News Obama for President: Experienced Leader

[Pengwuino]

But this is not to say that he's seen a net increase in taxes, is it?

Yes, it is. They are on fixed incomes and haven't had any real changes in their exemptions or anything.

Might not be any President that can pull it off. For one thing, you'd need a supermajority in Congress that wants the same thing.

Which is a whole 'nother thread, unfortunately.

I believe this though it's quite the opposite in my case. I pay a much higher tax rate than say, Romney ... on a pathetic postdoc salary.

If you're talking about the 15% rate, that's been debunked before. Have some kids, they do wonders on your tax bill. It surprises me that my city is not rich with tax dollars considering the way people pop out babies around here .

 

[Pengwuino]

It's more like saying let's not uproot the UN and replace it with an administration that has a completely different value system. The time it takes to change everything and all the conflicting policies during transition would be much more costly to members of the UN. And why? The UN is doing it's job!

The UN is an excellent candidate for remaining the UN!

So in 2004, you would have agreed not to vote out Bush because why should we replace him with an administration that has a completely different value system? Remember, one persons "he's doing half decent" is another persons "he's destroying this country". That would imply we should just get rid of term limits because "why go through the hassle".

 

[ThomasT]

I'm actually impressed with what I've seen of Romney's science stances, so far. I mostly just don't think his stage presence is going to appeal to most the voting US, and of course (to reiterate my OP) a change in administration is a waste of time if the candidates have the same end effect.

I think that Obama's stage presence and rhetorical ability exceeds any of his possible opponents. But of course we have no way of knowing if a, say, Romney presidency would be substantially different than an Obama presidency.

The problem I have with Obama, and why he's been something of a disappointment to me, is that I don't think he's used the power of the presidency, his bully pulpit, to anywhere near its maximum effect -- assuming that he actually wants the sort of sweeping changes, to the betterment of America, that his rhetoric seems to indicate that he wants. His rhetoric is sort of inspiring, but his actions have been, more or less, in line with the status quo ... imho.

 

[Pythagorean]

That would imply we should just get rid of term limits because "why go through the hassle".

You're being rather selective in your reading comprehension. "Why go through the hassle" is a conditional. It only applies if the forseeable outcome is the same for both candidates.

So this kind of argument is only a distraction from the real argument (whether another candidate could do a better job, whether the forseeable outcome is not in favor of Obama). What makes you want to avoid that argument? Are you just throwing everything to the wall and seeing what sticks?

For example, why avoid responding to the statistics that show a lower increase in the increase of premiums during Obama's stay? You selectively complained about the function of the data, ignoring the derivative that countered your complaint. Instead, you chose to raise a straw man.

If you want to have a productive discussion, tell me who you think would have a better forseeable outcome and why, instead of using deconstruction tactics.

 

[ThomasT]

If I were a politician and I could do a favor for some district, I might pick one that had voted for me in order to reward it, or I might pick one that had voted against me in order to seduce it, but I would never pick a district that doesn't vote.

I think that, if you were a politician, then you would have a prioritized list of people, companies, etc. that you are beholden to, and that that list would be prioritized according to the monetary contributions and power/influence of those people, companies, etc. -- and that how the common folk in a particular district have voted, or not voted, will be less important than that.

Wrt the logical parsing of the statement (a common theme in mainstream ads some years back), "it doesn't matter who you vote for, just as long as you vote", my question remains. If it doesn't matter who you vote for, then why does it matter that you vote?

 

[Pythagorean]

I think that Obama's stage presence and rhetorical ability exceeds any of his possible opponents. But of course we have no way of knowing if a, say, Romney presidency would be substantially different than an Obama presidency.

I agree, we can only talk about forseeables. Another reason my voting is pointless. Maybe despite Romney's bumbling stage presence, he'd make a much more effective commander and chief. I don't really know what's going on "up there" within the circles of the rich and powerful (no conspiracy theory intended... that they're in competition with each other only convolutes things more).

