not betrayed the people? What if he is playing an unbelievably sneaky game instead? What (?) you will dare say shout in unbelief!

Well . . . consider that the Justice department has not filed charges of fraud upon the guilty. Perhaps Obama could not get them to do it.

So instead, playing a very sneaky game of misdirection.

Just suppose the Obama dragged out this NDAA thing on purpose.

Why in heaven's sake why?

Well what if in doing so he suckered the guilty?

What if now!!! He turned around and used it to arrest the guilty that he couldn't get the Justice Department to Legally charge?

I Know I know. Pure Fantasy, Pure Science Fiction. A poor remake of the Sting.

But. . . what if?

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

One could only hope, as I hope he used his first term to lull the rich into supporting him for his next term. Hopefully, he will do the things he promised when running in 2008.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well He could use some help. One man can only do so much. To make real change is gonna take participation.

[-] 2 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

WE participated in 2008 like no one's business. Don't blame us for our disillusionment in a president who promised so much and delivered none of the grand promises or even headed in that direction. Obama spoke of reforming campaign elections, but that never happened and that is one of the biggest threats to our democracy. He promised financial reform, but then he brought in Larry Summers, one of the architects or deregulation from the Clinton administration and Timothy Geitner another governmental bad actor in the financial meltdown. How do you reconcile these polar opposites between promise and policy? He had us all in 2008, we were his to lose and that's exactly what he did. If Obama was primaried, I would have voted for whoever ran against him, especially if it were someone like Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders (if he were a democrat). the only reason he'll win re-election is because the republicans put on a bunch of clowns and given the clowns (not you DKA) that I've seen posting here, he might not even win then. And doesn't it bother you that, if Obama wins, we will either get a president who tricked the republicans into thinking he's more like them or we'll get one who is more like a republican then George W. Bush was?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You have a lot of justified anger. The thing is unless a new candidate emerges from nowhere. Then there really isn't anyone else to vote for. What needs to happen though is we need to vote out of office every single member of the Senate and Congress who are standing in the way of reform.

One thing I would like to see. For whoever is president. I would like to see a Presidential line item veto. So the legislation could be striped of all the crap that gets attached to it. Crap that would not pass on it's own but gets passed because the legislation it is attached to is too important/necessary to be vetoed.

Considering that Obama came into office inheriting two wars and having a congress unwilling to work together at the start of the major economic meltdown. I believe He's done OK.

But "The People" are beginning to wake-up and are beginning to take part in demanding the government get it's act together. We still have a long ways to go and a lot of head knocking to do before we get to a healthy recovery.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

We need to start working towards a third party that would be viable.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well if we could do something with the Independent and Green, perhaps merge into "The Peoples" Party. It would take a lot of persuasion and advertising. But I believe that the Independent and Green would have a lot to agree with on the Occupy & 99% fronts.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Agreed. I personally would like to see someone like Bernie Sanders nominated as an Independent, because it's quite easy to show that he's been standing up for the rights and best interests of the people for years. On the other hand, the same, albeit not to the same extinct could be said about Obama a few years ago: This is actually why I am so angry at our president. He let the country down at a time when he had overwhelming support.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The signing statement made the law unenforceable. He didn't betray anyone by signing the bill.

[-] 7 points by Satyr000ART5 (12) 2 years ago

The same person that wrote the signing statement is the same guy that threatened to veto NDAA and instead signed it into law. The same person that wrote that statement is the one who opposed the Iraq war and after taking office put more boots on the ground in Iraq and continued the war long after the date he said he was going to end it. The same person that wrote that statement said he would close Guantanamo and it is still open to this day. Oh and last but not least he did oppose the Patriot Act during his campaign and he has done nothing to change or remove it. You can claim that his signing statement means something all you want. To me its just another piece of paper and more lip service from a puppet of the establishment.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I certainly understand you suspicion: I share it. (Even though you are inaccurate about Gitmo, but that's another discussion).

Obama has his faults, BIG ones, but he is no Nixon or Bush. The signing statement prevents the law from being enforced. If Obama ever changes his position about this, I will be the first in line at the barricades opposing him. But right now he has rendered the bill unenforceable, The very existence of the bill is more than worrisome, but unless something changes, vigilance, not knee-jerk reaction and terror is called for.

[-] 3 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 2 years ago

You're right he is no Nixon. Nixon was much better.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That's as funny as it is scurrilously inaccurate.

[-] 1 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 2 years ago

The Nixon administration gave us clean water and clean air legislation. Nixon organized the Environmental Protection Agency and made environmental protection a lead priority of his government. Nixon pushed for equal pay and for the expansion of jobs for blacks and delivered affirmative action and civil rights enforcement. Nixon tried very hard to enforce a policy for population control and limitation and did so by executive order, an order attacked, gutted and marginalized by a bloc of Catholic and anti-abortion lobbyists. He lost this one but no President tried harder with less support to put the weight of the U.S. government on the side of population reduction. Nixon seriously proposed the adoption of a universal minimum income for all in the nation — the Family Assistance Plan — and while he could not get it through Congress, he did fashion a portion of it, the Supplemental Income program which passed to become a guaranteed income for the aged, blind and disabled. Nixon thought a lot about the future. He and his top aide floated trial balloons about a federally initiated cable TV- internet network, well before its time, which would connect every home with a neverending flow of information and educational content.

Yes he was also a war crimminal and a narcsicst but compared to the savages that run this country now he looks pretty egalitarian. I mean for gods sake Richard Nixon was a white republican who did more for the black community in this country than Obama has! He was our last liberal president! Thats how far to the right the polititians in this country have swung! Our democratic party president is to the right of Richard Milhouse Nixon! What has Obama done that can even begin to compare to that? Healthcare reform? That was an idea he stole from Mitt. You want to know who that bill benifits the most just look how much of a jump stock in health insurance companies the morning after he signed it.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Hmm, an interesting view. I would hardly call him a liberal, and the strategies he employed regarding race-baiting were among the most disgusting I have ever seen. He also scuttled the peace talks in Vietnam that were poised to end the war six years earlier when he made his first successful run for the presidency.

But I would have to agree that on many things, Obama is somewhat, if not far, to his right. And you're absolutely correct: his being painted a liberal, socialist, etc, only shows how far the country has swung to the right as a whole since the 70's.

Thanks for reminding me, even though remembering it makes me exhaustingly sad.

As an aside, though, I wouldn't give Nixon too much credit for his positive accomplishments. It was mostly the congress's doing: he was so thoroughly reviled that the democrats in charge were veto-proof.

What's more, the dirty tricks he employed - indeed invented - laid the foundation for the repelican's day to day strategies currently. They purged the Dems of their own right wing and got them to go permanently over to the dark side.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

If you think the signing statement is anything other than temporary appeasement, you are almost as insane as this president.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You certainly have a right to your opinion, but I suggest it's your fear, not your rational mind, being expressed.

Obama has consistently opposed the NDAA, and the signing statement seals the deal of no enforcement of it. If that proves to be temporary appeasement, as you characterize it, I will join you - and I suspect thousands of others - on the picket lines in front of the White House. Until that time, if it ever comes, I will sleep easy. Not as easy than if this extremely bad law was never signed, but a hell of a lot easier than if there was neither a signing statement emasculating it, or if anyone else now running was in charge.

I am simply not so paranoid that I believe the same person who put Elena Kagan on the Supreme court would enforce a law that, if it came before her, would be thoroughly overturned on constitutional grounds.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

In order to state that Obama has consistently "opposed" the NDAA, you are choosing to ignore what Sen. Levin - a member of the Presidents own party - has made clear...that it was OBAMA who insisted that the amendment to protect American Citizens from the act be REMOVED.

Wake up my friend. You are defending this man when he is clearly setting this country up for martial law at some point in the future.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Feinstein's amemdment protecting American citizens stood and is a part of this bill.. As I said, I am not defending Obama in this matter. I don't think he should have vetoed this pernicious self-defeating, ugly law. I am only saying that the hysteria around it is unreasoned, as it will have little, if any effect on anyone here.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California proposed an amendment which would have limited the requirement of military custody in Section 1022 to suspected terrorists captured abroad and explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of American citizens.. This proposal was rejected in the Senate by a vote of 55 to 45.

Senator Feinstein proposed an amendment to clarify that nothing in the bill “shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

Why was the first - with its explicit protection against military detention of US Citizens voted down and then replaced with language that is less clear? Have you examined every existing law to determine exactly what they allow or disallow?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I don't need to examine every single law to understand the amendment's effect: the idea is preposterous. It neither extends nor reduces current constitutional protection of American citizens. The meaning is very clear.

That's why all the hysteria around this is misplaced.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

I think this is what you refer to -

Obama Demanded Language To Arrest You

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6ARkiJM2bA

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Your state of denial is astounding. This President has already violated habeus corpus outright with the killing of Al-Alwaki and his son. NDAA puts it into law that any citizen can be detained indefinitely. When do you start worrying?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The signing statement nullifies NDAA's enforcement into the foreseeable future. What part of that do you not get?

[-] 2 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

It nullifies nothing. Signing statements are not constitutional and do not change the law.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

They may or may not be constitutional, but they very much change whether a law is implemented or not.

That's a simple historical fact. Look up how effectively they were used, to disgusting ends, by Bush.

The point is they are effective IN PRACTICE. They have been effective. Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, they will continue to be effective.

[-] 2 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

First you say it nullifies the law, which it does not. Then you say it changes the way in which it is implemented, which it does not.

A signing statement may change the way in which a law is interpreted. It generally leaves the law in a grey area, since signing statements are not law, but simply the president's suggestions for how the law should be interpreted.

Besides that, the Obama administration changed the NDAA to remove the protection for US Citizens that were originally in the bill in the first place. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNDHbT44cY]

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You are simply mistaken. It amends the law, many would argue extra-legally, but it amends it no less in practice. Bush used them to effectively to do that during his term, completely tying the hands of various regulatory agencies, and Obama has just done it now.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Combating-the-Distortions-by-Ralph-Lopez-111229-602.html

You might just want to read that article before you keep trying to defend what Obama did - by insisting that the language to protect US citizens be stripped from the law.

You are a victim of "spinning" the truth my friend..

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Reply to your post below.

The Udall amendment did not pass. It is not a part of this bill.

As to the language of the bill itself, I agree that it is weak, that the word "requirement" is ill suited to protect Citizens. But the Feinstein amendment is and the language affirming that all actions toward American citizens and legal resident aliens must adhere to the constitution goes a long way toward maintaining current protections.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Ah, I see the misunderstanding.

You believe I am defending his signing this bill. I am absolutely not doing so. I am merely saying that there is little to fear from it right now.

Oh, and read page 362 of the bill, the items that explicitly exclude American citizens from being subject to military detention.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Mark Udall’s amendment SA1112 would actually add a line to section 1031 which states that the section would extend to U.S. citizens. How’s that for obvious?

SA1112 – Udall amendment – “…The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States…except to the extent prohibited by the Constitution of the United States“

Well the only thing in the constitution that keeps citizens from being detained by the military is the fact that it claims it would take an act of congress to allow such a thing to take place… and guess what Mark Udall’s amendment is? So the extent to which it is prohibited by the constitution would be nullified by the act itself.

“The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” section 1032 NDAA 2012 page 362 as not permitting US Citizens to be detained. Please look carefully at this language. The limiting portion of the language clearly states “the REQUIREMENT” does not extend. This language is NOT prohibitive. It leaves wide open the CHOICE to detain. Many acts have language that excluded and prevents inclusion of various groups from enforcement of that act. The language will actually use the words “excluded” and “prohibited” when they want that to be the conclusion. They did not use that language here, clearly indicating that they did not wish to exclude US Citizens...........

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

You completely misunderstand this signing statement. The ability to detain citizens is put in the hands of the president himself, not some regulatory agency. All Obama did was make a promise that he won't use this power.

In the statement Obama also overrode certain checks and balances in the bill:

Here are three examples:

1) Section 1024 of the NDAA was inserted by Congress to specify that the Secretary of Defense, within 90 days of the enactment of the NDAA, would submit a report setting forth the procedures for "determining the status of persons detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force" public law (the original 2001 law that Bush pushed through). According to www.emptywheel.net, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), had insisted on this provision, stating to Congress:

"I want to be able to tell anybody who is interested that no person in an American prison — civilian or military — held as a suspected member of al-Quaida will be held without independent judicial review. We are not allowing the executive branch to make that decision unchecked. For the first time in the history of American warfare, every American combatant held by the executive branch will have their day in Federal Court, and the government has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence you are in fact part of the enemy force."

Spitting on this section 1024, in his signing statement, Obama says that he will "grant the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations ... are subject to the requirement of this section." That is, the Defense Department will NOT issue the report on detainee status which Graham insisted upon.

2) Section 1028 of the NDAA limits the White House's ability to "transfer detainees to a foreign country," which is reported to be President Bush's infamous policy of renditions, where detainees are farmed out to prisons in other countries where they are, among other things, tortured. Saying this limitation "hinders" the "executive branch's ... ability to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries," Obama says in his signing statement that his administration will not be bound by Section 1028.

3) Section 1029 of the NDAA requires that "the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing crminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals." In his signing statement, Obama ludicrously says that this would diminish the "integrity and independence of the Department of Justice," and therefore he will contemptuously disregard it.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

On December 31 and after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law, President Obama issued a signing statement on it that addressed "certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects." In the statement Obama maintains that "the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. [...] My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that ANY DETENTION IT AUTHORIZES COMPLIES WITH THE CONSTITUTION, THE LAWS OF WAR, AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE LAW [...] As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL MY ADMINISTRATION ACCEPT OR ADHERE TOA RIGID ACROSS-THE-BOARD REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY DETENTION."

All persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to be held by the United States Armed Forces (which the signing statements explicitly rejected, above). The requirement does not extend to U.S. citizens.

