After Eight (8) Years of Total Neglect....

[PW4000]

What makes the Republican Party ready to lead again?

It is a very straight forward question and if the Democrats had produced the same results the Republicans produced from 2000 through 2008, I'd be asking the exact inverse of the same question.

Under the eight (8) years of Republican leadership prior to the Obama Administration:

- GDP grew well below the 50 year trend
- Middle Class incomes were reduced
- Unemployment was increased
- Job creation decreased
- Positive Sector economic values decreased (in the aggregate)
- Negative Sector economic values increased (in the aggregate)
- Tic Flows decreased
- Federal borrowing increased (through the so-called "sale" of bonds)
- Industrial innovation decreased
- The gap between the rich and the poor was increased
- K through 12 funding was decreased
- The foreclosure rate was increased
- The value of the USD against all most major currencies decreased
- The budget deficit increased
- Government spending increased
- The trade deficit widened
- The equities markets decreased
- The IPO markets decreased
- The Venture Capital decreased
- Respect for the United States of America abroad decreased
- Instability in the Middle East increased
- The oil markets increased in valuation
- The retail price at the pump increased
- The country sustained the largest economic recession in U.S. history, short of 1929-32

At what point between 2000 and now, has the Republican Party put forth any show of proof, that it is willing enough, competent enough, committed enough and concerned enough to correct any or all of the problems stated above, if it regains control of the White House in 2012?

And, when did it become fashionable on Capital Hill, to be the principle causality behind the effects of such negative leadership production (above), and in less than three (3) months after the new President gets inaugurated, become the leading finger pointing antagonist against that new President's policies, when the entire hole-in-the-ground was created expressly because of the lack of leadership offered by the antagonists over the previous eight (8) years prior to the arrival of that same new President?

I tailgate you on the freeway. You are forced to make an emergency stop because something ahead of you requires you to do so immediately. Because I'm breaking the law by tailgating you and because I am following you too closely, I ram you from behind, causing physical injury and personal property damage to you. I then claim that you are the causality for your own physical injuries and personal property damage, because you stopped too quickly ahead of me.

At what point, do we as U.S. Citizens, start using common sense and better judgment, while accepting responsibility for our own actions and remaining intellectually honest enough to admit when we are wrong and in need of correction?

Why is my country falling prey to hyper-partisan, political hypocrisy? Unable to see the forest for the trees and unwilling to recognize and support "the better" when it comes down the pipe-line?

 

[Helvidius]

Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006....

I believe both parties have done a fine job proving they are not fit to run the country.

 

[TheBook]

Never underestimate the stupidity that rabid partisanship and nationalism can instill in a populace.

 

[PW4000]

Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006....

Deomcrats gains in 2006, does not answer the question presented in this thread unfortunately. In from 2006-2008, Republicans still had the White House and a good compensating balance in the Senate, in addition to absolute control of the federal government between 2000 and 2006.

I believe both parties have done a fine job proving they are not fit to run the country.

Certainly, our history demonstrates this to be true. However, from 2000 through 2008, Republicans dominated the leadership role within the Federal Government and virtually all of the fiscal structural problems in the country got even worse as a matter of absolute fact. Yet, from 2008 to the present, those same Republicans now trash virtually any policy coming from the current Administration, citing in most cases that such policies would be bad for the country.

Where does the authority come from, to speak on matters of either Domestic or International Policy, for the same party that spent eight (8) years creating an even more negative fiscal, economic and international relations reality for all Americans, both here at home as well as abroad? That's what I'm trying to get at. I'm trying to understand what gives the people who created the current mess, the proper standing to be considered by Americans as having the solution to the problem for which they (in the vast majority) created themselves? What gives the Republicans the intellectual, moral, ethical, principled and common sense standing, to deny the next elected leader, the ability do what he and his team believes to be the right thing for the country, when for the past eight (8) years prior, those same Republicans failed miserably to provide correct solutions of their own?

You see, whether people like it or not, this was the essential question for 2008 and it should be the essential question for 2012. Not whether or not the State of Hawaii, decided to send a copy of Obama's birth certificate to a group of side-tracking partisan clowns, who want the American People to completely forget the eight (8) years prior to Obama's inauguration.

That's what I'm getting at, here. I want to know where the Republicans get-off on being so hyper-critical of the President's every single breath, when they stood idly by for eight (8) long years doing absolutely nothing worthwhile and lasting for the American People.

That is the issue - no matter how sincerely the Republicans want every single U.S. Citizen to develop amnesia about their proven failed leadership.

Now, can we talk about THAT reality?

Anyone?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

What makes the Republican Party ready to lead again?

It is a very straight forward question and if the Democrats had produced the same results the Republicans produced from 2000 through 2008, I'd be asking the exact inverse of the same question.