The problem I have with Obama, and why he's been something of a disappointment to me, is that I don't think he's used the power of the presidency, his bully pulpit, to anywhere near its maximum effect -- assuming that he actually wants the sort of sweeping changes, to the betterment of America, that his rhetoric seems to indicate that he wants. His rhetoric is sort of inspiring, but his actions have been, more or less, in line with the status quo ... imho.

Yes, he's actually been quite moderate on a lot of issues (such as abortion).

I'm not terribly surprised overall though. Everybody that makes it to president had some people that helped them get there. They're all somebody's corporate puppet to some extent. Ron Paul is probably the least so, but nobody takes him seriously and there's no guarantee his ideas would ever see the light of day if he magically made it to president.

 

[ThomasT]

Another reason my voting is pointless.

I think it probably is pointless, but it doesn't have to be. That is, as long as we're pretty much confined to voting for either a Republican or a Democratic candidate, either of which is necessarily going to represent the interests of the status quo, then voting for one or the other is essentially pointless. But it doesn't have to be in the sense that it's entirely possible to develop massive support for a third major party that represents the interests of the people and improvements in America, and not just the interests, to the detriment of America, of corporations, the wealthy, and the financial sector.

But I've gotten off topic. Imho, Obama wil win. I'll probably vote for him. And no significant positive changes will ensue.

 

[Pythagorean]

Or I could just move to Denmark...

 

[Pengwuino]

You're being rather selective in your reading comprehension. "Why go through the hassle" is a conditional. It only applies if the forseeable outcome is the same for both candidates.

But that's what you're implying.

So this kind of argument is only a distraction from the real argument (whether another candidate could do a better job, whether the forseeable outcome is not in favor of Obama). What makes you want to avoid that argument? Are you just throwing everything to the wall and seeing what sticks?

For example, why avoid responding to the statistics that show a lower increase in the increase of premiums during Obama's stay? You selectively complained about the function of the data, ignoring the derivative that countered your complaint. Instead, you chose to raise a straw man.

I find your attitude insulting. Health premiums HAVE gone up, was I suppose to argue that they haven't? The idea that they haven't gone up as fast is argument against the fact that my parents have seen increases and that we should keep ol' Obama in office is silly.

If you want to have a productive discussion, tell me who you think would have a better forseeable outcome and why, instead of using deconstruction tactics.

You still haven't answered my question. I find your notion of keeping a candidate because it's too much of a hassle to change a bit silly. Why aren't you defending this notion beyond situations that are convenient for yourself?

 

[Angry Citizen]

Imho, Obama wil win. I'll probably vote for him. And no significant positive changes will ensue.

Some significant positive changes have already ensued. Health care is huge to me, particularly as I am an uninsured type one diabetic. But you can thank Republicans and blue dog Democrats for keeping most of the 'change' from happening. I swear, the Democrats should've FORCED the filibuster out. What kind of country requires a sixty vote majority to pass legislation? The Democrats had a clear mandate from the people, and they lost it.

 

[ThomasT]

Some significant positive changes have already ensued. Health care is huge to me, particularly as I am an uninsured type one diabetic.

Has Obamacare made a positive difference? I honestly don't know. It doesn't affect me, as I'm a veteran and have free health care for life.

 

[lisab]

Has Obamacare made a positive difference? I honestly don't know. It doesn't affect me, as I'm a veteran and have free health care for life.

It affects many young people who can stay on their parents' plans until age 26 (I think it's 26).

Very helpful to young folks who have to take jobs that don't offer insurance.

 

[WhoWee]

Obama has done a lot to reduce money-powered lobbying.

Care to elaborate and support with specifics?

 

[seba102288]

I think we should vote them all out and make Chuck Norris president.

Seriously though, they all have their own agenda in mind. So the question is who really has America's best interest in mind?

Personally, I don't feel like Obama has done what he said he was going to do, and he can't blame congress considering it was completely controlled by the democrats for half of his presidency.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Personally, I don't feel like Obama has done what he said he was going to do, and he can't blame congress considering it was completely controlled by the democrats for half of his presidency.