Clearly, the law as written stinks, and undermines basic freedoms. BUt the signing statement removes its most pernicious sting.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

And what you just posted confirms what we are saying to you......

"There is a law that already allows the holding without trial of American citizens....But "existing law," in the words of Sen. Lindsey Graham a key mover of the bill, refers to Padilla v. Rumsfeld in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the government's claim of authority to hold Americans arrested on American soil indefinitely."

That is what Obama is referring to in his signing statement - and exactly WHY he insisted that the protective language be removed from NDAA....

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I will certainly have to look into your first and third points, but as to the second one - transferring detainees - that has to do with closing Guantanamo Bay, not tortures or extraordinary rendition. Since congress signed a law forbidding GITMO detainees to be transferred the US soil, the only way to empty that facility is to get other nations to agree to take the prisoners. Section 1028 is designed to hinder that process, I believe.

You do realize you contradicted yourself a bit here. You asserted in your previous post that signing statements don't change the implementation of a law. But you followed that up with a post that listed 3 specific ways it does just that.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

As long as you are willing to look into it further, that is all I could ask of any thinking person.

[-] 1 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 2 years ago

You need to read sections 1031 and 1032. Not 1021 and 1022. You can feel all warm and fuzzy about this thing if you want but this bill has completely gutted the constitution.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Jesus! How many times do I have to repeat it?

I OPPOSE THIS BILL!!!!!!!

But i also oppose the HYSTERICAL PARANOIA surrounding it.

[-] 1 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 2 years ago

Its not paranoia. Its called preparing for the worst. I'm just trying to wake people up to the tyranny that is being crafted right in front of our eyes. We need to stop the globalist elites from destroying life as we know it. The police state is coming and its obama who is making it digestable to the american sheeple.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I read them. But it doesn't take away from the fact that the bill prohibits military detention for American citizens.

From Section 1031:

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require

11 ment to detain a person in military custody under

12 this section does NOT (caps mine) extend to citizens of the United

13 States.

14 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require

15 ment to detain a person in military custody under

16 this section does NOT (caps mine) extend to a lawful resident

17 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct

18 taking place within the United States, EXCEPT TO THE

19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED

20 STATES. (caps mine)

(And it does very little in terms of changing what was in last year's bill. Some change, yes. Change for the worse, yes. Change that should be opposed, yes.

But read ZenDog's thread about this. http://occupywallst.org/forum/on-the/

Get some perspective. And if you don't think there's hysteria and paranoia on these boards about this bill, I suggest you take a look around. If you aren't a participant, scores of others are.

[-] 0 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

what? the constitution only applies to US citizens, not Al-Alwaki.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

But why did he insist that the amendment that protected American Citizens be removed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHaJrnlqCgo&feature=player_embedded

Unenforceable? The Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety.

Also, this President claimed in his campaigning that HE as a Constitutional Law Professor respected the constitution and would not be using signing statements and executive orders as Bush did....yet, he is doing the same thing.

He is a liar and a hypocrite and anyone who defends him now but accused Bush has shown their partisanship in clear light.

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

He is not authorized to do that.

When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety and return it to the House in which it originated, along with his written objections to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Wikipedia is not a good source for letting you know haw the mechanics of the signing statements actually work. They effectively amend legislation while they are in effect. Although not recognized by the constitution, they are nevertheless used in that way to great effect. (Bush - that bastard - used them to cut the hands off of the EPA for years.)

regardless, I have come around to the view that signing statement or not, the bill should have been vetoed, None of the reasons the administration is giving for not doing so ring true. I think Obama, as usual, caved to political pressure from the right.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Let's look at some of the more well known Democrats - who hold the Senate - who voted FOR NDAA...

Yea NV Reid, Harry [D] Yea CT Blumenthal, Richard [D] Yea CA Boxer, Barbara [D] Yea CA Feinstein, Dianne [D] Yea NY Gillibrand, Kirsten [D] Yea MA Kerry, John [D] Yea MO McCaskill, Claire [D] Yea NE Nelson, Ben [D] Yea FL Nelson, Bill [D] Yea WV Rockefeller, John [D] Yea NY Schumer, Charles [D]

An equal number of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate Voted Nay (6 of each).

It is your contention that all of the above named Senate Democrats "caved" to the right on this bill?

Now, let's look at the more well known Representatives in the House, where the GOP holds the majority....

Aye CA-8 Pelosi, Nancy [D] Aye TX-18 Jackson-Lee, Sheila [D] Aye FL-20 Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D]

Again, these people "caved" into the Right?

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I never contended any such thing. I think both houses of congress have behaved shamefully. I think democrats have pandered to the right so as not to appear weak, something they are constantly and effectively accused of, based on nothing. Their support for purely political reasons (not completely, some are simply dumb as rocks) is disgraceful and cowardly.

But that still has nothing to do with the fact that this bill will likely have little or no effect on us.

I understand - and share - the outrage about what this bill represents, and the precedent it may set for the future. It it a betrayal of what I hold dear about American ideal, about what we have stood for, albite imperfectly.

But the hysteria and fear about it is wildly disproportionate.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

You didn't imply that there was a caving into the "right"? Here is what you wrote:

" I think Obama, as usual, caved to political pressure from the right."

Hysteria. I wonder if the Japanese who were interned would agree that this is hysteria.

The real issue is that this is a bi-partisan deal - those who are against this are spread across the spectrum of far left to far right. Regardless of what you say can't happen - there are far too many who say it can, maybe not under this President but certainly under another in the future. And let's not forget that it was an executive order that interned the Japanese and this President has made it perfectly clear - that despite campaigning against both the signing statements of Bush and the executive orders of same - that he is quite willing to "rule" by the same means.

Bury your head in the sands by continuing to believe that all that is wrong with this country lies squarely on the heads of the right and together the politicians will continue to erode our constitutional freedoms of protection from them.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I explained that the bipartisanship of this deal can at least partly be attributed to the right's successfully painting the left as soft on terror, so the Dems wouldn't take that risk on a major election cycle.

One more time, this bill has little or no new effect upon the American citizen. It is a bad bill for a variety of reasons, but neither of us are in any more practical danger of being disappeared by it than we were by previous incarnations of the Patriot Act (which I also oppose).

[-] 1 points by mirko2 (23) 2 years ago

as i can notice, in the end of this discussion you deny your claim? so, you find Obama be fascistic character also?

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

No. Fascist has a particular, specific historic meaning. It refers to the people that murdered most of my family in Auschwitz. Using the word to describe this is belittling the horror of real fascism, and spitting on the graves and ashes of those who were real victims of real fascism.

[-] 1 points by mirko2 (23) 2 years ago

these are definitions

: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>

often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

i suppose it is a comment.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

And Obama, for all his faults - and they're big ones in my opinion - doesn't come close to your definition, regardless of how melodramatically and inappropriately you wish to characterize him.

His primary fault is his lack of balls, his centrism, not his autocratic nature.

[-] 1 points by mirko2 (23) 2 years ago

Most of the Nazi state supporters where faceless bureaucrats.

anyway, can you imagine more control than taking away all citizen rights with one bill?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Sigh.....

CONGRESS wrote this bill. The president wrote a signing statement that NULLIFIES most of its enforcement.

You don't even know who to blame!

[-] 2 points by mirko2 (23) 2 years ago

the one who has the power to stop it and did not use that power.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The power to stop it? How? It passed the Senate 99 to 1. His veto would have been overturned.

As it is he was able to negotiate concessions based on his promise to sign the law. And between his signing statement and Feinstein's amendment the effect on US citizens is negligible at most.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

His veto would possibly have been overturned - and then he would have no recourse but to sign it and include a signing statement.

However, his veto may not have been completely overturned without a more clear language of the controversial parts....that is the point of the President's veto power - to send back to Congress legislation that he feels is a threat in its current language....

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

THe vote in the Senate for this bill was 93 to 1. The congress has a repelitan majority. There was no change at al that that a veto wouldn't be overturned.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

You miss the point. He didn't like the bill. He could have vetoed it regardless of whether or not it was overturned. He didn't. Add to that the fact that he insisted that language which clearly protected US citizens was removed....suspicious behavior.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I basically agree that he should have vetoed it. I have said so several times.

My only point is about the collective hysteria I'm seeing about it. this bill didn't change much at all. But without getting a new congress, the Patriot Act and faux paranoia that motives its existence, upon which this legislation ids based, won't be repealed anytime soon.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Senator Feinstein’s amendment, which would have limited applicability of the NDAA’s detention provisions to terrorism suspects captured abroad, was rejected in a 45-55 vote.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Her amendment excluding American citizens was included in the final bill that was signed.

[-] 1 points by mirko2 (23) 2 years ago

it is natural thing to use veto right when you see fascistic law in front of you. if you are not fascistic character.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I'm beginning to come around to that position. I just learned that payment to the troops would not be halted right away if a veto would have been issued, and that changes everything for me.

Even if the veto were overturned, the principle is just too important not to have taken a strong stand.

[-] 2 points by mirko2 (23) 2 years ago

cool thing to apologize fascism.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Okay...I see you are now coming to a more full understanding of why many of us think the President was duplicitous in this whole thing. A) He insisted that the language objected to was put in the bill and other language removed B) IF he really objected to the the implications of martial law that could later be imposed either by HIS administration or a future administration he should have VETOED the bill C) the American people were once again subjected to fear tactics to push through a bad bill - i.e. that the military - included active duty and vets - would not be paid if this bill wasn't passed.

How many times have our politicians used that kind of fear to impose their will on us? How many times have we heard that cutting spending means cutting police and fire and teachers? WHY is always those positions? Why isn't it the funding for school improvements that are given to NEW schools under use it or lose it requirements? Why isn't it the funding for the top end salaries of administration? Why is it that all the cops in my area are driving new Ford Mustangs and/or Dodge Challengers on the highways and byways but our teachers are being cut?

Because instead of seeing their lies and manipulations for what they are - two parties pretending to fight over issues when in fact - behind the scenes they are actually working together to erode our rights - we continue to fight over which side is right and which is wrong.

This bill - if for no other reason that it has gotten the American public frightened of its own government - should NEVER have been signed.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Well see, now I don't agree with you. I think the congress was dumb and misguided and the president caved to political pressure. I don't believe there is massive behind the scenes duplicity for the purpose of eroding our rights, even if that's the end result.

I think this bill should have been vetoed. I have absolutely no doubt his veto would have been overwritten and the gesture nothing other the symbolic. But that gesture should have been made regardless.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Again, Levin testified to the fact that the amendment to protect US citizens was removed at the President's request. Then, he issues a signing statement .....this is a slight of hand...What part of that do you not understand?

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 2 years ago

What does this mean? can you explain please?

[-] 0 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

This is not true. A signing statement has no real impact on the law. He can rescind it at will and it has no impact on future administrations. He did betray everyone who voted for him and he has does so on more occasions than anyone should be willing to forgive. All you can do is hope that he is playing the far right and will start delivering on the promises he made while running for the office in 2008, but he has never shown me anything that could actually make me believe that he is waiting for a lame duck term to turn the tables on Wall Street. Not even his Health Care Reform Act was any real success for the people of this nation, because the best part of it (public plan) was removed and the savings that could have benefited the majority of the public was lost. He hasn't lived up to his promise to reform campaign financing and I don't believe he will. The alleged racist Ron Paul shows more promise as a candidate than President Obama has shown as a president.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Yes, he can rescind it (and it is a very bad law) but until he does, I won't cry wolf. If, at any time in future, another president rescinds it, it will most likely go to the Supreme court.

As of now, even without the signing statement, it explicitly exempts US citizens.

"The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." (Page 362 of the bill).

[-] 2 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

You are wrong: There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

Here's what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Why are you listening to Lindsey Graham's interpretation? He will say or do anything to harm this administration, including lying through his teeth. He has done so in the past, and I have little doubt he is doing so now.

Whatever you think of this administration (and I might even agree with much of the negative) Graham is a scoundrel whose every syllable is to be suspected on its face.

I directly cut and pasted the applicable section of the bill right on these fora. It explicitly exempts American Citizens from military detention. Read it yourself instead of relying on Graham. The signing statement further supports it, and Feinstein's amendment ensures that no change in constitutional rights for american citizens can be effected y this bill, neither granting new rights or eliminating any of them.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

So, what exactly is the reason for the signing statement that president Obama signed? Can you provide a rationale that doesn't include detention of U.S. citizens?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The signing statement was precisely to PROTECT citizens from unlawful military detention. Didn't your read it?

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Yes. Thank you for proving my point

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I don't see how I did. It FURTHER guarantees that no citizen is effected BEYOND what the legislation disallows. There was some language in the law that was a bit fuzzy and could be abused. The signing statement makes sure it it can't be misinterpreted.

Page 362: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

The fuzzy language is the word "requirement". It could have been "permission" to make it ironclad. But that word, too could have had consequences. If a citizen was in the process of, say, planting an IED, (unlikely, but I'm exaggerating for the sake of the argument) the military would be unable to seize him. So the word requirement was used instead. Nevertheless the language of the bill goes further, saying that no detention could go forward outside the permissions granted by the constitution.

Lindsey Graham, consistent with his history, is a liar.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

"It FURTHER guarantees that no citizen is effected BEYOND what the legislation disallows" This sentence negates itself, because you are saying that no citizen is effected by what this law doesn't allow. Wha Wha WHAT! or more aptly, Duh. Who would be affected by what a law doesn't allow? The bill seems to have your logic running around in circles, chasing its tail, so I doubt that you have a true grasp on the language in the bill, especially if you read it more than once. Final thought: Why would you, me or president Obama sign a law that has fuzzy logic that requires a signing statement. Don't you think a law that could mean indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens should be clear? And a signing statement seems to me to be a tool to get people like you to accept a law that is easily misunderstood. Problem is, the signing statement doesn't guarantee that the president who signed it won't utilize those fuzzy parts that you seem unsure about and it definitely doesn't stop the next president from enacting that fuzzy language to detain you, me or anyone they say conspired against the United States does it?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Ok, i'll try this again, since I haven't been clear enough, apparently.