Under the eight (8) years of Republican leadership prior to the Obama Administration:

- GDP grew well below the 50 year trend
- Middle Class incomes were reduced
- Unemployment was increased
- Job creation decreased
- Positive Sector economic values decreased (in the aggregate)
- Negative Sector economic values increased (in the aggregate)
- Tic Flows decreased
- Federal borrowing increased (through the so-called "sale" of bonds)
- Industrial innovation decreased
- The gap between the rich and the poor was increased
- K through 12 funding was decreased
- The foreclosure rate was increased
- The value of the USD against all most major currencies decreased
- The budget deficit increased
- Government spending increased
- The trade deficit widened
- The equities markets decreased
- The IPO markets decreased
- The Venture Capital decreased
- Respect for the United States of America abroad decreased
- Instability in the Middle East increased
- The oil markets increased in valuation
- The retail price at the pump increased
- The country sustained the largest economic recession in U.S. history, short of 1929-32

At what point between 2000 and now, has the Republican Party put forth any show of proof, that it is willing enough, competent enough, committed enough and concerned enough to correct any or all of the problems stated above, if it regains control of the White House in 2012?

And, when did it become fashionable on Capital Hill, to be the principle causality behind the effects of such negative leadership production (above), and in less than three (3) months after the new President gets inaugurated, become the leading finger pointing antagonist against that new President's policies, when the entire hole-in-the-ground was created expressly because of the lack of leadership offered by the antagonists over the previous eight (8) years prior to the arrival of that same new President?

I tailgate you on the freeway. You are forced to make an emergency stop because something ahead of you requires you to do so immediately. Because I'm breaking the law by tailgating you and because I am following you too closely, I ram you from behind, causing physical injury and personal property damage to you. I then claim that you are the causality for your own physical injuries and personal property damage, because you stopped too quickly ahead of me.

At what point, do we as U.S. Citizens, start using common sense and better judgment, while accepting responsibility for our own actions and remaining intellectually honest enough to admit when we are wrong and in need of correction?

Why is my country falling prey to hyper-partisan, political hypocrisy? Unable to see the forest for the trees and unwilling to recognize and support "the better" when it comes down the pipe-line?

A lot of those issues were out of the control of Congress - you cannot accuse Congress of doing something that htey, themselves, had no hand in.
And some of those issues happened because of the actions of the previous congresses.

None of it is partisan - trying to define it by partisan lines is part of the bigger problem we face.

 

[MaggieD]

Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006....

I believe both parties have done a fine job proving they are not fit to run the country.

Ohhhh!!!!!! QuadRUPal thanks here!!!!

 

[Barbbtx]

Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006....

I believe both parties have done a fine job proving they are not fit to run the country.

That's why in 2010 voters hated both parties. They had no choice but to give Republicans another chance, because the Dems sucked more.

 

[PW4000]

A lot of those issues were out of the control of Congress

The question was about the Republican Leadership over the previous eight (8) years prior to the inauguration of the current President. That includes both the Congress and the White House, under the control of the Republicans. Someone was in charge of things between 2000 and 2008. I'm simply asking, where the Republicans obtain their moral high-ground to pull-down the current Presidential Administration at ever turn, when their own performance helped to lead the country to precisely where it is today.

I'm just looking for an honest, straight forward answer to the question. If I get on television and say that your plan sucks, every chance I get, never offer any real solution of my own and constantly question your ability to lead, when I was the primary causality that placed you in the position of having to clean-up my own mess; then everybody in the world would be well within the realm of reason to conclude that I was being a total hypocrite.

I'm looking for a debate on the merits, here. I'm asking: to what does the Republican moral authority, owe its existence?

And some of those issues happened because of the actions of the previous congresses.

Does that same logic apply to the current President?

None of it is partisan - trying to define it by partisan lines is part of the bigger problem we face.

I don't think you are being partisan at all, for the record. However, that's precisely what has been talking place in the media and in the Right, since November 8th, 2008. Hyper-partisan hacking and chopping down of the current Administration, based not on the facts regarding his policy, but based solely upon the hypocritical context in which the attacks originate. Meaning, blaming the President for everything that the previous group of leaders put into motion, long before he took office.

I'm simply trying to get down to the source and origin of the authority behind the Republicans perpetual attacks on this President, because they certainly have no logical connection to their having demonstrated a better brand of leadership over the previous eight (8) years.

I find it amazing how this question goes unanswered and unchallenged by those continually pounding on the current President. Place a logical question before his detractors, and all of a sudden, they melt under the heat of the question itself.

I think the 2012 Presidential Debates are going to extremely interesting to behold, as those that have failed, try to point the finger at the one they claim is failing. Oh, it will be very entertaining to say the least.

 

[ptif219]

Deomcrats gains in 2006, does not answer the question presented in this thread unfortunately. In from 2006-2008, Republicans still had the White House and a good compensating balance in the Senate, in addition to absolute control of the federal government between 2000 and 2006.