That's actually false, given that everything the Democrats tried to pass that was of consequence had to pass through the Senate Republicans' filibusters. All it took was one Democrat (Lieberman, I look at you) to join the Republicans on an issue and that was all she wrote. Case in point the "public option". In the Democratic-controlled House sans filibuster, the public option was welcomed with open arms. In the filibuster-prone Senate, it was killed. Why else do you think Obama struck the tone of the "Great Compromiser" for most of his Presidency? He had to at least try to woo Republican Senators to his side. Unfortunately, Obama did not bank on the Republicans' rather pitiful need to unseat him at all costs. I have never seen such obstructionist politics in all my studies of history. I thought the 2006 Congress was bad, but the 2008 Congress was the worst in history. A clear mandate from the people, yet the Republicans blocked everything that came through.

 

[WhoWee]

That's actually false, given that everything the Democrats tried to pass that was of consequence had to pass through the Senate Republicans' filibusters. All it took was one Democrat (Lieberman, I look at you) to join the Republicans on an issue and that was all she wrote. Case in point the "public option". In the Democratic-controlled House sans filibuster, the public option was welcomed with open arms. In the filibuster-prone Senate, it was killed. Why else do you think Obama struck the tone of the "Great Compromiser" for most of his Presidency? He had to at least try to woo Republican Senators to his side. Unfortunately, Obama did not bank on the Republicans' rather pitiful need to unseat him at all costs. I have never seen such obstructionist politics in all my studies of history. I thought the 2006 Congress was bad, but the 2008 Congress was the worst in history. A clear mandate from the people, yet the Republicans blocked everything that came through.

Are you certain the Republicans blocked "everything that came through"? I seem to recall PPACA, Cash for Clunkers, Stimulus, and the tax cuts that were Bush's then Obama's and now Bush's again(something like that - IMO - can't keep track)?

 

[ThomasT]

I think we should vote them all out and make Chuck Norris president.

Seriously though ...

What do you mean "seriously though"?

 

[Angry Citizen]

Are you certain the Republicans blocked "everything that came through"? I seem to recall PPACA, Cash for Clunkers, Stimulus, and the tax cuts that were Bush's then Obama's and now Bush's again(something like that - IMO - can't keep track)?

The PPACA was blocked at all possible turns. It was neutered from its original form, which was actually a decent health care law. This current incarnation is the work of the blue dog Democrats and the Republican obstructionists. The stimulus also was forced to include a number of compromises such as massive tax incentives, not to mention the fact that it was undersized by perhaps two to three times what would be required to really jumpstart the economy.

As for the tax cuts, I would have made the same decision. Republicans were yet again playing politics, wanting more money for rich people. They essentially held the unemployed hostage until Obama signed the extension of the tax cuts. Obama was forced to do it, otherwise millions would have lost their unemployment benefits. He probably prevented a new Great Depression in doing so. Not that you likely care. Obama's an evil socialist and the country's about to fall apart under his watch...

 

[Pythagorean]

But that's what you're implying.

You still haven't answered my question. I find your notion of keeping a candidate because it's too much of a hassle to change a bit silly. Why aren't you defending this notion beyond situations that are convenient for yourself?

I'm not sure if you're reading comprehension is challenged or you're just having trouble putting two different posts together. Do I really have to repeat myself or will you make an effort to reread my posts? If you're not going to make the effort, then it's pointless to even respond to your posts...

I find your attitude insulting.

Ok, so backhanded comments, personal feelings, and anecdotes about your family. These

Health premiums HAVE gone up, was I suppose to argue that they haven't?

You saw the data Gokul posted... can you see how your "argument" is misleading?

 

[Pythagorean]

Care to elaborate and support with specifics?

Quoting Bara Vaida:

1) he signed an executive order limiting the ability of registered lobbyists to get jobs in the administration.