The bill itself exempts citizens and legal residents from military detention. However, its language isn't as strong as I would like it, and leaves a small, very small danger of misinterpretations being applied that would expand its purpose beyond what it is intended to do. (Much legislation is like that, not just this piece of crap). The signing statement insures that, at least on his watch, that misinterpretation cannot be applied.

For the umpteenth time, I oppose this law. I believe it should have been vetoed, even if the effect would have been symbolic alone. But the terror surrounding it is misplaced.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

So, now it's a piece of crap? You sound like Newt Gingrich or worse still . . . Mitt Romney, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich, no worse still Mitt Romney, no worse still Newt Gingrich

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Show me when or where i EVER characterized this bill as anything else.

You are exhibiting the same paranoid hysteria that I have addressing. It is ugly and stupid.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Well I am sorry if I misunderstood your viewpoint, but it seemed as if you were defending this bill as something that protected the citizens of the U.S. rights and that the signing statement as a guarantee that the more heinous aspects of the bill could ever be enacted. And any paranoia that is exhibited when talking about our government these days, because all of the conspiracies are starting to reveal themselves in our daily lives: The police attacking peaceful protesters in New York. Obama hiring one of the very people ( Larry Summers) who engineered deregulation and the elimination of Glass-Stegall. How is is paranoid to think that the government isn't looking out for the people when not a single person has been held accountable for the fraud that was part of the collapse of our economy. This is the same logic that was prevalent before we went to war in Iraq: Those who opposed it were deemed unpatriotic, even though millions went to the street to protest it here at home and worldwide. We all know that Bush got America in that war under false pretenses, but he has never been blamed by anyone in authority, let alone, held accountable. The only person who was behind the scenes during Bush's administration that admitted Bush sought evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 was Richard Clarke who said that Bush implicitly had he seek out a connection that did NOT exist. So, who shouldn't be paranoid these days? It makes more sense than burying your head in the sand and hoping for the best, as you seem to be doing.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Reply to you post below:

There is a vast space between hiding one's head in the sand and paranoia. That space is best occupied by looking at the actual evidence. The evidence in this bill is that it does very little beyond what we already have in the way of erosion of rights. The basic premise of teh Patriot Act must be overturned, but this particular bill, in an of itself, doesn't introduce substantial new harm.

And that's why I object to the hysteria around it. It should be fought, It should be fought hard. But not for the minor new provisions, rendered even more minor by the signing statement and Feinstein's amendment, but for the overall and real harm of all the legislation that stems from the Patriot Act.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

ok. got it.

[-] 0 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 2 years ago

That signing statement has no legal binding. He can do whatever he wants. He just added that statement to sugar coat it for americans. He is not bound by law just because he added that statement. America is fucked!

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You are simply mistaken. It amends the law, many would argue extra-legally, but it amends it no less in practice. Bush used them to effectively to do that during his term, completely tying the hands of various regulatory agencies, and Obama has just done it now.

America may very well be fucked, (and I think it is - which is why I support OWS as strongly as I do) but its not fucked because of this.

[-] 0 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 2 years ago

Well I hope you're willing to eat your words when he starts arresting citizens for simply disagreeing with him. The protestors will be the first to get it. I don't agree with this but the fact is obamas admin were the ones who argued for this provision to be added to the bill. What does that tell you?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Considering this only applies to people on foreign soil. I don't think that's a likely possibility.

[-] 1 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 2 years ago

You might wanna read the thing instead of listening to what the dinosaur media tells you. It makes america a battlefield. Please read the bill. Its right there in black and white.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I did. Section 1021 and Section 1022 expressly excludes American citizens and resident aliens from military detention. (I believe it was on page 362.) Feinstein's amendment also makes citizens off limits.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

You are wrong. The amendment that would have limited it was rejected. The one that was passed is ambiguous.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I agree that the wording could have been tighter. But it is still pretty good. Read it yourself. Page 362: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

[-] 7 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I'm sick and tired of people asking "What has Obama done?" So here's a list of things he's done since he's been in office. Remember: He was elected President. He wasn't elected Jesus!

Not everyone will be happy with everything on this list or even agree about some of them, but it is substantial nonetheless:

  1. Saved the collapse of the American automotive industry by making GM restructure before bailing them out, and putting incentive money to help the industry

  2. Shifted the focus of the war from Iraq to Afghanistan, and putting the emphasis on reducing terrorism where it should have been all along

  3. Relaxed Anti-American tensions throughout the world

  4. Signed order to close the prisoner “torture camp” at Guantanamo Bay

  5. Has made the environment a national priority, and a primary source for job creation

  6. Has made education a national priority by putting emphasis and money behind new ideas like charter schools, but speaking directly to school children in telling them they have to do their part.

  7. Won the Nobel Peace Prize

  8. $789 billion economic stimulus plan

  9. Appointment of first Latina to the Supreme Court

  10. Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles

  11. Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans

  12. Renewed dialogue with NATO and other allies and partners on strategic issues.

  13. Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force… this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.

  14. Better body armor is now being provided to our troops

  15. “Cash for clunkers” program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulates auto sales

  16. Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan

  17. Closed offshore tax safe havens

  18. Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan

  19. Ended media “blackout” on war casualties; reporting full information

  20. Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts

  21. . Ended media blackout on war casualties and the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB.

  22. Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules

  23. Ended previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings

  24. Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports

  25. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has created 2.1 million jobs (as of 12/31/09).

  26. Ended previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions

  27. Ended previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back

  28. Ended previous policy on torture; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with the Geneva Convention standards

  29. . Launched Recovery.gov to track spending from the Recovery Act, an unprecedented step to provide transparency and accountability through technology.

  30. Ended previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry’s predatory practices

  31. Ended previous “stop-loss” policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date

  32. Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources

  33. Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient

  34. Established a new cyber security office

  35. Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children

  36. Expanding vaccination programs

  37. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses

  38. . Provided the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with more than $1.4 billion to improve services to America’s Veterans.

  39. Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research

  40. Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools

  41. Responded with compassion and leadership to the earthquake in Haiti

  42. Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters

  43. . Launched Business.gov – enabling conversation and online collaboration between small business owners, government representatives and industry experts in discussion forums relevant to starting and managing a business. Great for the economy.

  44. Improved housing for military personnel

  45. Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals

  46. Changed failing war strategy in Afghanistan.

  47. Improving benefits for veterans

  48. Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants…) after years of neglect

  49. Donated his $1.4 million Nobel Prize to nonprofits.

  50. Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program

  51. Provided tax credits to first-time home buyers through the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009 to revitalize the U.S. housing market.

  52. Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel

  53. Increasing student loans

  54. Instituted a new policy on Cuba, allowing Cuban families to return “home” to visit loved ones

  55. Cracked down on companies that deny sick pay, vacation and health insurance to workers by abusing the employee classification of independent contractor. Such companies also avoid paying Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes for those workers.

  56. Limited salaries of senior White House aides; cut to $100,000

  57. Limits on lobbyists’ access to the White House

  58. Protected 300,000 education jobs, such as teachers, principals, librarians, and counselors through the Recovery Act that would have otherwise been lost.

  59. Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration

  60. Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act on February 4, 2009, provides quality health care to 11 million kids – 4 million who were previously uninsured.

  61. Lower drug costs for seniors

  62. Making more loans available to small businesses

  63. Many more press conferences and town halls and much more media access than previous administration

  64. . Signed the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, the first piece of comprehensive legislation aimed at improving the lives of Americans living with paralysis

  65. New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans

  66. Announced creation of a Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record for members of the U.S. Armed Forces to improve quality of medical care.

  67. New federal funding for science and research labs

  68. New funds for school construction

  69. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending

  70. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices

  71. . Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals.

  72. Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren’t even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan

  73. Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions

  74. Provided tax credit to workers thus cutting taxes for 95% of America's working families.

  75. Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic

  76. Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research

  77. . Helped reverse a downward spiral of the stock market. On January 19, 2009, the last day of President Bush's presidency, the Dow closed at 8,218.22. In February 2010, the Dow closed at 10,309.24

  78. Renewed loan guarantees for Israel

  79. Restarted the nuclear non-proliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols

  80. Provided attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles.

[-] 7 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

List, continued:

81.. Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters

82.. Sent envoys to Middle East and other parts of the world that had been neglected for years; reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy

83.. Unveiled a program on Earth Day 2009 to develop the renewable energy projects on the waters of our Outer Continental Shelf that produce electricity from wind, wave, and ocean currents. These regulations will enable, for the first time ever, the nation to tap into our ocean’s vast sustainable resources to generate clean energy in an environmentally sound and safe manner.

84.. Signed national service legislation; expanded national youth service program

85.. States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards

86.. Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced

87.. Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job

88.. The FDA is now regulating tobacco

89.. Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date.

90.. The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010

91.. The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying

92.. The “secret detention” facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed

93.. US financial and banking rescue plan

94.. US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast

95.. . Signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending in the defense procurement and contracting system.

96.. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office

97.. Improved relations with Iran

98.. Improved U.S. policy on climate change

99.. Set timetable for exiting Iraq (already started removing troops)

100.. Improved relations with Russia

101.. Improved relations with the Islamic World

102.. Made progress towards greater cooperation on limiting nuclear proliferation

103.. Economic stimulus plan has created jobs. (Unemployment rate decreasing)

104.. Drastically slowed down the recession

105.. Saved Wall Street

106.. Passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act (equal work for equal pay) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act_of_2009

107.. HEALTHCARE REFORM

108.. Ordered the military operation that killed Osama Bin Laden

109.. After signing a necessary spending bill that included NDAA, wrote a signing statement that nullified its enforcement, rendering the legislation toothless and meaningless.

110.. Saved America from a second Great Depression.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Great job, and brought the Iraq war to an end,and got Oslama, I may have missed them on your list.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

Holy crap. Do you work for Obama? Good job with the list.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

No, not at all. Nor are you likely to find someone as disappointed in him or as critical of him regarding his handling of a number of things.

I'm just sick to death about people from all sides of the political spectrum talking out of ignorance or a preexisting agenda that has nothing to do with him.

Criticising him for not doing enough or doing the wrong things is fine, and many things can be debated. But saying he accomplished nothing is stupid and goes against the facts.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

I agree with you. Thanks for articulating all of that.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

He is way in over his head. He is an affirmative action president who took advantage of the times to get elected. His point right now of creating class warfare should tell you enough of his primary thought. Class warfare has never worked in the US.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That is an overtly racist pronouncement.

And class warfare, if you haven't noticed, has been waged for the last 30 years or so by the 1% against the the middle class and poor.

You area racist stupid troll scumbag.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

I think at least 1% of the people in these forums are racist stupid trolls.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Why is it racist if its true, Do you know how he got accepted where he did? To steal your comment. most mainstream commentators know he was pushed forward by his category. Funny how he went from Occidental to Harvard.

Sorry class warfare has not been waged for the past 30 years. More people have been brought out of poverty than in any time in our history.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Your bigotry is beneath contempt. Perhaps he got from Occidental to Harvard because he was fucking brilliant. He was also the Editor of the Harvard Review. Affirmative action up your ass, bigot.

As to class warfare, you are blind. (If only you were colorblind as well.)

50% of Americans now live near or below the poverty line today. For the last 30 years, the top 1% has increased its wealth by over about 250% while the middle class has barely gained more that 30%. In the meantime, expenses for the middle class have grown by well over the gains in income, not only nullifying their gains, but pushing them into debt.

And the last decade has seen real losses in income even before the recession. THis whole movement is about what everyone knows, income inequity has grown to be greater in the US than in any other country in the developed world. 1% of the population owns 43% of its wealth. 10% own about 80%. That's class warfare, your deliberate obfuscations notwithstanding.

So fuck you all around, your racist troll.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Boy, that's really good use of language. Don't get your way so you stomp your feet!!!

According to IRS data median income has increased over the last 30 years it just has not gone up as much as your vaunted 1%. These numbers are skewed as well since 47% of the population don't pay taxes.

The percent of people in poverty has decreased since 1980 but has increased as this recession has taken hold.

The country that doesn't have income inequality - Greece.

Nice way to call me a bigot when you can' take the truth. If he was so f_ brilliant, why didn't he make Harvard straight out of Punahou? You obviously don't know the story.

But go back and he keep reading Krugman.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

47% of the people don't pay taxes? More libertardian right wing LIES.

They pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, telephone bill taxes, and a host more. You are a lying, distorting racist bigot prick. Fuck you and the whore that bore you.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

According to the IRS 46% of people do not pay federal income tax. The median income data is provided by the IRS which is obviously just the Federal tax.

How old are you - 18?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You did not say INCOME taxes, you said taxes, period. Your intention was to mislead painting a picture of of the bottom 47% as freeloaders. It is blatantly dishonest, as is everything else you say, think or do, you racist bigot prick.

Go such a Koch.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

You obviously don't pay taxes so you don't know where the data comes from.

So you must be 18 and never had sex. "Go suck...", come on, that's the best you can do. Grow up.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Reply to scumbag post below:

35, 72,,, 128 these, too are numbers found in IRS documents. They, too are cherry picked so they have no meaning. Yours are presented to deceive. 47% of the people, while paying no income taxes pay all SORTS of other taxes. They are NOT getting a free ride, as you wish to imply.

Your very mention of affirmative action is nothing but an appeal to race. That is why it is racist: your intention is racist.

You are a mendacious racist scumbag, and this "discussion" is over. You should (and probably will) rot in hell.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Ew, big guy, calm down. So you are saying that I am incorrect, that he wasn't a product of affirmative action. You just don;t want to talk about it. He is learning on the job and doesn't know how to get the economy going again. He doesn't understand why his solar energy investments are panning out. he doesn't understand why the banks aren't lending. We have a real problem.