Certainly, our history demonstrates this to be true. However, from 2000 through 2008, Republicans dominated the leadership role within the Federal Government and virtually all of the fiscal structural problems in the country got even worse as a matter of absolute fact. Yet, from 2008 to the present, those same Republicans now trash virtually any policy coming from the current Administration, citing in most cases that such policies would be bad for the country.

Where does the authority come from, to speak on matters of either Domestic or International Policy, for the same party that spent eight (8) years creating an even more negative fiscal, economic and international relations reality for all Americans, both here at home as well as abroad? That's what I'm trying to get at. I'm trying to understand what gives the people who created the current mess, the proper standing to be considered by Americans as having the solution to the problem for which they (in the vast majority) created themselves? What gives the Republicans the intellectual, moral, ethical, principled and common sense standing, to deny the next elected leader, the ability do what he and his team believes to be the right thing for the country, when for the past eight (8) years prior, those same Republicans failed miserably to provide correct solutions of their own?

You see, whether people like it or not, this was the essential question for 2008 and it should be the essential question for 2012. Not whether or not the State of Hawaii, decided to send a copy of Obama's birth certificate to a group of side-tracking partisan clowns, who want the American People to completely forget the eight (8) years prior to Obama's inauguration.

That's what I'm getting at, here. I want to know where the Republicans get-off on being so hyper-critical of the President's every single breath, when they stood idly by for eight (8) long years doing absolutely nothing worthwhile and lasting for the American People.

That is the issue - no matter how sincerely the Republicans want every single U.S. Citizen to develop amnesia about their proven failed leadership.

Now, can we talk about THAT reality?

Anyone?

Thats crap. The GOP only had a very small majority and the democrats stopped much of what Bush wanted. It is the democrats from 2009 to 2011 that had a filibuster proof majority.

 

[PW4000]

That's why in 2010 voters hated both parties. They had no choice but to give Republicans another chance, because the Dems sucked more.

That's an interesting position to take.

Bush, got a full four (4) years to demonstrate how much he "sucked," or how much he did not "suck." And, the voters allowed him to retain the Congress, even with the "suck'o'meter" being nearly off the charts by 2004. They also allowed him to retain the White House, in spite of the "suck'o'meter" being off the charts and they continued to sustain the man's leadership for a full six (6) years, until the voters brought in a few more Democrats.

In stark contrast, Obama, got no more than 2-3 months (more like 2-3 hot minutes), to correct what took at least (8) years to create. And, when he did not produce a Microwavable Recovery in record time, he was summarily trounced by Republicans, who claimed that his (Obama's) policies were bad for the country, though his domestic policies were mostly forced upon him, given the nature and severity of the economy handed to him by the previous Administration. So, he got blamed by Republicans for creating the problems AND then blamed again for making the problems worse, when his actions were specifically targeted to reduce the magnitude of the problems handed to him.

That is the kind of total hypocrisy that I'm trying to get to the bottom of in this thread. Bush, gets a Presidential Lifetime to cause problems that Obama gets a nanosecond to clean-up, before Republicans start tossing him under the bus, even when we can now see an economy in recovery, which is to some degree attributable to the direct actions that Team Obama took, immediately upon taking office in 2008.

So, Obama, gets precious little time to solve any problems, gets zero credit for an economy now in recovery, all the credit for causing the recession and all the credit for making the recession worse before it got better - while Republicans hold themselves absolutely harmless and free to point their collective finger at the Janitor In Chief, President Obama.

How convenient.

 

[MaggieD]

That's an interesting position to take.

Bush, got a full four (4) years to demonstrate how much he "sucked," or how much he did not "suck." And, the voters allowed him to retain the Congress, even with the "suck'o'meter" being nearly off the charts by 2004. They also allowed him to retain the White House, in spite of the "suck'o'meter" being off the charts and they continued to sustain the man's leadership for a full six (6) years, until the voters brought in a few more Democrats.

In stark contrast, Obama, got no more than 2-3 months (more like 2-3 hot minutes), to correct what took at least (8) years to create. And, when he did not produce a Microwavable Recovery in record time, he was summarily trounced by Republicans, who claimed that his (Obama's) policies were bad for the country, though his domestic policies were mostly forced upon him, given the nature and severity of the economy handed to him by the previous Administration. So, he got blamed by Republicans for creating the problems AND then blamed again for making the problems worse, when his actions were specifically targeted to reduce the magnitude of the problems handed to him.

That is the kind of total hypocrisy that I'm trying to get to the bottom of in this thread. Bush, gets a Presidential Lifetime to cause problems that Obama gets a nanosecond to clean-up, before Republicans start tossing him under the bus, even when we can now see an economy in recovery, which is to some degree attributable to the direct actions that Team Obama took, immediately upon taking office in 2008.