2) he imposed new communications restrictions on lobbyists wanting to talk to executive branch officials on stimulus projects.

3) he banned lobbyists from serving on government advisory boards.

 

[WhoWee]

The PPACA was blocked at all possible turns. It was neutered from its original form, which was actually a decent health care law. This current incarnation is the work of the blue dog Democrats and the Republican obstructionists. The stimulus also was forced to include a number of compromises such as massive tax incentives, not to mention the fact that it was undersized by perhaps two to three times what would be required to really jumpstart the economy.

As for the tax cuts, I would have made the same decision. Republicans were yet again playing politics, wanting more money for rich people. They essentially held the unemployed hostage until Obama signed the extension of the tax cuts. Obama was forced to do it, otherwise millions would have lost their unemployment benefits. He probably prevented a new Great Depression in doing so. Not that you likely care. Obama's an evil socialist and the country's about to fall apart under his watch...

Care to support anything you've posted? As for the personal shot at me - is it a necessary inclusion to express your opinion?

 

[WhoWee]

Quoting Bara Vaida:

1) he signed an executive order limiting the ability of registered lobbyists to get jobs in the administration.

2) he imposed new communications restrictions on lobbyists wanting to talk to executive branch officials on stimulus projects.

3) he banned lobbyists from serving on government advisory boards.

Have these actions been effective? I'll have to do a little research on some of the green initiatives - such as Solyndra - before suggesting there were lobbyists involved. Does anyone know?

 

[WhoWee]

A quick search yielded this:
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/0...nt-liberally-to-woo-lawmakers-unti-81006.html

"Solyndra Spent Liberally to Woo Lawmakers Until the End, Records Show"

This fiasco wasted $500+ million in taxpayer funds.

 

[Pythagorean]

Huh... interesting potential scam there...

After Solyndra's bankruptcy, it was revealed that the company had spent a large sum of money on lobbying, that several of the company's shareholders and executives had made substantial donations to Obama's campaign (as well as to Republicans), and that Solyndra executives had had many meetings with White House officials.

Another article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-solyndra-donor-20110917,0,2125785.story

Steve Spinner, who helped monitor the Energy Department's issuance of $25 billion in government loan guarantees to renewable energy projects, was one of Obama's top fundraisers in 2008 and is raising money for the president's 2012 reelection campaign.

Spinner did not have any role in the selection of applicants for the loan program and, in fact, was recused from the decision to grant a $535-million loan guarantee to Solyndra Inc. because his wife's law firm represented the company, administration officials said Friday.

 

[mheslep]

He has the most experience as president with the current political atmosphere.

That's true of every one term president. Doesn't mean he gained useful experience.

 

[mheslep]

Dictator doesn't mean evil.

Yes it does.

 

[Pythagorean]

That's true of every one term president. Doesn't mean he gained useful experience.

The real question is whether Romney would really make any difference in the end... If not (and my stance is that he won't) then why bother wasting time and money changing administration?

If you think Romney (or Newt?!?) would make a better candidate, then make your case! Romney has crap for stage presence compared to Obama though, so Obama is going to win, I predict; which means Romney's just wasting his own time/money.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes it does.

Dictator has an objective denotation: it means that one has absolute power.
Evil has a massed subjective denotation: it means different things to different cultures.

Anyway, start a metaphysics thread in philosophy if you really want to carry this out...

 

[Jasongreat]

The real question is whether Romney would really make any difference in the end... If not (and my stance is that he won't) then why bother wasting time and money changing administration?

If you think Romney (or Newt?!?) would make a better candidate, then make your case! Romney has crap for stage presence compared to Obama though, so Obama is going to win, I predict; which means Romney's just wasting his own time/money.

He would definitely be atleast a little different from Obama. Romney would make the hard choice to dump unproductive programs, Obama seems set to double down on his green energy plan. More money for more Solyndra's, more money for electric cars that start on fire and have a range of sixty miles. He made it pretty clear in his state of the union that just because of all these failures it is no reason to stop funding them. So IMO, that is one difference between Romney and Obama. Since Romney has been lambasted about his choices to shut down unproductive failing buisinesses while at Bain.