I'm not the one throwing invectives around.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Get a conscience, you lying racist bigot prick. I know exactly where the data comes from: the cherry picking CATO institute. It does not refute the fact that your assertion that 47% of the people in the country pay no taxes is a transparent lie you tried to pawn off as truth until you were confronted by the truth and exposed for your attempted deception.

You have no honest bone if your body

Go such the Koch you kneel before.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

What is your infatuation with sex. Are you a fat guy who never got any?

The data is straight from IRS data and has been widely commented. To use your verbiage, most economist agree with these numbers.

I'm still racist because Obama is a affirmative action baby. You still haven't told me how he went from Punahou to Occidental to Harvard.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Wasn't that due to Social Security? And haven't enough been pushed back into poverty in the past 30 years for you to see a pattern?

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

There isn't social security in China and the foreign countries. When you look at the year by year data the only correlation appears to economic growth and recessions.

Poverty Rates:

1975 - 12.3% 1980 - 13.0% 1985 - 14% 1990 - 13.5% 1995 - 13.8% 2000 - 11.3% 2005 - 12.6% 2010 - 15.1%

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

So, why don't you move to China if it offers what you are looking for? I love when people compare America to countries that they would never choose to live in. I love when people like you say we should be more like countries that have a recent history of denying human rights and have a government that you would never stand behind.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

China's move to free markets has reduced poverty in China. I never said anything about their human rights record.

The US was founded on individual liberty and you want to take those liberties away by taking money from people to give to others. It's pretty simple.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

As far as China is concerned. Would you prefer the government that the people of China have? If not then how could you even think to imply that we should emulate it? I can only imagine that whatever they did or are doing or will do has, in part, to do with the how that government works. For example, I have seen videos where the government simply takes over housing by kicking the current residents out. Now whether or not this action improves the people's situation, is that what you would agree to? If not, then please don't compare any other aspect of the U.S. to China.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

You are wrong about who wants to take money from whom. If you look at the median income or the incomes of the middle class, it is the wealthy who want to take away the money of the middle class. How can you see it any other way? If you're not wealthy, does your money go further than that of your parents or does more it go to sustaining your existence? If you've worked over the last two decades, has your income increased appreciably? I can say that mine has, but the cost of living has outpaced it. How about you? You want to say I believe the rich should be forced to give their money to the rest of us, but this is not true. I do not begrudge the rich for being rich, I begrudge them when their monetary gains come at the expense of the rest of us. In other words, don't get rich by causing harm to others.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

How are the rich taking money away from others? The only people who fall into that category are bank employees who receive the subsidy and I am completely against the bailouts. Let Kodak fail.

Median incomes according to IRS data has gone up but not as much as the higher end. This happens in growing economies. The country with very little dispersion between the top and bottom is Greece.

If you want to aim for equality then you won't have liberty but if you goal is liberty that is your best chance of equality. Why, because the only way you make everybody the same is to to take from one to give to another.

The bigger question is why income inequality has happened in all growing countries, not just the US and why. What impact does low labor costs from China have on it. Not sure on this.

[-] 2 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Thought you might like to learn how Corporations are stealing our democracy and our liberty: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forget-stocks-or-bonds-invest-in-a-lobbyist

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Are you accounting for the rise in cost of living when you say median incomes are going up according to the IRS, because if the median wages go up less than the cost of living than your statistics are short-sided. As far as the banks being the only places that received a subsidy, are you mad. The banks did get bailed out and they gambled yet again with the bailout money. The Auto makers got bailed out. The oil companies receive subsidies even in years when they are making more than ever before. Most corporations reported record level of profits while laying off more people than in recent history. You people who defend the rich always look at one part of statistics. .. The part that would prove your point except for the other factors that you guys love to discount. And one of the biggest breaks that wealthy businesses got through lobbying was a 5% tax on money that they repatriated from off-shore accounts. It is really troubling to hear anyone say that the poor shouldn't be allowed to receive help, when the biggest beneficiaries of welfare are corporations and the wealthy. And if you are for the flat tax, which is another way to benefit the rich while hurting the porr, you're more naive than you realize. 9-9-9, or whatever the republican presidential candidates want to make that flat tax would never pass, because there is no benefit to congressmen and women, in either party, who need to give corporations and the wealthy a reason to donate to their campaign. In other words, if you have a flat tax, why would a corporation need to lobby for tax breaks, so why would they need to donate to any campaigns. And the answer to your question as to why income inequality has happened in every country is because the rich (or those in power) have more power than those who actually need the money in every country. I would love however to hear your theory on why the rich get richer, because I doubt that you can discount that they have greater influence over legislation than everyone else. Just look at Citizens United, how could anyone believe that corporations should have the freedom of speech based on their money. Because you know what happens when freedom of speech is includes money? The more money you have the louder your speech. And besides this, how could it be that corporations can exhibit their freedom of speech through money, but people can't express their freedom of speech through actual speech, as in Occupy Wall Street. And what liberty are you talking about? When the country was better off, there was more liberty then there is now: refer to previous statement about the freedom of speech. Please describe the liberties that have been taken away from the rich? PLEASE, because your argument that this is a lack of liberty that is holding the rich back is ridiculous. The rich are the only ones who have benefited in recent years, so what liberties have they lost? Let Kodak fail, where was this free market rationale when the banks were on the verge of failure? And now the banks are bigger then before the collapse, so how did they get hurt by the lack of liberty that you speak of? What impact does low labor costs in China have on inequality? You are rather ignorant. Low labor in China allows corporations from the U.S. to go to China to get products made cheaper. That's fine, but don't allow those companies that show no loyalty to the U.S. to continue to benefit from bailouts (Auto industry that outsourced jobs) paid by U.S. taxpayers. The Global economy is bad for all countries, because corporations large enough to bounce around the globe based on low wages and fewer benefits will do just that. I found it ironic when a few years back, people in Mexico were protesting that American factories were leaving to go to India because they had lower wages. These were factories that were relocated to Mexico from the U.S. only a decade or two prior because wages were cheaper in Mexico. So, now you've got these corporations coming back to the U.S. (manufacturing is supposedly making a come back in the U.S.), but the wages are now half of what they were in every single case that I've heard of (half). Has the cost of living been cut in half. . . No, so the products that we still have to buy cut into our salaries at twice the percentage that they did before, so corporations still make the same amount of money on the smaller amount of funds that WE THE PEOPLE now earn. The biggest irony in all of this is that there are corporations (Indian corporations) that are now considering outsourcing to the U.S., because our wages are now lower than those in India. That is how low costs in China affect us. Where do you think all of the manufacturing jobs went over the past few decades? Products were still being manufactured. I'm sure you've bought some of those cheap products at the expense of your liberty, because you now have fewer opportunities than before, because you have less money. Unless you're rich, which in that case good for you and I mean that sincerely, unless you deliberately made that money at the expense of someone else.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Do you not believe in paragraphs.

Banks shouldn't have been bailed out in 2008 as well as the auto companies. Let the market work and we would be out of this downturn now.

Corporations shouldn't get subsidies and simplifying the tax code and eliminating deductions would do this. Your right without the incentive to avoid tax you won't do it. Don't give people and corporations the incentive to avoid taxes and that influence is gone.

I have no problem with low cost products. Let the competition decide if the domestic producer or the import is better.

You right labor costs are beginning to equalize faster than expected and manufacturing is coming back to the US.

[-] 1 points by TrollDestroyer2000 (29) 2 years ago

oh ya hes done a bang up job improving relations with Iran.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Actually, he has compared to Bush. Regardless, did you not read the part about not having to agree with every SINGLE thing on the list? (I don't: I culled it from various sources.)

But the list as a whole belies the contention of the OP, and lays bare its preposterousness.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 2 years ago

not enough sorry.

[-] 1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

I see a couple of good things in your list, and a pile of horrible things, and a lot of thing that are a matter of great debate, like 110.. Saved America from a second great depression. 103.. Economic stimulus plan created jobs.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

As I said, not everyone will agree about everything on the list, but its very existence belies the assertion that he has done no good at all.

I personally think that the bank bailouts saved us from a complete collapse (most economists agree) and that the stimulus package saved at least 300,000 teacher's jobs and probably a few million more others, and probably created a couple of million as well. Without it,unemployment would have been even worse that it is. (Again, most economists agree, based on evidence.)

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

You are always saying that most economist agree with your statements, that is actually not true. There are many economists that disagree with the statement that unemployment would have been worst without TARP and TALF. You only listen to the economists you want to listen to.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

and you are listening to Faux nuuz

As soon as Leman Bros failed, suddenly everyone in Congress woke up - at least for a minute - and passed the first bail-out measure under Bush.

It would have been great if we could have let them all fail - but the consequences to the economy as a whole would have been a complete disaster.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Since we still haven't cleared the market, you don't know what would have happened if AIG fell. One thing is for sure, we would be growing faster now.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

right . . . play to the uncertainty and the unknown . . .

What we do know is that everyone in Congress was screaming that same thing . . .

And as soon as Leman Bros fell they all changed their little tune, didn't they

Yes

they

did.

I am confident you are full of bullshit.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

That's great that you are so confident, I can tell that you are pretty educated by your use of words!!!

It was the Treasury that was concerned about the contagion effect after Lehman Brothers. If we had let AIG go bankrupt, then the contagion would have probably spread but there was money on the sidelines waiting to jump on attractive opportunities. Just look at how quickly MUFG made their purchase.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

yeah-ya

and look at how much is still sitting on the sidelines - isn't it like a trillion dollars

and we all know that's the tip of the ice berg - so lets just call it what it is, shall we?

hostage taking

the same process of negotiation the repelicans are themselves so very fond of . . .

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

I don't understand what you are saying The money is sitting on the sidelines because there is very little confidence about the future and where the regulations are going.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

111 - Allowing people who couldn't afford to purchase homes buy them and then go into foreclosure

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

Come on, SteveKJR, the economy was bleeding jobs when Obama took office. And, foreclosures are mainly due to job loss and the enormous decreases in value.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

And predatory lenders offering loans to people they knew could not pay them back. Don't forget the predators.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

Yes. True.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

You're right - the economy was bleeding jobs when he took office - but again he felt that he could "spend the country back to a good economy".

It didn't work - and if it did it was only temporarily. But again geeting back to the problem -

The reason the economy is where it is today is because of the excessive spending while Bush was in office. Was it his fault - no.

Was it the banks fault - to some degree.

You know as well as I people were spending money like water and buying anything they could because "times were good".

They weren't concerned about the future - they didn't plan for it and the "housing bubble" collapsed.

Todays society has "no value in what they own" - you can't deny that.

Years ago when someone purchased something - be it a car - a house or an appliance - they were good for their word - they would make every effort to pay that bill off - even if they had to sacrafice for it.

Not so today - things are "too easily" acquired and as a result we have a "spoiled society".

So, look for another 5 years for things to get better - regardless who is in office.

And just maybe the economy will rebound, we will have more responsible citizens and they will become "financially responsible" for all their purchasing decisions.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

Over-consumerism has been part of the problem, but decreasing wages, the repeal of Glass-Steagall and money in politics are all to blame, too.

The GFC has shed light on how poorly understood economics is. Obama did what he thought was right. It worked to an extent, but really, no one else has had any good ideas. Doesn't say much for economics as a field of study. Look at Europe right now. They haven't got any good ideas about what to do to avert a recession.

[-] 2 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The Economy isn't in the dumper because of excessive spending! It's in the dumper because of excessive tax breaks for the Rich who didn't need them, and everybody but you knows that!! Or wasn't you alive during the Clinton years.

It is the height of hypocrisy to continue to hold Bush and the Republican's blameless for their incompetent fiscal policies while you criticize Obama for everything he DIDN'T do because of Republican obstruction!

I mean, it's not like the Republican's supported everything he wanted to do, and it didn't work! Conservatives in fact obstructed, limited, delayed, and weakened everything he tried to do and that is what hasn't worked! The Stimulus package didn't have the intended effect because it spent too much, it's because it spent too little, and that aint Obama's fault!!

We are where we are because the Republicans know that if Obama did what he wanted to do we would in fact be producing jobs, and the Economy would be back on track. To deny that is Conservative Propaganda! (The next thing your gonna try to say is that the Stimulus package did not produce a single job! Right!)

You cannot deny that the Republicans primary goal is to make our President a one termer, and destroying the economy is the best way to do that! And, they have no clue what to do to make things better! Come on! How does restricting abortion create a better economy!

Before you start asking people what has Obama done in the last three years, you should ask what good has the entire Republican Party has done for America in the last 30 years!

And, not for nothing The President is absolutely right in believing that you have to spend yourself out of this Recession that Republicans put us in. Trickle Down Voodoo Economics don't work, and the sooner you accept that FACT, the better off the whole nation will be!

To paraphrase the Herminator, If things aren't better, "Don't blame Obama! Blame yourself!

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

So spending 4 trillion dollars by the Obama admin created jobs didn't it.

Giving 500 billion to a solar company that went belly up created jobs didn't it.

How has the "evil and rich" affected you and what you own? - it hasn't affecte me nor my income one bit.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

So mortgage lenders had no hand in getting these loans to those people who couldn't afford them? The loans didn't end up in anyone's hands by accident and to say that the bank had a little to do with the collapse is more than a white lie. The banks went in and offered loans to whoever would sign for them, no-docs, whatever proof they provided was accepted. When the Clinton Administration weakened regulation on derivatives and eliminated Glass-Stegall, the banks did exactly what one should have expected them to do, they merged and started offering bank products that no one had any control over. So, our economy collapsing was prompted by government deregulation, but it was the banking industry, which is even too bigger to fail that caused us all so much pain.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

But you must understand that the banks were "forced" into making those "toxic loans" and the governnment knew that there would be people who could not pay them back.

To balance the playing field, they guarenteed them. I took out a mortgage in 2008 through Wells Fargo (forget who owned it prior).

Anyway, I am in the process of doing a re-fi and you know what - my loan is backed by Fannie Mae.