So, Obama, gets precious little time to solve any problems, gets zero credit for an economy now in recovery, all the credit for causing the recession and all the credit for making the recession worse before it got better - while Republicans hold themselves absolutely harmless and free to point their collective finger at the Janitor In Chief, President Obama.

How convenient.

When you hold yourself up as a Messiah, people expect great things.

I don't blame him for the mess he found himself in. I blame him because he promised change. Change! And it's quite obvious to me that it's been business-as-usual from the start...from partisan politics (especially) to billions in bailouts to ramrodding legislation through Congress just because he can to little transparency that he so eloquently promised. Combine those things and many more with his foreign policy habit of apologizing for the United States and his latest mis-steps re Libya, and you've got FAIL.

 

[PW4000]

Thats crap. The GOP only had a very small majority and the democrats stopped much of what Bush wanted. It is the democrats from 2009 to 2011 that had a filibuster proof majority.

Really?

So, the Democrats are to blame for a Republican controlled White House and a Republican controlled Congress, because the Republicans were trying really hard to put forth a clear domestic agenda from 2000 through 2008, that would have prevented the 2008 economic implosion, reduced the deficit, reduced the debt, and generated a budget surplus; but failed to do so, because the Democrats blocked every good idea the Republicans put forth, while two (2) wars were raging in the Middle East?

I'm I understanding your premise correctly, or did I miss anything?

So, Republicans get the White House, the Senate and the House - yet, it is the other teams fault because the Republicans failed to provide the leadership necessary to prevent economic and foreign policy anarchy?

I've got one question for you: Did President Obama's majority from 2008 to 2010, get the exact same logical treatment that you just outlined here? Did Republicans afford him the same latitude, or has President Obama, been judged by a different standard?

If your logic applies to Bush, then does it also apply to Obama?

Careful how you answer that question.

 

[Taylor]

That's an interesting position to take.

Bush, got a full four (4) years to demonstrate how much he "sucked," or how much he did not "suck." And, the voters allowed him to retain the Congress, even with the "suck'o'meter" being nearly off the charts by 2004. They also allowed him to retain the White House, in spite of the "suck'o'meter" being off the charts and they continued to sustain the man's leadership for a full six (6) years, until the voters brought in a few more Democrats.

In stark contrast, Obama, got no more than 2-3 months (more like 2-3 hot minutes), to correct what took at least (8) years to create. And, when he did not produce a Microwavable Recovery in record time, he was summarily trounced by Republicans, who claimed that his (Obama's) policies were bad for the country, though his domestic policies were mostly forced upon him, given the nature and severity of the economy handed to him by the previous Administration. So, he got blamed by Republicans for creating the problems AND then blamed again for making the problems worse, when his actions were specifically targeted to reduce the magnitude of the problems handed to him.

That is the kind of total hypocrisy that I'm trying to get to the bottom of in this thread. Bush, gets a Presidential Lifetime to cause problems that Obama gets a nanosecond to clean-up, before Republicans start tossing him under the bus, even when we can now see an economy in recovery, which is to some degree attributable to the direct actions that Team Obama took, immediately upon taking office in 2008.

So, Obama, gets precious little time to solve any problems, gets zero credit for an economy now in recovery, all the credit for causing the recession and all the credit for making the recession worse before it got better - while Republicans hold themselves absolutely harmless and free to point their collective finger at the Janitor In Chief, President Obama.

How convenient.

The blame Bush crap sounds old now, I can't imagine how tired it will sound another year from now.

You've been staring at the "suck'o'meter" for so long that you failed to see what's on the "suck more'o'meter"

 

[ptif219]

Really?

So, the Democrats are to blame for a Republican controlled White House and a Republican controlled Congress, because the Republicans were trying really hard to put forth a clear domestic agenda from 2000 through 2008, that would have prevented the 2008 economic implosion, reduced the deficit, reduced the debt, and generated a budget surplus; but failed to do so, because the Democrats blocked every good idea the Republicans put forth, while two (2) wars were raging in the Middle East?

I'm I understanding your premise correctly, or did I miss anything?

So, Republicans get the White House, the Senate and the House - yet, it is the other teams fault because the Republicans failed to provide the leadership necessary to prevent economic and foreign policy anarchy?

I've got one question for you: Did President Obama's majority from 2008 to 2010, get the exact same logical treatment that you just outlined here? Did Republicans afford him the same latitude, or has President Obama, been judged by a different standard?

If your logic applies to Bush, then does it also apply to Obama?

Careful how you answer that question.

When you have a minor majority the opposition can stop you at will with the filibuster

Even with a filibuster proof congerss Obama had trouble getting things passed

 

[rocket88]

That's why in 2010 voters hated both parties. They had no choice but to give Republicans another chance, because the Dems sucked more.