 

[Pythagorean]

He would definitely be atleast a little different from Obama. Romney would make the hard choice to dump unproductive programs, Obama seems set to double down on his green energy plan. More money for more Solyndra's, more money for electric cars that start on fire and have a range of sixty miles. He made it pretty clear in his state of the union that just because of all these failures it is no reason to stop funding them. So IMO, that is one difference between Romney and Obama. Since Romney has been lambasted about his choices to shut down unproductive failing buisinesses while at Bain.

I'm not defending Solyndra or green energy in particular, and especially not the lobbying attached to that but in the sciences a program can be unproductive for a long time before it yields fruitful results. That's the nature of research and development. I don't know if I trust somebody to evaluate productivity appropriately.

 

[mheslep]

There are over 20 million people out of work in this country that want more work. The situation has not improved, at all, since hitting bottom two years ago. Since prior recessions have all snapped back much more rapidly than this, I blame Obama. His the cause of the exploding deficits and businesses that are afraid to hire because of Obamacare and regulatory expansion like Dodd-Frank.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

 

[Angry Citizen]

more money for electric cars that start on fire and have a range of sixty miles.

Just a note, but the Volt is a gas/electric hybrid that has a range of about 300 miles, IIRC. There also exists a sports car, the Tesla Roadster, that can go about two hundred, and is all-electric.

Another note: the first cars sucked too.

 

[mheslep]

Dictator has an objective denotation: it means that one has absolute power.
Evil has a massed subjective denotation: it means different things to different cultures.

Anyway, start a metaphysics thread in philosophy if you really want to carry this out...

No need. We are not in 'different cultures', we are in this one which is composed of free people. To grant anyone absolute power over a free people is evil.

 

[Pythagorean]

There are over 20 million people out of work in this country that want more work. The situation has not improved, at all, since hitting bottom two years ago. Since prior recessions have all snapped back much more rapidly than this, I blame Obama. His the cause of the exploding deficits and businesses that are afraid to hire because of Obamacare and regulatory expansion like Dodd-Frank.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

I don't disagree with the data you've posted, but how can I be sure of your interpretation of it (it's all Obama's fault).

 

[ThomasT]

The real question is whether Romney would really make any difference in the end...

Imho, a Romney admin promises to be a bit worse. At least with Obama there seems to be the chance that he might counter some of the negative forces in America. But Romney is definitely, without a doubt, pro status quo.

If not (and my stance is that he won't) then why bother wasting time and money changing administration?

No reason, imo. Vote Obama.

... Romney's just wasting his own time/money.

Yes, I think so, but he's got plenty of time/money.

 

[ThomasT]

There are over 20 million people out of work in this country that want more work. The situation has not improved, at all, since hitting bottom two years ago. Since prior recessions have all snapped back much more rapidly than this, I blame Obama.

Well, in a certain sense, so do I. It seems that he could have done more than he has, imo. Will a Republican do any better? I don't think so. They have essentially the same masters, and problems. What, really, can a president do? America is controlled by the big corporations, and the financial sector. The congress is, fapp, a corrupt body. Am I being too cynical?

 

[OmCheeto]

Yes it does.

Depends on what they're dictating...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcvjoWOwnn4

I really should watch that movie one day.

I wonder how it will all end.

The Great Dictator
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Release date(s) October 15, 1940

The Great Dictator is a comedy film by Charlie Chaplin released in October 1940. Like most Chaplin films, he wrote, produced, and directed, in addition to staring as the lead. Having been the only Hollywood film maker to continue to make silent films well into the period of sound films, this was Chaplin's first true talking picture as well as his most commercially successful film. More importantly, it was the first major feature film to bitterly satirize Nazism and Adolf Hitler.

At the time of its first release, the United States was still formally at peace with Nazi Germany.

 

[mheslep]

Depends on what they're dictating...