Now from what I remember the last loan I took out in 2000 wasn't backed by fannie Mae.

The only loans backed by the government prior to this "toxic loan" issuance were VA loans.

So, the government knew very well what they were doing and the banks had no other choice.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

You sound like someone in a cult dude. The poor banks. They had to make those loans. The poor rich banks had to shell out money, because the big bad government forced them to. Almost all of the assholes that pushed for deregulation were from the banking industry and those who opposed the deregulation of derivatives and opposed the ultimate repeal of Glass-Stegall were from financial institutions like Goldman Sachs and Citicorp and when they were done pushing deregulation, they went back to work for these institutions. No one held a gun to anyone's head, and to say otherwise is ludicrous. The banks acted as the should have acted given the fact that our government was hijacked by people like Summers, Greenspan and Rubins, but they were never forced to act the way they did. You sir are truly brainwashed by the propaganda that threatens this country to this day and that is this: Big business needs tax payer dollars to survive, but the taxpayers who are losing their homes don't. How else could this sound reasonable to anyone who isn't rich. Wake up you Zombie

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

I must say, you sure paint a "rosy" picture don't you. Well let me say this.

I have survived a lot more difficulties then you will ever in your lifetime. You along with most of the X and Y generation haven't a clue as to what it takes to survive.

Why, because you along with the rest of that generation think that you should have everything that life has to offer without having to work for it.

You think it should be given to you right out of college.

Well it doesn't work that way and the people who are now in foreclosure found out the hard way.

I have been financing with banks for more then 30 years and I have never defaulted on a debt.

Why, because I made sure that I stand by my commitment to others. That can never be said about the x and y generation. They have no commitment to anyting let alone their mirrage.

Your generation, and I am assuming you are part of that generation, place no value on ownership, and as a result if it is lost tomorrow you don't care.

You'lll just go out and buy another whatever you think you need because you think that's what you deserve and you could care less if you can pay for it or not.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

So, I give you facts and you come back with person attacks, which by the way are all incorrect. Your point is invalidated by your assumption and refusal to stick to the facts. Your anecdotal tale of responsibility excludes the fact that the banks should have only loaned money responsibly and that the government should have governed responsibly. You did not address anything I said with a rational response, so I can only assume that you have nothing to add to this discussion.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You timeframe is bizarre. That happened during the PREVIOUS administration, as did the collapse that resulted. Tarp 1 happened during Bush2 when Obama and McCain were still running for office, remember?

Moron. Maybe you should blame him for Pearl Harbor, too.

A list was requested. I supplied one.

One can argue about any one or three of the items on it, but don't claim that there is no such list. Denying his accomplishments, - most of which occurred despite the most cynical, most obstructionist congress I have witnessed in my lifetime - even if the list were much smaller, is denying the truth, either because one is a disappointed progressive (as am I) and blinded by one's ideals, or a typical Obama hater who, blinded by that hate, will give him credit for nothing . The third category is someone who is so completely ignorant of anything at all, it's a wonder they can even type and post.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Well if it happened during the "previous Administration" as you say, then explain this

Why are the foreclosure rates still over 100,000 a month and why is the "home build market" flat.

And why is the economy still in the same condition with the spending of $4 trillion dollars within the last 2.5 years.

You see what you don't understand and don't want to understand is that 84% of the economy is proped up by the people of this country.

And you know what there are still a vast majority who are still into debt up to their eyeballs and have no equity because of their "foolish financial mistakes"

Prove me wrong there. "stuipid is as stuipid does" and the X and Y generation are the cause of the economic collapse

The "I want it all and I want it all now" generation - No concern about ownership in what they own - just like their mirrages.

Buy it today, get rid of it tomorrow and hell, we'll buy another one next week and put it on the charge card.

Wantint to own $45,000 suv's along with $300,000 houses all on $75,000 a year with no concern about what is going to happen down the road should they lose their jobs.

Yah, I'm wrong all right - you need to do you own research for it is apparent you have been living in a "cave" and have no knoledge of what caused the 'economic collapse" -

Sigining contracts for ARM's on property to be sold before it was up for renewal, buying property for 110% of the value of the property, buying property on a "interest only loan"

All with the idea of flipping the property to make hugh profits. Well, it "backfired" and now they are complaining about the "evil rich and wealthy"

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Stop commenting on what you clearly don't understand. The home building market is flat because of the recession, idiot. Nearly 50% of the people are living at or near the poverty level, idiot. How are they expected to buy and build new homes, idiot?

The sub-prime market blew up prior to Obama taking office. That's just the fact of it. Your declaring that Obama caused it is either the most ignorant thing I have ever read or the most psychotic. The multi-TRILLION dollar mess takes enormous time to clean up, especially when a cynical and obstructionist Congress doesn't allow you to do squat about it. Cancer exists today. Did Obama cause it, too?

What's more, you're on a psuedo-morality soapbox about the American public, not Obama. You're too stupid (or stooopid, if that's more understandable to you) to separate your contempt for your fellow Americans with your contempt for the current president.

Again, a list was requested. You can take issue with much on the one I provided, but it BELIES the claim that he is a do-nothing president with no positive accomplishments in administration/

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Yah and Bush wanted to stop lenders from allowing people with "less then worthy credit" to get loans.

Barny Frank - Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac - were the main characters in the play and the people were the "puppets".

People buying whatever they could and not being concerned about the consequences. Lying on their documents, allowing real estate assessments to be higher then the value of the property.

Yah, that was Bushes fault - OK.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

It certainly wasn't Obama's fault, you asswipe, and trying to pawn it off on him is pawning off a LIE of such transparent stupidity it's laughable. Obama may be guilty of a lot of things but the economic collapse and the bursting of the housing bubble is not among them, since they occurred BEFORE HE EVER TOOK OFFICE.

Fucking troll.

[-] -3 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Again, tell me why there are so many Americans in foreclosure.

I own a house and have for years and bought another one during that time and am not in foreclosure.

So tell me oh wise one - how come 6 million people are in foreclosure and the rest aren't.

[-] 3 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

OK, here are the facts for the 500th time.

Most of the people in Foreclosure are there because of Medical Bills they can't pay. Another large portion is due to loss of jobs and income which are due to Republican anti union policies! The rest of it is because Rich Land Speculators couldn't flip the properties they bought with Sub Prime loans. Only a small percentage is a result of regular people getting in over their heads! And. that's the inconvienent truth!

You're not in Forclosure because you still have a good job! What'll happen to your empire if you get sick or downsized! And, don't think it can't happen to you! That will be you first & last mistake! Or are you a rich trust fund kid? If so, then your opinion doesn't count.

Keep on Blaming Obama and see how that works out for your finances! Ask those good Republican Fire Fighters in Wisconsin how that works!

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

And just who own all those foreclosed "sub-prime notes" - the government - why - because they backed them they guarenteed them and they had to buy them back.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Look to the banks, troll.

Obama didn't put them into foreclosure. Neither did Bush. Neither did Frank. Neither did Clinton. The BANKS DID.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

So, when you go to a bank and sign a contract for a house and later on after excessive spending you can no longer afford it, it's the banks fault.

OK.

[-] 4 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The only place that ever happened is in Eric Cantors little mind. Stop repeating FOX News talking points. None of them are True!

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Troll, moron.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Oh I forgot to mention :

The "American Reinvestment Act - designed to force banks to issue sub-prime loans and if they didn't they would not be allowed to expand

Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and Frank Dodd knowing all well that there would be people who couldn't afford homes and they knew they would have to write it off as a loss and "you and I" wold foot the bill.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. You don't know shit beyond your tea party/Limbaugh talking points. The COMMUNITY Reinvestment Act forced no banks to do anything. And ALL government supported mortgages combined accounted for less that 6% of all the defaults that collapsed the housing bubble.

Creating toxic derivatives, undercapitalized and overleveraged were solely responsible for the crash, exactly the same as in 1929.

You are full of shit.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

I'm not footing the bill, I don't work. You are not footing the bill because you got tax cuts. China is footing the bill because idiots like you are too irresponsible to tax and spend wisely like a Democrat.

Careful where you stick the bill.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Do this one point at a time, and it will be torn to ribbons.

It's all just Limbaughesk. misdirection and out right lies.

Could have been copied right from CATO.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago
  1. Saved the collapse of the American automotive industry by making GM restructure before bailing them out, and putting incentive money to help the industry

2008 - Dec 19 The Treasury announces that it will make loans to General Motors and Chrysler to prevent bankruptcy. As President Elect, Obama is part of this decision during meetings with outgoing Bush regarding the bail out of the companies. Most of the GOP wanted to allow GM to go into bankruptcy immediately, believing that despite a bailout that would still be the end result - which it was.

His "restructuring" of the company benefited the UAW over the suppliers, dealers and investors (includes the middle class with their 401k's) - essentially stripping property rights in the doing.

Taxpayers "bought" GM stock when it had a value of $43.84 but sold it - on a limited basis that kept the value down and the Government ownership of the company up - at a value of $33.00 in 2010. Today, we still "own" something like 500 million shares of the company. IF the program was such a success, then why is that?

But, as an OWS supporter, you probably support government ownership of all industry right?

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago
  1. Shifted the focus of the war from Iraq to Afghanistan, and putting the emphasis on reducing terrorism where it should have been all along

The "surge" in Afghanistan actually began in 2007 with NATO members increasing their own presence there.

In the first five months of 2008, the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan increased by over 80% with a surge of 21,643 more troops, bringing the total number of U.S troops in Afghanistan from 26,607 in January to 48,250 in June. In September 2008, President Bush announced the withdrawal of over 8,000 troops from Iraq in the coming months and a further increase of up to 4,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

In response to the increased risk of sending supplies through Pakistan, work began on the establishment of a Northern Distribution Network (NDN) through Russia and several Central Asian republics. Initial permission for the U.S. military to move troop supplies through the region was given on January 20, 2009, (before the inauguration of Obama) after a visit to the region by General Petraeus

In January 2008 - again, before Obama was President, about 3,000 U.S. soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division moved into the provinces of Logar and Wardak. Afghan Federal Guards also fought along with U.S. Troops.

The idea that Obama was the one to "shift" focus from Iraq to Afghanistan is purely a political one - much like Obama's 2007 statement that he - unlike the then current president - was a constitutional law professor and therefore respected the "constitution"....and would not use signing statements and executive orders to get around the Congress.

The troops were the first wave of an expected surge of reinforcements originally ordered by George W. Bush.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I have no problem at all with the bail out of GM. The point of the bailout was not to protect short term investments or creditors, but to save jobs. What's more, if GM had collapsed, those stocks would be entirely worthless today instead of simply of smaller value, without hope of going back up in the future.

I have no problem with the US owning some stock, either (though I suspect your numbers). GM is a fairly healthy company now - miraculously - and as it continues to make gains the governement will be freer to divest itself in the stock.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

You are welcome to try to get the accurate number of stocks still held by the government - it was not easy to come by.

How many jobs were saved by the bailout? According to one study, the total fall out was approximately 250,000 jobs lost in 19 months and that was after they cut jobs in the attempt to avoid bankruptcy.

The point made by many is that the bail out did not save GM - it entered into bankruptcy anyway with the loss of jobs that the bailout was supposed to save.

Since you support the GM Bailout, then do you also support the bank bailouts?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The bailout did not save ALL jobs, but it saved a couple of million across America and a several tens of thousands at GM.

The bank bailouts stunk, but the alternative was a complete meltdown of the entire economy. MOst economists who are non-aligned say it would have resulted in a second Great Depression.

But, like so many, I'm incensed by the fact that they were given with few conditions, and that new strict banking and wall street regulations were not put in place in the wake of them. (That's mostly due to the Repelicans and the tea swillers, but Obama's lack of balls has a lot to do with it too. Including his not fighting for Elizabeth Warren when the time came.) I am also opposed to everything that happened that made the bail-outs necessary in the first place. Far stronger regulations should have been in place long before any crisis occurred, but it seems like the politicians and private sector alike had collective amnesia about the causes of the first Great Depression and its causes.

At any raet, GM is alive and running. That would not be the case without the bailout, and whatever jobs are left there wuold have been lost as well.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

See, I can agree with you on almost all points - until you have to put the partisan crap in there again....i.e. its the Republicans fault that the CEO's still got bonuses after TARP and so on....Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the house when TARP was written ..... Harry Reid was Senate Majority Leader - both of them Democrats and in those positions since January 2007.

Even when the Democrats have the majority in both Houses of Congress, partisans want to blame all the ills of the world on the Republicans. I'll say one thing - the Dems are very very good at demonizing the other side even on the bills they are responsible for.......but until the American Voter wakes up to this fact, not much is going to change in the country.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I never said it was the republican's fault that CEO's got bonuses. You're putting words in my mouth.

(BTW, no one could stop those bonuses, as they were bound by contract law. Nor do I even care about those bonuses: they aren't the primary issue.) The regulations I am talking about have to do with banking practices, particularly derivatives. Rules were proposed about them and were impossible to pass given they could never make it out of a filibustering, obstructionist wing of the Senate. democrats did not filibuster themselves. It was the Republicans who consistently abused that procedure. And it wasn't Democrats who blocked the nomination of Warren or hounded Van Jones out of the Administration. Those two people alone could have made real positive changes in Washington and were blocked from doing so by partisans on one side only. But as I said, Obama didn't have the sufficient balls to stand up to them.

You said the bailout of GM was worthless. I showed you that is wasn't.

As a preamble to my list, I said its point was not that everything on it would garner universal agreement, but that enough was on it to belie the assertion that Obama has accomplished nothing good. I will not argue or discuss further any one of those items on this particular thread. The OP called for a list. More than one was provided by more than one person. Any individual items one can be debated separately, on another thread.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Okay, lets focus on Dodd Frank - which is a regulatory bill correct? When was it passed by Congress and signed into law? While the Democrats had the majority in both houses of Congress. If they had problems getting the votes to pass it in a stronger form, then they had problems in their own party. Yet, the majority of people will still say it was the Tea Party and GOP who watered it down.