They didn't vote for Republicans to have another chance. They voted for a split government hoping beyond hope that they would work together and that maybe between the two parties they could make something work.

The last time we had a balanced budget and a growing economy (at the same time), we had a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. That wasn't a coincidence.

 

[PW4000]

When you hold yourself up as a Messiah, people expect great things.

Who labeled Obama, the "Massiah?" And, do you consider the avoidance of a Greater Depression a "great thing?"

If the initial Obama Economic Team had followed the lead of McCain/Palin ("The fundamentals of the economy are strong."), then the United States of America could very well be in such a Greater Depression today. So, who gets the credit for pulling the nation back fro the brink of a Greater Depression? Do the Republicans get that credit?

I don't blame him for the mess he found himself in. I blame him because he promised change. Change!

- Healthcare for your children (on their parents policy), basically until they can graduate from college and start their own career with employer provided healthcare - Change!

- Preventing the use of corporate policy that discriminates against people with pre-conditions - Change!

- Closing the so-called Doughnut Hole for Seniors unable to afford their prescribed medications - Change!

- Making affordable coverage for all Americans - Change!

- Making early detection examinations available to all Americans - Change!

- DADT Repealed - Change!

- Salt II - Change!

- Ending Combat Ops in Iraq - Change!

- Finally providing the Troops in Afghanistan the resources they deserve and need to finish their job and to put the focus where it belongs - Change!

- Reviving the respect that the U.S. once had abroad - Change in progress.

- EO ordering the closure of Gitmo - Change in progress.

- Creating a National Health Care Exchange - Change in progress.

- The elimination of annual limits on healthcare coverage - Change in progress.

You can go here to read about the half-billion changes this President has brought to the country, as promised: Hope and Change: 90+ Accomplishments of the Obama Administration so far

And it's quite obvious to me that it's been business-as-usual from the start...from partisan politics (especially) to billions in bailouts to ramrodding legislation through Congress just because he can to little transparency that he so eloquently promised.

Hmmm. Interesting. So, are you suggesting that bailing-out the Banks was not necessary as one pillar of prevention to an impending Greater Depression?

Second, are you aware that every economist wearing a Liberal, Conservative or Centrist badge, basically all agreed that to allow the banks to fail, would have severely worsened the economy?

The problem was not the bank bailout. The problem was that the banks, after getting bailed-out, decided to not fulfill their end of the deal. Banks are not lending anywhere near the level they should be at this time. The deal was: We bail them out, they start lending once stabilized. We held up our end of the deal, now the banks need to be dragged back to Congress, to give a balance sheet account for why they have failed to hold up their end.

Lastly, each bank that received bail-out funds, had a responsibility to payback the money we loaned them, or did you know already know that? Thus, in reality, the so-called bailout, was nothing more than a loan - they do not get to keep the money. They have to return it with interest. And, to that point, maybe you did not know what the Federal Reserve just announced the other day. Nearly $80 billion was made by the Federal Government. How? It came from the "loans" (bailout money) that YOUR tax dollars provided to the banks.

So, instead of slamming the President for "business as usual," how about giving the guy some credit for netting going out and making nearly $80 billion in profits that go back into our treasury - $80 billion that we did not have on November 8th, 2008. That's not business as usual. Finally being able to get paid from the bank's is somewhat genius. Why not give the man and his team who put that plan together for the American Tax Payer, some credit.

Combine those things and many more with his foreign policy habit of apologizing for the United States and his latest mis-steps re Libya, and you've got FAIL.

Combine, what?

Combine the "Change" with an $80 billion return on capital from the Banks and you've got "fail." LOL, if that's fail, then what on earth would a win look like?

Mis-steps on Libya? Can you highly just one of those mis-steps that you allude to but provide no substance for? And, what proof do you have for Obama being an apologist abroad?

Show you work.

 

[PW4000]

The blame Bush crap sounds old now, I can't imagine how tired it will sound another year from now.

You've been staring at the "suck'o'meter" for so long that you failed to see what's on the "suck more'o'meter"

Oh, I see. So, we no longer live in a Universe where the law of cause and effect have any implication for future events.

Got it. I fully understand your premise, now. :roll:

 

[Boo Radley]

When you hold yourself up as a Messiah, people expect great things.

he didn't actually do that. That was a creatation of his opponents.

 

[PW4000]

When you have a minor majority the opposition can stop you at will with the filibuster.

I got that part. What I want to know is why were the Republicans not able to produce game changing legislation that everybody can support on both sides of the isle?

There is no point in going to Congress, looking for a filibuster proof set-up. The idea is supposed to be about leading the country and that means, coming up with legislative ideas that can be supported by all. The Republicans had eight (8) where they controlled the White House and had the responsibility to provide the leadership necessary to prevent fiscal and economic problems in this country. On that note, they failed miserably.