Laughs aside, No.

 

[OmCheeto]

Laughs aside, No.

One man's dictator, is another nation's leader...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvwbqwqVJ04

 

[mege]

Imho, a Romney admin promises to be a bit worse. At least with Obama there seems to be the chance that he might counter some of the negative forces in America. But Romney is definitely, without a doubt, pro status quo.

Romney is only pro status quo in so far as he isn't out for radical change of policy. If anything he wants to 'undo' a bit of the change. Romney is a neocon, no doubt about it - but I think he will make some of the hard decisions that President Obama will not. President Obama has skirted hard decisions and spent 4 years campaigning, trying to make everyone happy while the house is burning.

Yes, I think so, but he's got plenty of time/money.

This is quite the ideological parallel: Romney using much of his own money, while President Obama is using (an expected) billion dollars of other people's money to campaign. Fancy that...

 

[ThomasT]

Romney is only pro status quo in so far as he isn't out for radical change of policy.

That's pretty much the definition of pro status quo, isn't it? And I think that Obama is pro status quo in pretty much the same way that Romney is pro status quo. So, they're both, imho, pro status quo. Which means no significant improvements. Vote for one or the other. It won't matter too much.

They're both, fapp, tools of the status quo, imho. But since I think/feel that Obama has, deep down, a bit more compassion/empathy for the common folks and really wants, though he's generally not able, to make improvements that would benefit America, then I'll vote for Obama.

Totally unscientific and perhaps unwarranted, but there you have it. Unless you or somebody else can persuade me otherwise.

 

[Jasongreat]

Just a note, but the Volt is a gas/electric hybrid that has a range of about 300 miles, IIRC. There also exists a sports car, the Tesla Roadster, that can go about two hundred, and is all-electric.

Another note: the first cars sucked too.

That is correct I believe, I was referring to electicity alone, 60 miles, iirc. The tesla is a pretty nice concept, iirc they tried to get a subsidy from the government to make the telsa more competitive, the government chose not to back them.

To your note, that is correct, did it take the government to make them better, or was it the market? It seems to me the decline of the US auto industry can be traced to the seventies and eighties when it quit being a market driven industry and became a government controlled industry. I am amazed at the cars detroit was able to produce in spite of governmental meddling.

The biggest thing that stands out to me, is with all the praise heaped on the electric cars as green, where does the electricity come from? We are becoming a nation with more solar panels and wind turbines, but the bulk of the electricity is coal powered, until we get most of our power from nuclear, wind, solar, electric cars are just as dirty as gas powered cars, possibly even more so, with all the electrical transmission losses.

 

[Pythagorean]

No need. We are not in 'different cultures', we are in this one which is composed of free people. To grant anyone absolute power over a free people is evil.

You don't get to choose objective definitions based on your culture. You're "dictating" that everyone should have your value system.

And mheslep... speaking of "free people"

Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation

it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html?pagewanted=all

 

[phoenix:\\]

There are over 20 million people out of work in this country that want more work. The situation has not improved, at all, since hitting bottom two years ago. Since prior recessions have all snapped back much more rapidly than this, I blame Obama. His the cause of the exploding deficits and businesses that are afraid to hire because of Obamacare and regulatory expansion like Dodd-Frank.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

Maybe I am missing something, but from what I see the unemployment rate is 13.1 million in household.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

As far as the deficit is concerned. Policies signed under Obama calculate the amount of debt standing at $1 trillion (even though it increased 4x as much under his presidency), much of the debt increase was from previous policies (taken from Center on Budget and Policies), and during Obama's first term there was a budget proposal of 1.4-5 trillion dollars to be added to the deficit (mind you this was under Bush's budget proposal which ended in Sept. '09), in which Obama's first budget plan took place officially in 2010. So much of the 2009 deficit increase shouldn't be attributed towards Obama.