And speaking of putting words into someone's mouth...I never said the bail out to GM was worthless - I said it was done to supposedly prevent bankruptcy which it did not do. They ended up in bankruptcy after receiving billions of taxpayer money and after cutting up to 30,000 jobs. The bankruptcy was inevitable and led to the loss of thousands of more jobs, the payment of common stockholders pennies on the dollar. I said that many of those common stockholders were 401K holders - meaning that the middle class took hits on that bankruptcy.

Just like the stimulus that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8% and provide funding for "shovel ready" jobs that even the President later admitted didn't actually exist.

I agree that any further debate between us on this point is fruitless - basically because each new post just illustrates the partisan way in which you view the debate. There is not one post in which you do not put "blame" on either the Tea Party or the GOP or both. Until you get past that, there is no point.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I said I won't discuss further any individual items on the list, and I meant it. If you want to start another thread, maybe I'll engage you there.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

I agree that any further debate between us on this point is fruitless - basically because each new post just illustrates the partisan way in which you view the debate. There is not one post in which you do not put "blame" on either the Tea Party or the GOP or both. Until you get past that, there is no point.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

A real hack for the imperialist, pro-captialist Democratic Party. A lot of the stuff listed is stuff that happened to Obama, not anything that he pro-actively did, like undeservedly getting the Nobel Peace Prize. A lot of the other stuff was stuff that practually any Republican President would have done too, excepting that the Dems would have been reluctant to give them any credit for it, and a lot of the other stuff was just about increasing America's imperial strength or corporate power. Bailing out GM? Give me a break. Improving US weapons systems? Why? To improve US faultering imperial status in the world. Like Britain a century ago, the sun never sets on an American military base.

I don't know of any environmentalist that is especially happy with Obama's energy policy, being basically in bed with the petroleum interests. This is, after all, the guy who got more money from Wall Street than anyone. If they resent him it's because they think they can get an even better deal elsewhere, not because he gave them such a bad deal. Aid to the racist imperialist state of Israel? Give me a break. How about murdering US citizens and assassination as a tool of American foreign policy?

Who cares where the Dow closes or what shape undemocratic institutions like corporations are in? Of what relevance is that to American working people or the working people of the world. It's fine for the capitalists, but it doesn't feed, cloth or house the rest of us or even give us meaningful employment,

Fortunately, while most OWS activists undoubtedly voted for Obama they are deeply saddened by that choice. It's way too premature for OWS to be involved in the electoral arena. Meanwhile its intransigent opposition to the status quo is its defining characteristic.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 6 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

This is a list I've put together of all the bad things Obama's done. If anyone has more info please share links.

Wall Street's takeover of the Obama administration is now complete. "The mega-banks and their corporate allies control every economic policy position of consequence. Mr. Obama has moved rapidly since the November debacle to install business people where it counts most. Mr.William Daley from JP Morgan Chase as White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Gene Sperling from the Goldman Sachs payroll to be director of the National Economic Council. Eileen Rominger from Goldman Sachs named director of the SEC's Investment Management division. Even the National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon, was executive vice president for law and policy at the disgraced Fannie Mae after serving as a corporate lobbyist with O'Melveny & Roberts. The keystone of the business friendly team was put in place on Friday. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt will serve as chair of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/barack-obama-out-of-the-c_b_813027.html

He supported the bailouts of a fraudulent financial system that is extracting wealth from our country and stealing people's pensions and homes. The bailout money was used by the federal reserve to create 7.7 trillion dollars out of thin air for their own private interest, and Obama has yet to do anything about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BXPINPwp4w

Obama's new campaign guy his a Wall Street lobbyist

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/obama-defies-base-hires-wall-street-lobbyist-for-re-election-campaign/#ixzz1cQ6oOt4U

"Is this the United States congress, or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs?"-Dennis Kucinich

The Federal Reserve is not a government agency. It's a private for profit bank ran by frauds. Its a Ponzi scheme where they issue debt created from thin air and then they STEAL your tax money and put it in their wallets and their cronies' pockets. You know those trillions of dollars in government debt? Who do you think pays the interest on it?!?! WE DO! The Federal Reserve has no accountability and create trillions of dollars out of thin air for their own private interests all the while devaluing our US dollar. You don't see Obama trying to correct this fraudulent system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YimTs6Q_xD0

He's bombed more countries than Bush. Countries like Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan... etc

He extended the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html

He never actually closed guantanamo bay.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html

He lied about ending the wars in Iraq and the current withdrawal was scheduled by the Bush administration. And there is a billion dollar military base in Iraq and I guarantee you that it aint empty. The departure from Iraq was required by the 2008 Iraq-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement signed by Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and then-President George W. Bush and approved by the Iraqi parliament, giving it the status of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUTYL8HfCGo

Obama also turned his back on whistle blowers even though before his presidency he said they should be praised. A good man in the NSA named Thomas Drake spoke out against a system in the NSA that violates the 4th amendment as well as also speaking out against fraudulent acts, wasted funds, and more... and Obama supported Drake to be imprisoned.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

Obama also supported the patriot act, which essentially deletes the 4th amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqXmQYHV-1I

He's started unconstitutional acts of war against Libya, which he spoke out against when Bush did that to Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pVo7-gOkqo

HR 6166 passed in 2006. The difference between this and the provisions in the NDAA is the wording. The wording in the NDAA is much looser as it is "associated forces" as well as the restrictions are much looser as well. Will you remaining Obama fans just agree on the term George W Obama already?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU2_S2pK3bo

Obama signed for the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial into law under provisions of the NDAA and "designates the world as the battlefield and that includes the homeland." -quote senator Lindsey Graham who supported the bill and argued in it's favor.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/

“This bill [the NDAA] authorizes permanent warfare anywhere in the world. It gives the president unchecked power to pursue war. It diminishes the role of this Congress. The founders saw Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which places in the hands of Congress the war power, as essential to a check and balance against the executive abuse of power. This legislation diminishes Congress' role in that regard.” - Dennis Kucinich

In reference to the passing of the new NDAA the Armed Services Committee released this,"the threats posed by al Qaeda cells in Yemen and Africa underscore the evolving and continuing nature of the terrorist threat to the United States. The Conference Report ensures the United States will have the ability to meet this threat and neutralize terrorists from these groups and conduct effective interrogations." More war for Obama!

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=23d194d7-78c9-4c57-b2d9-31bc3bb7daeb

List of terrorist organizations our country could start war with and the countries they're in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations

"This [the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011] designates the WORLD as the battlefield... and that includes the homeland."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzFygkHgi34

Next stop Africa and Yemen!!! Maybe Iran or Syria next? Fulfill that cold war with some Operation Northwoods and go to war with Russia? Who knows? It's the government. It's a threat to national security to tell you the truth all the time.Maybe China a few years from now?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/obama-heads-to-asia-with-sharp-focus-on-chinas-growing-power/2011/11/10/gIQAOsQkBN_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/obama-us-to-send-250-marines-to-australia-in-2012/2011/11/16/gIQAO4AQQN_blog.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk

“We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.” -Cass R Sunstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration.

Oh and don't forget about this Hour long presentation in congress about Al Qaeda members being the Libyan rebels, as well as extremists, rapists, and murderers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G0pUEU603Q&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=42&feature=plpp_video

In case any of you don't like the first video because it's a republican here is super Liberal Dennis Kucinich railing against Al Qaeda in the rebels as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSUnluGSOdM&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=43&feature=plpp_video

And here is an article on the Libyan rebel leader admitting to having a bunch of Al Qaeda members in his "rebellion" which is actually just terrorism.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

And to all the remaining Obama fans, please don't try and accuse me of being in favor of Newt Gingrich or tell me some bullshit about McCain Palin. My criticism for Obama is simply based around facts and in no way means I support a GOP agenda. Obama is a fraud and so is Romney.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Damn,we agree.

[-] 5 points by PeterBurgess (5) from Bushkill, PA 2 years ago

Thanks for this question: In my view Obama has done many good things of great importance ... I will refine and expand the list later, but my interim list is as follows:

1 ... As an African American, Obama got elected to the Presidency of the United States ... thus making a statement to the whole world that almost anything is possible in the great United States of America

2 ... Early in the Obama Presidency he made an aspirational speach in Cairo about the hope that all people deserve ... that the USA would hold out a helping hand. He took a major step forward to have Islam a perfectly legitimate part of the global religious dialog.

3 ... Obama stabilized the US and global economy which was in free fall in the 4th quarter of 2008 after the bursting of the housing bubbles and housing related financial derivatives. Recently released documents under the Freedom of Information Laws show that the financial crisis at the end of the Bush Administration was even worse than reported at the time, and the actions of Paulson and Bernanke to address the crisis even more aggessive than we understood at the time. To stabilize the financial sector Obama has worked with a team that had long connections the sector ... in my view a good decision, but also limiting in terms of significant structural reform.

4 ... Obama addressed the health care mess in the United States. This effort resulted in some reform ... something that has eluded political leadership for more than four decades. This initiative showed the strength and weakness of the Obama spirit of cooperation, and the resulting law is something of a mess, but it is a very big start

5 ... Obama has moved ahead with significant pieces of legislation and regulation to make a repeat of the financial sector implosion much less likely. This is being aggressively opposed by Republicans and the financial sector. These controls are essential but cannot be imposed unilaterally by the President

6 ... Obama has listened to the top military leadership and provided much of the support they asked for ... in my view a good decision when there are troops in harms way. Nevertheless, the engagement in Iraq is winding down and the Al Queda that was demonized by the Bust administration after 9/11 has been substantially weakened. Many of the countries involved with the Bush - Cheney = Rumsfeld initiated War on Terror find themselves at odds with the USA, but I like to think that the Obama / Clinton dialog is more nuanced than anything that took place in the prior administration.

7 ... The role of the USA in the Arab Awakening ... specifically in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya ... has been very good. For a change the role of the US has not been excessive and heavy handed. The US has huge military power, but the hearts and minds of people are won by something very different. In my view Obama (and Secretary Clinton) understand this and it is a huge success for the USA

8 ... While I hate the whole idea of military might and the military industrial complex, the recently announced military contracts to strengthen the miliary of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Iraq is a US success and will be 'good' for the US economy for several years.

9 ... The catastrophic job losses in the USA in 2007 and 2008 have stopped under Obama ... but job recovery has been weak, and the housing sector remains in the doldrums. I do not know anyone in academia, in banking, in national, state or community government ... anywhere ... who knows what to do about this. As a onetime Keynesian Economist I would argue for very large government funded infrastructure investment and human capital investment programs, but this has been off the table since the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives in 2010.

10 ... According to reports President Obama has been able to raise substantial funds for his Presidential campaign. This is good because it improves his chances of reelection. This is bad because some ... or much ... of this money constrains what he is allowed to do.

11 ... Last the performance of the Obama himself and his administration should be assessed in the context of all of Washington being 'owned' by the infamous evil powerful 1%

In my view Occupy needs Obama to be reelected and we should do all it can to make that happen.

But Occupy should also figure out what needs to be done so that the society and economy of the United States and other countries get off a trajectory that is disastrous to one that has a future for all. This is possible, but requires new thinking that can come from Occupy way more efficiently than it will come from the Establishment

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Though normally I wouldn't be into revenge, he also got Osama, and I think that was an important forgien policy achiment.

[-] 3 points by jk1234 (257) 2 years ago

He ran a very convincing campaign for change you can believe in.

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Only 52.7% voted for him. Yes a majority, but not even close to a landslide.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

so in seven hours NO ONE can think to ask a GM employee ?
or a new supreme court justice ?
or Bin Laden ?
NO ONE ?
does this show closed minds or blind eyes ?
and yes - I have a list of his "wrongs"
but anti-Obama fanaticism - is not a pretty sight


To quote Henry Drummond { with some edits }-
Can't you understand? That if you take a president like Obama and you vilify him even when he is right, tomorrow you can make it a president romney?
And then you may turn Democrat against Progressive, and Prgressive against Liberal, and try to foist your own anti-Obama religion upon the mind of man. If you can do one, you can do the other.

Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding.

And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we'll be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the glorious ages of that Sixteenth Century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Maybe Obama should just choose not to run and let a real democrat run for president. He should endorse someone like Dennis Kucinich. We need the NEED act if we ever want real change. HR 2990 The National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2011.

[-] 2 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Excellent idea, thank you.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

ok- 100% honest - and not OWS/PC - I would love Dennis Kucinich for president - or Hillary who would never have let the republiclans steamroller our government - or Elizabeth Warren

But while I have found a huge percent of OWS people to be very smart with very well thought out positions - MOST SEEM TO DWELL IN THE ACEDEMIC / INTELLECTUAL WORLD

WE ARE IN THE REAL WORLD
and we have four choices
@ 1 Obama
.....a compromiser who generally believes with us who acts far more moderate than we would like
@ 2 republiclan ( probably bain romney )
.....a tool inside the wall street, capitalist machine who will continue bush anti-American policies
@ 3 third party { like nader, perot, paul }
.......see @ 2
@ 4 don't vote
.......see @ 2

Intellectually we can - slam Obama for not fighting harder for we the people who voted for him;
we can - not vote for him because we are pissed .

While this may help us vent our own rage,
IT WILL NOT HELP OUR COUNTRY


...YOU MAY NEED TO HOLD YOUR NOSE


vote not on what your president has not done for your country
vote on what your president could do to your country

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I still stand by my earlier comment. I don't think Obama is going to do anything good for our country in the next 4 years. I think he's just going to spend more and more money on more wars and he's going to let fraudulent bankers keep being fraudulent and probably continue bailing them out. Sorry but I'm not voting for a liar who works for wall street and that is exactly Obama. Like I said, I'm hoping he decides not to run or at least that a real democrat will oppose him.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Not only would he start more wars, but a war with Iran would inevitably draw Russia and China in, resulting in a global thermonuclear war. Obama doesn't care, he has a reserved seat in a bunker.