So, all I'm asking for, and what keeps getting ignored in this dialogue, is WHERE do the Republicans obtain their moral high-ground for knocking down nearly every single idea put forth by the current White House, when they themselves had eight (8) years to right the ship and failed to do so with ideas and ideals of their own?

That's the question on the table. If Republicans can claim that Obama failed to produce an agreeable legislative agenda that attracted the majority of votes on both sides of the isle, then how does that logic get twisted all of a sudden, when talking about the source of moral high-ground for the Republicans charging the President with a failure to lead, when they were unable to produce that same agreeable agenda from 2000 through 2008?

Filibusters are not the issue, here. The issue here is the double-standard hypocrisy being doled out against the current President, and how quickly Republicans are wiling to twist the definition of "leadership" when they are the party out of power. That's the question still on the table and still unanswered at this point.

Will anyone please step-up and provide the source and origin for the moral authority that Republicans now claim, as being the source of truth, leadership and good policy, when they failed to provide either of the three for eight (8) miserable long years?

I'm searching for the foundation upon which the Republicans derive their standards for leadership and whether or not they eat their own dog food, in relationship to those standards of leadership.

I know this is a very difficult question to handle for the Republicans, but if you are going to fight the President on every single idea he comes up with, then you must explain where you have been for the eight (8) years leading up to his Presidency, on matter both domestic and international.

I'm saying that if the shoe fits, then wear it.

 

[Helvidius]

Who labeled Obama, the "Massiah?" And, do you consider the avoidance of a Greater Depression a "great thing?"

If the initial Obama Economic Team had followed the lead of McCain/Palin ("The fundamentals of the economy are strong."), then the United States of America could very well be in such a Greater Depression today. So, who gets the credit for pulling the nation back fro the brink of a Greater Depression? Do the Republicans get that credit?



- Healthcare for your children (on their parents policy), basically until they can graduate from college and start their own career with employer provided healthcare - Change!

- Preventing the use of corporate policy that discriminates against people with pre-conditions - Change!

- Closing the so-called Doughnut Hole for Seniors unable to afford their prescribed medications - Change!

- Making affordable coverage for all Americans - Change!

- Making early detection examinations available to all Americans - Change!

- DADT Repealed - Change!

- Salt II - Change!

- Ending Combat Ops in Iraq - Change!

- Finally providing the Troops in Afghanistan the resources they deserve and need to finish their job and to put the focus where it belongs - Change!

- Reviving the respect that the U.S. once had abroad - Change in progress.

- EO ordering the closure of Gitmo - Change in progress.

- Creating a National Health Care Exchange - Change in progress.

- The elimination of annual limits on healthcare coverage - Change in progress.

You can go here to read about the half-billion changes this President has brought to the country, as promised: Hope and Change: 90+ Accomplishments of the Obama Administration so far




Hmmm. Interesting. So, are you suggesting that bailing-out the Banks was not necessary as one pillar of prevention to an impending Greater Depression?

Second, are you aware that every economist wearing a Liberal, Conservative or Centrist badge, basically all agreed that to allow the banks to fail, would have severely worsened the economy?

The problem was not the bank bailout. The problem was that the banks, after getting bailed-out, decided to not fulfill their end of the deal. Banks are not lending anywhere near the level they should be at this time. The deal was: We bail them out, they start lending once stabilized. We held up our end of the deal, now the banks need to be dragged back to Congress, to give a balance sheet account for why they have failed to hold up their end.

Lastly, each bank that received bail-out funds, had a responsibility to payback the money we loaned them, or did you know already know that? Thus, in reality, the so-called bailout, was nothing more than a loan - they do not get to keep the money. They have to return it with interest. And, to that point, maybe you did not know what the Federal Reserve just announced the other day. Nearly $80 billion was made by the Federal Government. How? It came from the "loans" (bailout money) that YOUR tax dollars provided to the banks.

So, instead of slamming the President for "business as usual," how about giving the guy some credit for netting going out and making nearly $80 billion in profits that go back into our treasury - $80 billion that we did not have on November 8th, 2008. That's not business as usual. Finally being able to get paid from the bank's is somewhat genius. Why not give the man and his team who put that plan together for the American Tax Payer, some credit.



Combine, what?

Combine the "Change" with an $80 billion return on capital from the Banks and you've got "fail." LOL, if that's fail, then what on earth would a win look like?

Mis-steps on Libya? Can you highly just one of those mis-steps that you allude to but provide no substance for? And, what proof do you have for Obama being an apologist abroad?

Show you work.

That healthcare bill you speak so fondly of is hardly a solution to the healthcare problem in the US. And where was the transparency during the whole process we were promised? Obama has done nothing to change foreign perspective of the US except that we seem to constantly kiss up to our enemies while backhanding our allies. Wonder how we look interfering in Libya. Return on Bank Bailout? Wonder who the President was that signed that into law...