Has the situation improved? From various sources, ranging from government to economic analysts, the economy has shown signs of improvement even if it is improving slowly, it is still improving.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/fewer-sought-unemployment-aid-last-week-as-modest-economic-growth-reduces-layoffs/2012/02/02/gIQASOLFkQ_story.html

Businesses have been hiring:

EDIT (VIDEO is just some indicator on small growth and why, etc..., much of the other support of that statement comes from the bls link above, sorry).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkV1QIuFybU Obama's presidency? I think he's done pretty good considering the circumstances.

 

[daveb]

The problem I have with Obama, and why he's been something of a disappointment to me, is that I don't think he's used the power of the presidency, his bully pulpit, to anywhere near its maximum effect -- assuming that he actually wants the sort of sweeping changes, to the betterment of America, that his rhetoric seems to indicate that he wants. His rhetoric is sort of inspiring, but his actions have been, more or less, in line with the status quo ... imho.

This has essentially been my problem with him as President as well. To quote Michael Douglas in The American President

I will go door to door if I have to, but I'm going to convince Americans that I'm right

That's what Obama should have done if he thought he was right about his Agenda.

 

[daveb]

Has Obamacare made a positive difference? I honestly don't know. It doesn't affect me, as I'm a veteran and have free health care for life.

Not me personally. My gf has epilepsy, and she can now get insurane at least (not that she can afford it), so it has affected her.

 

[mheslep]

Maybe I am missing something, but from what I see the unemployment rate is 13.1 million in household.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

I posted employed fraction of population intentionally to show the difference. To be 'Unemployed' in the BLS definition means you have jump through some of their hoops to be considered actively looking. Many people have given up looking, falling off the BLS definition, but the employed to population statistic still shows what's going on. E/P has its flaws too, as people simply retiring will lower E/P.

Has the situation improved? From various sources, ranging from government to economic analysts, the economy has shown signs of improvement even if it is improving slowly, it is still improving.

Yes it has improved from the bottom. My point is that in all other US recessions the economy has bounced back more quickly. The global economy was impacted by the financial crisis, but other countries, like Germany which shunned a large stimulus despite Geitner's clamoring, have recovered robustly. If it were not for the luck of the recent boom in tight oil and gas I doubt the US economy would have got off the floor at all. Even there, with his rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, he is dragging down the system.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Not me personally. My gf has epilepsy, and she can now get insurane at least (not that she can afford it), so it has affected her.

I believe premiums will have to go down once the price controls go into effect (namely, that an insurance company must spend at least 80% of its income on healthcare for patients).

 

[Angry Citizen]

Yes it has improved from the bottom. My point is that in all other US recessions the economy has bounced back more quickly. The global economy was impacted by the financial crisis, but other countries, like Germany which shunned a large stimulus despite Geitner's clamoring, have recovered robustly.

Germany is also significantly more protectionist and left-wing than we are, and they still have a large manufacturing base. Further proof that the world needs more left-wing economics. While Obama certainly is not a left-wing politician, he's the closest thing we'll get to having one in a position of power for a while - at least until the leftward shift occurs, which I have predicted ever since the Tea Party came into existence.

 

[mheslep]

As for Obama personally, I had taken him to be a generally likable guy even if I disagreed with most of his policies. Not any more. See this in particular as to why, on a recent 911 memorial where numerous 911 survivors and victim relatives were invited:

Debra Burlingame, the sister of Charles "Chic" Burlingame (pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon) met with President Obama today, along with other families who were victims of 9/11. Burlingame said she confronted Obama about Attorney General Eric Holder prosecuting the men who interrogated KSM, which may have produced intelligence leading us to bin Laden.

Burlingame describes the encounter with Obama: "As a former attorney I know you can't tell the Attorney General what to do, he said, 'No, I can't.' But I said 'we -- that shouldn't stop you from giving your opinion. We wouldn't be here today if they hadn't done their jobs. Can't you at least give them your opinion.' And he said 'no I won't,' and he turned around and walked away."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/05/burlingame_after_meeting_with_obama_he_turned_his_back_on_me.html