[-] 0 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Probably the better thing would be to impeach Obama, let Biden take over now, and having had the chance to see the impeachment process and the mood of the American people, hopefully, Biden would do a better job.

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

oh yes, now that the (R)s have Boehnered and filibustered progress, lets try impeachment. That will be sure to give us Bain Romney. Exactly what koch and grover want - whoRU? A minor detail - can you lay out a factual indictment of the crimes? And how would Biden ( who I personally prefer ) deal with Boehner + filibuster?

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

Boehner + filibusters, and Trolls of all kinds can only be countered in the long run (with education). The 20 somethings are not trained for this economy and can not get employment.

30 somethings were educated under Clinton, may work and may still have student loans.

40 somethings were educated under Reagan and love elephants.

50 somethings were educated under Carter and hate liberals.

60 somethings love war.

70 somethings take medication and vote white.

80 somethings hated the 50's but forgot about the 60's.

No Child Left Behind or "Education by the Lowest Common Denominator", as I call it, is the future.

When both parents are forced into slavery the state raises the kids, we call it Head Start.

We are Head Starting our kids into being Chinese as we eat poisoned (non-organic) produce.

[-] 1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Nothing like a dipshit generalizing. You are funny though.

[-] -2 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

If you want to know more about the reasons for impeaching Obama, check it out at:

The Case for Impeachment of President Barack Obama http://www.larouchepac.com/node/13091

Impeach Obama for Demanding Indefinite Detention of US Citizens Without Trial http://www.larouchepac.com/node/20806

Impeach Obama: US Boots Are on the Ground in Libya http://www.larouchepac.com/node/19168

Washington Times Prints Call to Impeach Obama http://www.larouchepac.com/node/19054

LaRouche: 'Nero" Obama is Going For Fascism http://www.larouchepac.com/node/19980

Calls To Repeal Obamacare and Impeach Obama http://www.larouchepac.com/node/15985

After Glass-Steagall Sabotage, Obama Must Be Impeached Now! http://www.larouchepac.com/node/14565

You, like most people here, probably hate Lyndon Larouche, but you asked why, so I'm telling you who I heard it from.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Very impressive.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

OMG Larouch? Hell hymie, you were broken decades ago!!!

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Attacking the man is a logical fallacy that is so ancient that Socrates discussed it over two thousand years ago. Try discussing the issues, if you can.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

LaRouche was made on the lawn by Brian Griffen
*** ...........................................--------

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Yeah? I've got a picture of Obama with a mustache:

http://www.larouchepac.com/obamawatch

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

Thankfully Larouch is not an issue, my wit stands.

Peace though :)

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

The issue is the impeachment of Obama, peace.

[-] 0 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

However, the man ONLY dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind! Then he gave that mind Obamacare setting this country back a decade at least.

He just signed into law the right to imprison our minds without cause.

He got the MOST corrupt institution in the world to write the Dodd-Frank bill instead of writing it himself, who is supposedly less corrupt.

OK, so he is not evil, just vacant. A rubber-stamp. Bin Laden? After the Patriot Act and last week's NNDA we are all Bin Ladens now.

Supreme court justice? Are you referring to the one that has to recuse herself for jumping on the Obama-shit-care bandwagon? Thereby making the odds worse for his pet crap.

You might have written about student loan improvements but everything else is a right-wing as ever.

Just because the alternative is pathetic does NOT mean I will vote for a liar. Get that man a job he can do like community organizing.

Lastly my student loans tell me I'm not an idiot but I am as fanatical as I was in 2008. Just not for a proven coward and inept politician.

You better hope we get a third party or it's red elephants for all next term.

"enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!"? Go Dick Cheney yourself!

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Then he gave that mind Obamacare setting this country back a decade at least.

why did that happen?

He got the MOST corrupt institution in the world to write the Dodd-Frank bill

why did that happen?

He just signed into law the right to imprison our minds without cause.

that power already existed, did it not?

Are you referring to the one that has to recuse herself for jumping on the Obama-shit-care bandwagon?

Help me remember, how many people have been calling for that

You better hope we get a third party or it's red elephants for all next term.

You vote for a third party YOU will hand it over to the red elephants

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

Then you better call Hilary quick, 'cause I'm not voting for that liar again.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Whatever. I have no problem saying that this guy didn't go far enough, but some of this is flat-out crazy.

[-] 3 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 2 years ago

Obama became the first black president, apparently destroying racist views of the white house and making way for any person of color to become president. After that, it's all downhill.

[-] 2 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

LOL. You funny racist bastard. Hilarious

[-] 1 points by bemindful (23) 2 years ago

And he's even F'ed that up- he was suppose to bring the country together and its more fractured than its ever been since the civil war.

[-] 0 points by WooHoo (15) 2 years ago

And he's half-white.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Haha

[-] 2 points by infonomics (393) 2 years ago

He has fed his sheep with a trail of crumbs that has and will continue to lead them to an economic slaughter, which differs little from the previous President, except maybe a bit more embellished.

[-] 2 points by Capitalist01 (-30) 2 years ago

There is no list. It doesn't exist.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Veto SOPA (if it passes), talk up the proposed border tax fairness act, demand reenactment of Glass Steagall and other stiff banking reforms, do not give an inch on the Bush tax cuts. When they expire, don't settle for anything less than the pre-Bush tax rates on top earners, and push for cuts in military spending. Also, push for increasing the Pell Grant (so everyone can attend at least a state university or community college), some other things I'm sure I missed.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

He made history. It was a good thing. It's not a relevant reason by itself to vote for him again. But it was a good thing. He proved that even a politician who ran a successful grassroots campaign is easily corrupted in an oligarchy. That was somewhat eye opening. Not a reason to vote for him though. He did fulfill his promise for Healthcare. He's not a Republican. That's really all I've got.

[-] 1 points by JimBeam (152) 2 years ago

How did he fulfill his promise for Healthcare? His own party is running away from it because it's so bad and they can see the writing on the wall for there political careers for supporting it. He promised healthcare refrom, instead we got healthcare bankrupcy. Why do you think Harry Reid is retireing after this term, he would get crushed because of it the next time he was up for election.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

Though, we did not get Healthcare we got Obamacare which perpetuates the fallacy of health insurance. He codified a health insurance bail-out.

Healthcare is a right, health insurance is a scam by the 1%.

[-] 1 points by elpinio (213) 2 years ago

Get elected as the first black president to start?

[-] 1 points by Wallgreed (-26) 2 years ago

Below is my list!!! blank

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

did not start any major, costly wars... so far. did not kill me. that's it.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

good lord! really??? OK. but what have the republicans offered up? frankly they're all pieces of shit, including obama. i am dismayed. this country's going to hell in a handbasket.... enjoy the ride! or leave... the latter of which is not a bad choice at all.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

If I think Obama is a horrible president, it does not mean I think George W Bush and the republicans are awesome. It just means Obama is a horrible president.

If the majority of liberals and democrats knew anything, they would have nominated Dennis Kucinich in 2008.

[-] 1 points by reckoning (53) 2 years ago

Obama is one of the WORST PRESIDENTS in history...and he has a legion of fanatics to keep on cheering him..and possibly reelecting him again...

Stop being part of the cult...stop being an Obama bot!!

[-] 0 points by Breadwinner (33) 2 years ago

Just think, after November Obama and Jimmy Carter can compare notes to see who was worse.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

yes he helped put an end to our government in its entirety or else they will learn a new lesson of living within its means, and soon the rich bankers he bailed out will have to learn what the meaning of work is, as they work to grow their food to survive.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

How about a list of good things he's tried to do?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

like what? Universal Health and a couple others? List away Gypsyking. That's why I made this post. So far there has only been 2 things that have been a big impact on his presidency in a good way. There have been several minor things he's done which are good, but nothing huge. Other than that Obama has just been carrying out the policies of the Bush administration.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Believe me, I agree that Obama has been a dismal disappointment, but lets put the question the other way, "How many egregious, agressive and contemptable mistakes has he made?" In this light he's beating Bush by about 100 to 1.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I still don't think that justifies him for running for re-election.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

There's about a hundred million people I'd like better. How do we get them on a major party ballot?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I don't know. Even when Dennis Kucinich was on the caucus ballots people still chose Obama. The tv news media has too much to do with how people vote.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Yes, but a LOT of Americans simply don't vote, period. That's why a determined and committed opposition can have a real effect. The Tea Party proved this in the last elections. If we're going to change this system, I think it's going to take relentless effort in many directions, over many years. I think we need to face that and just say, "Okay, that's the challenge for our generation. Others faced the Nazi's - we can face this."

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Does he get the blame for ending the war in Iraq or the credit for continuing the war in Afghanistan? Or, the blame for reversing the surge in Iraq and the blame for starting the surge in Afghanistan? Or, the credit for continuing Bush's policy of leaving Iraq (as Bush agreed) or the blame for not reversing Bush's agreement there, but the blame for reversing Bush's policy of ignoring Afghanistan?

I think we should just ignore the American people (and the Iraqi's and Afghans) who want us out of both places, don't you? I hope that doesn't make us Fascists or does it?

Let's see, we want banks that are too big to fail, but big enough to prevent government regulating them, but governments that are too small to succeed, but big enough to interfere in all of the other governments, and dictate what they should do, like give their oil to our oil companies, and to keep poor people, young people, old people, and certain ethnic groups from voting? Does size matter? Have we got that right?

I am just trying to find out who is truly blameless. They much are easier to support.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

He hasn't turned into, Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, Paul, or even Romney, on a given day. He has turned into some of Huntsman, but that is also a good thing. And, he isn't Kyl, but that was not intended to be a factual statement.

So, how many good things do you need? Doesn't seem like you can remember very many facts for very long. Might want to have that checked?

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 2 years ago

yeah. U h h... never mind.

[-] 1 points by mirko2 (23) 2 years ago

Obama introduced fascistic state of America, yes?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

He didn't introduce it. He just carried it on from the Bush years. That's why so many people call him George W Obama.

[-] 1 points by JimBeam (152) 2 years ago

The only thing I can think of is that he has made his fellow Chicago political buddies proud by sticking to what he learned there.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Corruption?

Not sure if I'm remembering correctly but I think the Daily Show said you have over a 50% chance of going to jail if you're elected governor in Illinois.

[-] 2 points by JimBeam (152) 2 years ago

yeah, I think 2 of the last 3 have.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

In spite of the weight of some of the bad things, I also notice quite a number of good things.

This already puts him miles ahead of Bush, and Bush gave us, 8 long painful years.

Ending with an on going, world wide economic crisis.

I can't think of a single thing he did that was good.

Obama's run's not that bad, considering the stonewalling republicans.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

I hope you're right about him, but losing faith. I wish the rest of the country would just give the democrats one last chance with a super majority in the house, senate and Obama as president to either prove that the democrats aren't any better than the republicans, as I suspect or that I am wrong and the democrats actually are fighting for the people. Too bad we'll never know, because there seem to be too many idiots (even on this site) that are listening to the republicans tell them that they (the republicans) are going to screw us all over and they still want to vote for one of those idiots representing the GOP. I mean, really Newt, take janitors jobs away from them and give those jobs to students for less pay? Am I wrong, but is this the best idea put forward by any of the republican presidential candidates to date?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I think if we could replace the teabaggers, with some new blood democrats, or independents we would begin to see the change that was promised.

The constant stonewalling by republicans is damaging............everything.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

I think replacing the teabaggers with any kind of democrat or republican will result in the same thing. More help for corporations and the rich and less for the majority of people in this country. Why are you so willing to believe that the democrats are innocent. Check back and you will discover that the derivative deregulation and the elimination of Glass_Stegall, both of which were the major culprits for our economic downfall all came under the Clinton Administration. Bush continued those policies and is a war criminal in my opinion, but he did not cause the housing market crisis. And Obama hired one of the three main architects of the deregulation started by Clinton (Larry Summers) and he kept all of the idiots who caused the economic meltdown (Geitner, Bernanke, and the other bald guy).

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Unfortunately, (D) or (R) is only pick for most of us.

So, throw the bald guys out then?

[-] 1 points by JimBeam (152) 2 years ago

But how do you explain the argument of the stonewalling republicans when he had both houses of Congress for two years? How do you explain Obamacare that every member of his party that is up for reelection is running away from it because it is so bad? He promised healthcare reform, instead he gave us healthcare bankrupt. What good things has he done?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Bennie999 (1) 2 years ago

Obama is the best..!! Quit blaming him, he has done nothing wrong...!! Its all Wall Street, Republicans and crazy conservatives that have ruined this country..!!

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You seem to have asked the question in the wrong place. Or, maybe you got the answers you were looking for?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

It'll be shorter list than bad things, thats for sure :)

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

He has passed a bunch of bullshit legislation that will be looked after by fellow criminals.

He's an absolute failure. Im not even holding him accountable for the economy, although his lack of leadership isnt helping any.

But the war stuff- he has done an absolute 180 on all that. If he campaigned and said he would be bombing 7 countries, no one would have given him the nomination.

Either he is pro war, or he doesnt have the balls to stop them. Either way, he's got to go.