Patriot Act? I thought Obama was against it. He has snubbed Israel, the UK, France, etc.

 

[PW4000]

he didn't actually do that. That was a creatation of his opponents.

Specifically, Fox News.



This is the kind of latent hate that was and still is coming from the Right, in the United States of America, towards the President, Barak Obama. And, its roots reside with Fox News.

 

[PW4000]

That healthcare bill you speak so fondly of is hardly a solution to the healthcare problem in the US.

No, it is certainly not the be-all-end-all solutions. It finally did what no other President in the history of the nation was unable to do; it put the issue of health care on the front burner and made it real for corporate America and the American People.

Health care, totals approximately 1/6th of our national GDP. We cannot continue to run that kind of cost basis into the future and expect at the same time, to seriously reduce out debt and deficits. The costs are out of control and the matter had to come to a head in the United States Congress, one way or another.

While people are out there slamming President Obama, they are failing to see the strategic genius behind what he's done. By getting the thing moved from "bill" to "law," means that it can now be modified and optimized to produce the results that it was intended to produce for the American People. If that had never happened, then we'd spend yet another 50 years trying to do something about a national cost factor, that would not be 1/6th of our GDP, but closer to 1/4th our GDP - a massive runaway freight train.

No. It is by no means perfect. However, if you waited for perfection from the House and the Senate, you'd be waiting for something that would not likely happen at all, given the massive gridlock in those two governing bodies. Now, the country can focus on optimization, administrative reductions, targeted cost cutting, process improvement, the implementing of technology that makes higher levels of efficiency possible, etc. Our health care problem is a massive one, not easily surrendered to an overnight fix. Systemic change was necessary and you cannot seriously get such change until you move from talking-points on the floor of the Congress, to actual Law that people have to implement into their daily lives.

We now have something that we can tweak. This is now all about the improvement process. That's the genius behind getting beyond mere "bill" and into the realm of "law." With it being "law," Congress MUST deal with the optimization process - they now have no choice in the matter, when before they could always stuff it into some cloak-room, never to see the light of day again.

This is a gift horse, that I believe we should look straight in the mouth, so that we can optimize our way to reducing its 1/6th bite on our economy. We need a bigger bang from our health care buck and optimizing the "law" with amendments that can no longer be ignored, will help to finally get us there.

Thus, what Obama did, was massively important to our economy in the decades to come, as long as we continue to improve the system as we implement it over time.

And where was the transparency during the whole process we were promised?

I simple bit of homework and you could have resolved that question for yourself:

Recovery Act Transparency:

Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money

Health Care Transparency:

Home | HealthCare.gov

Health Reform Transparency: (shows you that you could have kept in touch in the past)

Health Reform

Obama has done nothing to change foreign perspective of the US except that we seem to constantly kiss up to our enemies while backhanding our allies.

Apparently, your sentiment does not follow the sentiment of the majority of Americans, when asked the question: "Do you think leaders of other countries around the world have respect for the President, or do you think they don't have much respect for him?"

Results: Majority of Americans Say World Leaders Respect Obama

Now, can you post an example of the President "kissing up to our enemies and backhanding our allies?" Of so, can you post it here for close inspection, please.

Wonder how we look interfering in Libya.[/qoute]

Here is your answer: Americans Approve of Military Action Against Libya, 47% to 37%

Return on Bank Bailout? Wonder who the President was that signed that into law...

Well, do you really want to get into that?

Bush, signed TARP I into law. He also did so with zero transparency and virtually no accountability to the People. Obama, just before taking office, requested the Bush sign for another $300 billion or so, just in case it was needed and Obama, made it abundantly clear that he would be changing or re-branding the program, to provide for more transparency, better controls over distribution, more accountability and to make absolutely certain that all funds were returned to the Tax Payer with the appropriate interest attached.

If this thing was left up to Bush, who knows where that money would have gone. But, given the way the program was being run initially, before Obama took office, we know for certain that there was little accountability for repayment of anything. Those are the baseline facts about TARP I and II. All the initial complaints about "bank giveaways" thrown at Obama in particular, have all now fallen flat, because of the Treasuries announcement about bank loans being repaid.

I wonder if those who slammed Obama's vision on TARP, are now giving him the credit for managing it to a position of ROI for America? I seriously doubt it. The media does not seem interested in the reported ROI of billions of tax payer dollars. More double-standard spin.

Patriot Act? I thought Obama was against it.

I'm total against the Patriot Act myself, and I do not support the President on that note, whatsoever. This is one that he needs to pull the string on. He also needs to call for investigative hearings in the Congress, on the absence of evidence related to 911 and the official claims made by the government. This would haul Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and a host of other Neocons before the Congress, to explain why the 911 Commission Report, managed directly out of the White House, has more hole than a slice of Swiss Cheese.