Problem is, the population wont create another party to choose from- we get criminals A or criminals B. Thats it. So does it really matter if its Obama or Romney? No.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Created more private sector jobs in 2010 than during entire Bush years

Voluntary disclosure of White House visitors for the first time in US history http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/visitor-records

Reversed 'global gag rule', allowing US aid to go to organizations regardless of whether they provide abortions

Signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, giving the FDA the authority to regulate the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of tobacco for the first time

Increased average fuel economy standards from 27.5mpg to 35.5mpg, starting in 2016

Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers

Provided travel expenses to families of fallen soldiers to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB

Reversed the policy of barring media coverage during the return of fallen soldiers to Dover Air Force Base

Launched recovery.gov to track spending from the Recovery Act, providing transparency and allowing the public to report fraud, waste, or abuse

Provided the Department of Veterans Affairs with more than $1.4 billion to improve services to America's Veterans

Issued executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research

Signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending in the defense procurement and contracting system

Established Credit Card Bill of Rights, preventing credit card companies from imposing arbitrary rate increases on customers

Tax cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses to help pay for employee health care coverage

Lifted restrictions granting Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island

Eliminated subsidies to private lender middlemen of student loans and protect student borrowers

Provided stimulus funding to boost private sector spaceflight programs

Extended Benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees

Appointed first Latina to the US Supreme Court

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

I still have mixed feelings about Obama but not GirlFriday. She kicks ass.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Im still not sure where the 2010 jobs number is coming from?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I'll give you these:

[First I'll add in Bin Laden's dead, since you left thatt out]

Established Credit Card Bill of Rights, (which sadly even though it was a good bill, the fraudy banksters found loopholes but I'll still give Obama cred but something should be done to tighten restrictions)

Tax cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses (I believe taxes for middle class America is lower too, and the rich too since he signed for the Bush tax cuts too)

Extended Benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees (cool equality)

Provided the Department of Veterans Affairs with more than $1.4 billion to improve services to America's Veterans (cool)

Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, (hadn't heard of that one before)

Provided travel expenses to families of fallen soldiers (that's good)

Reversed the policy of barring media coverage during the return of fallen soldiers to Dover Air Force Base (yeah but his administration cracked down on bradley manning and thomas drake for seeking media coverage)

I don't really care about abortion related stuff so I didn't include any of that.

Refer to my long list of "wrongs" in the top comment.

[-] 1 points by sato (148) 2 years ago

The credit of Bin Laden's death is for the soldiers that fought for 10 years. Not Obama.

The only reason Obama should win is because all of the GOP candidates would make worse presidents than Obama.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

*You didn't ask for a list of "wrongs". You asked for a list of things that he has done right.

Whether or not you care about abortion is not relevant. This was a huge issue internationally. Because you do not care does not make it less relevant.*

Established Credit Card Bill of Rights, (which sadly even though it was a good bill, the fraudy banksters found loopholes but I'll still give Obama cred but something should be done to tighten restrictions)

Didn't have a lot of room to move, eh?

Reversed the policy of barring media coverage during the return of fallen soldiers to Dover Air Force Base (yeah but his administration cracked down on bradley manning and thomas drake for seeking media coverage)

*I like Julian Assange. I really, really do. I think what Manning did was brave. That said, I don't care what administration is there Bradley Manning would have gotten nailed. Any administration. I have to ask, what the hell did you think was going to happen?

In the case of Thomas Drake, he got royally screwed but they didn't have a case. I am also interested in following up on if anything happens to Peter Van Buren. Silencing public servants occurs on the national scale, state scale and local scale.

I would like to remind you that the public also seems to utilize to their advantage when it suits them. Consider that the public is aware that they can say whatever they want about a specific cop or even a nonspecific cop, a teacher or all teachers, or go off half cocked without all information of any situation and sometimes this is done intentionally by elected officials and with the aid of the media. Wisconsin, for example.

People have a tendency to only remember the "servant" part in public servant. You don't want to hear from the public servants when it comes to public unions and then may wish to silence them. You may not want to hear from them unless it suits whatever you like. The point being that silencing seems to be a national past time.*

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

With all that is going on in the country and the world, I don't think abortion is a terribly important issue. Also the list I gave back was what I agreed with you on being good.

I just added to refer to my list of bad because I only became aware of them over the past 5 months. I voted Obama in 2008. I think what he's done doesn't qualify him for a re-elect. What Obama says is often different than what he does. Being president doesn't mean he has to run 2 terms. He shouldn't run again. There are better men that could run for the democratic nominee. Dennis Kucinich for example.

Obama works with wall street. Just look at his administration and his new wall street lobbyist campaign guy.

Obama does not care about Wall Street fraud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1dkZShYP78

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SonHCwpaSKc

[-] -3 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

Killed the economy of the USA

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

No, he didn't.

That was a wrap before he was elected. You on the other hand are about to be without a job. Off your knees, Koch whore.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

gurlie ( of the single lonely brain cell) is at it again.

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

lmfao - not one thing!!!

[-] 1 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

I you want to see the demise of the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America, vote for 0bama.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by PeterBurgess (5) from Bushkill, PA 2 years ago

In my view President Obama has done a surprisingly good job in a very nasty real world. His opponents in the Republican Party have a single minded goal of getting him out of office, no matter what damage they do to the US society and economy in the process. His supporters have let him down by allowing control of Congress to pass to the Republicans ... and making it pretty much impossible to do anything of significance. The role of lobbying and influence of money in Washington is BIG ... but how big we do not know. Looking forward Obama and his administration are way better than anything that might come from any of the alternatives.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by reckoning (53) 2 years ago

This is why OWS is a joke...many of them are part of the Obama cult....

Its over...

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by SpartacusTheSlave (60) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

The secret of Barack Obama's true identity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naLMuvR6Xp4&feature=related

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

He has shown tremendous restraint, by not tarring and feathering every useless republican in both houses.

Also by not dipping the teabaggers in hot water and letting them steep, for the rest of their respective terms.

I know I would have.

[-] 0 points by Breadwinner (33) 2 years ago

He has shown tremendous restraint. He should have fired the AG, Sec of Education, Sec of Homeland and Sec of Treasury along time ago. Way to keep the worst cab ever in place....Great Restraint!

[-] 0 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 2 years ago

He signed NDAA. So now you bums can occupy a fema camp. That was good.

www.unoccupywallstreet.zxq.net

[-] 0 points by stinkyhippy (-6) 2 years ago

uhhh....well.....not really. Okay...he set the all time rounds of golf record....so he has that going for him.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Bennie999 (1) 2 years ago

Obama is the best..!! Quit blaming him, he has done nothing wrong...!! Its all Wall Street, Republicans and crazy conservatives that have ruined this country..!!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Obama works for Wall Street and with Wall Street.

Wall Street's takeover of the Obama administration is now complete. "The mega-banks and their corporate allies control every economic policy position of consequence. Mr. Obama has moved rapidly since the November debacle to install business people where it counts most. Mr.William Daley from JP Morgan Chase as White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Gene Sperling from the Goldman Sachs payroll to be director of the National Economic Council. Eileen Rominger from Goldman Sachs named director of the SEC's Investment Management division. Even the National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon, was executive vice president for law and policy at the disgraced Fannie Mae after serving as a corporate lobbyist with O'Melveny & Roberts. The keystone of the business friendly team was put in place on Friday. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt will serve as chair of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/barack-obama-out-of-the-c_b_813027.html

Obama also supported the bailouts of a fraudulent financial system that is extracting wealth from our country and stealing people's pensions and homes. The bailout money was used by the federal reserve to create 7.7 trillion dollars out of thin air for their own private interest, and Obama has yet to do anything about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BXPINPwp4w

Obama's new campaign guy his a Wall Street lobbyist

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/obama-defies-base-hires-wall-street-lobbyist-for-re-election-campaign/#ixzz1cQ6oOt4U

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by neveragain (55) 2 years ago

As I see Obama has done a whole lot of nothing but get the hopes up for many Americans simply to placate them with a few things but certainly nothing compared to the expectations he helped to garner in the American spirit. Hence, the revolution!!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Obama incited Occupy Wall Street into existence.

That will prove to be a very good thing for America in the long run. But not so good for Obama.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Yeah, it's sad that most OWS people don't correlate the 2.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

these things take time to be recognized and accepted by people who have had their idealism abused as egregiously as Obama has abused the idealism of many OWS people.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

...........

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

This list is equally applicable to Ron Paul.

[+] -7 points by GreedKilIs (29) 2 years ago

You are a convicted felon and outright liar. Keep your hands off children.

[-] -1 points by bemindful (23) 2 years ago

When people who are asked if they can name one thing that they think Obama has done well and they are unable to come up with anything, often will say that well.... "he is a good father" , but I beg to differ.

First of all anyone who would subject their children to black liberation theology on a regular basis is not a good father. And, the fact that he has added the amount of debt that Obama has added to our country and will continue to amass if he gets a second term doesn't just make him a horrible president, he's not doing his girls (and sadly, their children- his grandchildren) any favors.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/

[-] -1 points by mediaauditr (-88) 2 years ago

Killing bin laden

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

I like that he has set the presidential record for most rounds of golf for 3 consecutive years. I like that he has said he will bypass congress to get his agenda completed. I like that he kills time in press conferences babbling on and on and never answering a question. I like his choice of vacation destinations. I like that he said if he can't turn the country around in 1 term, he will not run for a second.

[-] 0 points by JohnMarsden (47) 2 years ago

Sites like this really show me how uninformed today's younger generation really is and it really saddens me. I could make a website like that for any president in the past and yes this could include the great satan Bush or someone useless like Gerald Ford and hype up all his little achievements as big things. All presidents do ton of small things that are good but get unreported in the mainstream since people always make a big deal about the big things (like SOPA and NDAA). These small "accomplishments" are very misleading which is my point. This is not a good site to justify if Obama's presidency has been good or bad (my opinion is bad but I don't think any of the Republicans will be much better).

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Right.

Well, I find it quite odd that those people cannot locate or can formulate anything but the NDAA and Sopa. I find it equally amazing this lack of ability to be found in the 'older generation nor do many seem capable of understanding the numerous ways that legislation has been blocked.

[-] 0 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

The largest private sector job increase since before Bush <---- Bwaahahahahhahaah - BullSH8T!!!

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Created more private sector jobs in 2010 than during entire Bush years

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Then why is unemployment still at 9%?

I voted for him, but he fuckin sucks. He doesnt have the stones to do whats neccesary.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

It's more like 20% unemployment but nobody has the balls to publicly state it.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

20% is a bit too high. It's more like 13-14%. But I agree, it's still WAY too high, and the official numbers don't reflect it. If you include underemployment, the number goes up even more. That number is indeed closer to 20%.

As to nobody having the balls to admit it, chalk it up to the election cycle. It seem to make everyone lie even more than usual.

As to hchc''s comment, I would agree that much, much, MUCH more could and should have been done earlier on, but the little that was done was attacked viciously by the right and imperiled the health care bill as a result. At the time there was no filibuster-proof senate and doing more was likely unrealistic politically: at least that's what dems are saying. I don't like it, but it's plausible. What's more, Summers (that sexist fuck) was advising Obama to be cautious at the time, and Obama was idiot enough to listen to him. This president seems to be far too cautious and his lack of boldness id doing the country real damage.

He was warned about this early on by various economists, and didn't heed their advice. Now he seems to understand more, but whatever political capital and good will he had early in his term has been squandered and has evaporated. He can do little at this point with the obstructionist congress now seated.

So it's a massive mess. (I'm obviously putting it mildly.)

(I know the mess from personal experience: I have been unemployed for the longest period of my life, having lost my last job because of the downturn, and as a result, my home and my healthcare lost as well, and with a chronic condition that needs meds I can't begin to afford, could very well die in the near future in agony.)

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I am going to chalk it up to the way that unemployment is counted. The lies remain the same.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I agree. Like last month when the added a measley 120,000 and they said the "official" number went from 9.0 to 8.6% and said it was so great.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

They are off their ass with the "official" number.

I have to wonder, because the crowd is getting smaller, who the hell they are trying to convince.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

"I have to wonder, because the crowd is getting smaller, who the hell they are trying to convince."

It's about the upcoming election. There is no greater indicator of whether or not an incumbent will be re-elected than the perception about the economy and jobs outlook by the American people. If the outlook is dismal, the chances of re-election vanish.

He may, however, have begun to change his tone. Sources close to his campaign are reported to say that he will go on the attack of the republicans during the campaign for blocking all proposals on job creation.

It's something he should have done from the outset. Hopefully he has woken up now, and its actually real. (I won't hold my breath.)

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I was actually thinking more along the lines of the monthly report by the Bureau of Labor and how they collect and use the statistics. Every month somebody on anyone of the channels recites the information. The news is geared towards those in the middle class. So, the crowd that they are talking to is getting smaller. Although, I agree.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

"The news is geared towards those in the middle class. So, the crowd that they are talking to is getting smaller."

The middle class is disappearing, in fact. (And of course, as the middle class shrinks, the poverty rate climbs. I can't remember the last time a national political figure used the word "poor" since Humphry.) I despair of this country ever waking up.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

They are awake, but you cannot fight if you fall into the homeless hole or you are living hand to mouth. It seems to me that this is the objective looking at the historic pattern in our foreign policy of destabilization. No, I am not accusing the President of this.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I'm not sure that the pattern of destabilization has too much to do with it. Or, more precisely, if it is necessary to "achieve" poverty in the US. It seems that domestic policies have done that pretty much on their own.

I'm not arguing against your assertion about foreign interventions contributing to domestic poverty, but the basic domestic system, ever since Reagan, has been skewed toward growing the gap in income distribution.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I am no where near thinking that there were foreign interventions.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Oh, sorry, I seem to have misunderstood your post. I read " historic pattern in our foreign policy of destabilization" and thought that's what you were referring to.

Please clarify, if you don't mind: it's probably an important point you're making that's getting by me.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I was in a rush and I apologize for not being as clear as I could have been.

The US has a past history of going into other countries and destabilizing and reinstating a puppet regime of some of the worlds most horrid dictators. Economic destabilization and political destabilization to exploit usually for resources. A people living hand to mouth cannot fight back.

If you look at all of our so called "communist" countries, the grudge is not that they are actually "communist" and it is coming to a town near you but rather that they are not willing to be open to exploitation which also might compromise their sovereignty.

Too, this is not the first time that "speculation" has wreaked havoc or that banks have literally stolen from the people. We are dealing with multinational institutions and they know exactly what they are doing.

Americans can not fight back when they are living hand to mouth.