Quite frankly, I don't think Obama has the stomach for doing this - though I sincerely believe that it needs to be done and soon. So, yes - I am disappointed in those two things. But, against, the entirety of his Presidency thus far, I can still logically and without being a total hypocrite, support his agenda. Thus, I still do.

He has snubbed Israel, the UK, France, etc.

Precisely, how? I mean, I can sit here all day long and say that Bush lied about the NIE on Iraq and got countless innocent Iraqi Men, Women and Children killed for nothing other than PSA Oil contracts, but unless I provide some context for that (which I have done in another thread) then all I'm doing is blowing hot air.

Where is the context for these claims? Just the other day, when asked by Piers Morgan of CNN, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, made it clear that he believed that Obama, had provided support for Israel, that is deeply appreciated and very much underrated. Those were Ben's words, not my own (I slightly paraphrased). Obama, has had meetings with the PMs from Australia, the U.K., Ireland, etc., all very cordial encounters. What the heck would trigger President Obama to "snub" any of these foreign heads?

I mean, if you are going to attack the President perpetually, at least show some kind of substance when doing it.

 

[PW4000]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer the question, instead of providing me with all the worn out Fox News Talking Points about how much all of the negative in the country is Obama's fault.

Not one solitary straight answer to the question.

It is amazing, how when the right question gets answered, it is followed by defining silence from those who were previously so loud in their detraction of the President. But, I think we all know the real reason why the best that anyone has done in this thread, is dance around the issue with nonseqitur red herring, don't we. The title of this thread pretty much says it all.

After eight (8) years of total neglect by the Republicans, they have the audacity to point the finger at someone else trying to clean-up their collective mess, brought on by their total lack of leadership.

The fact that they've been able to sell that trash to the American People, speaks volumes about who we are and what we've become as a nation, proclaiming ourselves to be the model of Democracy to the rest of the uncivilized world. We really need to get our collective act together, folks. We are such hypocrites.

The massive hypocrisy is staggering to behold.

I'm done in this thread, unless somebody actually wants to tackle the question - as embarrassing as it may be, it is most certainly one of the questions that intelligent American Voters want to know the answer to. Heck, I don't know - maybe by some miracle revelation, there really is a logical explanation for the double-standard that Obama has to deal with from the Republicans. I have an open mind, I'm willing to hear the rationale - maybe it makes some sense. But, thus far, none of it makes any sense and I suspect that's precisely why this question will continue to go unanswered on this forum.

You may resume your empty "It's Obama's Fault" attacks ad nauseam.

Un-be-liev-able.

 

[ptif219]

I got that part. What I want to know is why were the Republicans not able to produce game changing legislation that everybody can support on both sides of the isle?

There is no point in going to Congress, looking for a filibuster proof set-up. The idea is supposed to be about leading the country and that means, coming up with legislative ideas that can be supported by all. The Republicans had eight (8) where they controlled the White House and had the responsibility to provide the leadership necessary to prevent fiscal and economic problems in this country. On that note, they failed miserably.

So, all I'm asking for, and what keeps getting ignored in this dialogue, is WHERE do the Republicans obtain their moral high-ground for knocking down nearly every single idea put forth by the current White House, when they themselves had eight (8) years to right the ship and failed to do so with ideas and ideals of their own?

That's the question on the table. If Republicans can claim that Obama failed to produce an agreeable legislative agenda that attracted the majority of votes on both sides of the isle, then how does that logic get twisted all of a sudden, when talking about the source of moral high-ground for the Republicans charging the President with a failure to lead, when they were unable to produce that same agreeable agenda from 2000 through 2008?

Filibusters are not the issue, here. The issue here is the double-standard hypocrisy being doled out against the current President, and how quickly Republicans are wiling to twist the definition of "leadership" when they are the party out of power. That's the question still on the table and still unanswered at this point.

Will anyone please step-up and provide the source and origin for the moral authority that Republicans now claim, as being the source of truth, leadership and good policy, when they failed to provide either of the three for eight (8) miserable long years?

I'm searching for the foundation upon which the Republicans derive their standards for leadership and whether or not they eat their own dog food, in relationship to those standards of leadership.

I know this is a very difficult question to handle for the Republicans, but if you are going to fight the President on every single idea he comes up with, then you must explain where you have been for the eight (8) years leading up to his Presidency, on matter both domestic and international.

I'm saying that if the shoe fits, then wear it.

The democrats would not allow anything that the GOP could take credit for. Having a 2 or 3 vote majority will not get things passed especially when their are 2or 3 of the GOP that often vote with the democrats

 

[ptif219]

Specifically, Fox News.



This is the kind of latent hate that was and still is coming from the Right, in the United States of America, towards the President, Barak Obama. And, its roots reside with Fox News.

It is not even close to the hate we seen for BUSH from the left and the liberal news media. Still blaming Bush and giving Obama a pass shows the hate for Bush is still alive and well