The Success of Barak Hussein Obama

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well, we used to be a known as a democracy. Now Republicans talk about the tyranny of the majority because they're not getting everything they want. The PEOPLE voted Obama into the presidency twice. That's why we are blessed with his leadership which is quite a relief after the dismal failure of GW Bush.

"RELIEF"??? ...Ha ha ha ha ha.....you gotta be kidding me! This guy is a disaster

 

[OldRegular]

Obamma vs Bush

Read it and rejoice all you Marxist Obamma lovers.

While many have complained of the economic status and lack of jobs since Barack Obama took office in 2008, the left reminds that the President needs time to bring the economy back up. But just how did the country’s position under Obama’s first term stack up to, say, the George W. Bush-era?

JOBS – At the end of President Bush’s first term, total non-farm employment in the U.S. consisted of 104,000 fewer jobs than when he took office in January 2001. At the end of President Obama’s first term, total non-farm employment in the U.S. consisted of 970,000 fewer jobs than when he took office in January 2009.

UNEMPLOYMENT – At the end of George W. Bush’s first term the U-6 unemployment rate was 9.3 percent, up from 7.3 percent in January 2001. At the end of President Obama’s first term, the real unemployment rate, meaning the number of unemployed or underemployed Americans, was 14.4 percent or 23 million people, up from 14.2 percent in January 2009.

DURATION – During President Bush’s first term, the average duration of unemployment was 17 weeks. During President Obama’s first term, the average duration of unemployment was 34 weeks.

PARTICIPATION – At the end of President Obama’s {Apparently an error, should be Bush.} first term the labor force participation rate was 65.8 percent, down from 67.2 percent. At the end of President Obama’s first term, the labor force participation rate was 63.7 percent, down from 65.7 when he took office.

FOOD STAMPS – In January 2005 roughly 25 million people participated in SNAP. About 17 million participated in the program in 2001. Under Obama, individuals on food stamps grew from 32 million to 47 million.

DISABILITY – In 2004, the last full year of Bush’s first term, roughly 7.2 million people received disability benefits. The number of individuals receiving U.S. Social Security disability insurance payments in 2012 was 9 million.

GDP – The total increase in U.S. GDP during the first four years of President Bush was 9.4 percent. The total increase in U.S. GDP during the first four years of President Obama was 5.9 percent.

DEBT – At the end of President Bush’s first term the U.S. national debt was 64 percent of gross national product. The U.S. national debt was $7.6 trillion or roughly $26,000 per person. At the end of President Obama’s first term in office the U.S. national debt was more than 100 percent of gross domestic product. The U.S. national debt was more than $16.4 trillion, more than $52,000 per person.

Statistics used were gathered by Cain.com from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Treasury Department, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S Social Security Administration

From: http://freepatriot.org/2014/01/14/obama-vs-bush-jobs-food-stamps-debt/

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yea...they are liquidating the military to pay for all the food stamps and welfare programs.:BangHead:

 

[OldRegular]

Yea...they are liquidating the military to pay for all the food stamps and welfare programs.:BangHead:

And China will be the new world power!

 

[General Mung Beans]

Universal day care ?

Yes, just like other advanced countries. Its a bit of a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" situation for poor mothers, both married and unmarried. Ignoring the repulsive practice of abortion, these women are condemned if they try to avoid pregnancy by demanding access to contraceptives since obviously that's just an excuse for rampant fornication. If they do have children they are condemned as welfare queens and accused of having children just to receive benefits. If they don't work to take of the children they are condemned for being lazy, if they do work outside the home they are condemned for undermining traditional family roles nevermind that its increasingly difficult for one wage-earner to support a middle-class lifestyle.

The same systems that were behind it in the 60's. Read "Radical Son" by David Horowitz. Marxists have been pushing their agenda for decades. People by the dozens were sent into this country to recruit hundreds of and thousands of people to simply pollute educational, art and entertainment institutions among others, and thereby evangelize the nation with their "gospel." Anyone wonder why CrabMaoBoy and General Dung Beans are even active on a Baptist board?

Considering I'm a traditional social democrat in the tradition of Wilhelm Drees and Hugh Gaitskell who has sparred with actual Marxists several times online, your amusing theory fails to hold any water. For that matter, I haven't ever accused you of being a paid shill of the Koch Bros in order to trick working-class whites to vote against their economic self-interest because the Democrats are all secret Commie Ayrabs, but that's probably at least partially because I think the Koch Bros could buy off someone who could make better arguments than your gloating paens to reactionary Know Nothingism.

Read it and rejoice all you Marxist Obamma lovers.



From: http://freepatriot.org/2014/01/14/obama-vs-bush-jobs-food-stamps-debt/

You don't think an unprecedented recession had anything to do with the rising debt.

Yea...they are liquidating the military to pay for all the food stamps and welfare programs.:BangHead:

And China will be the new world power!

Yes,apparently cutting military spending from 729 billion dollars to 716 billion dollars (not counting veterans' benefits) is equivalent to the complete gutting of military spending, never mind we spend over three times China does on its military. Never mind too that we spent by comparison less than 80 billion on food stamps and 18 billion dollars on "welfare" (ie TANF).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Yes, just like other advanced countries. Its a bit of a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" situation for poor mothers, both married and unmarried. Ignoring the repulsive practice of abortion, these women are condemned if they try to avoid pregnancy by demanding access to contraceptives since obviously that's just an excuse for rampant fornication. If they do have children they are condemned as welfare queens and accused of having children just to receive benefits. If they don't work to take of the children they are condemned for being lazy, if they do work outside the home they are condemned for undermining traditional family roles nevermind that its increasingly difficult for one wage-earner to support a middle-class lifestyle.

I'm sorry, that's pathetic. You only strengthened my resolve, knowing what it is you folks actually want subsidized. Ridiculous.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I'm sorry, that's pathetic. You only strengthened my resolve, knowing what it is you folks actually want subsidized. Ridiculous.

Amen:thumbs:

 

[General Mung Beans]

Amen:thumbs:

Care to respond to my refutation?

 

[carpro]

Some folks are complaining that the presidency of Barak Hussein Obama is a failed presidency. I strongly disagree. Obama’s campaign slogan repeated ad nauseam was “Hope and Change”. His campaign promise was to “Significantly Transform America”. It is my opinion that he has succeeded in fulfilling his campaign promise more than any president in history, certainly beyond his wildest dreams. Of course he had some help, primarily Harry Reid, Senate Majority leader.

We live in a time when most of the "greatest generation" have already died and those remaining are quickly passing away. Sadly the nation for which this generation sacrificed so very much is also passing away, the consequence of the Obama presidency. Obama has in 5 short years destroyed the greatest nation in history, converting it into a third world country, a banana republic.

I realize there are several Obama lovers on this Forum. I will refrain from identifying them but I must assume they are well pleased.

Perhaps, he got what he wanted.

But he is an absolute total failure at doing anything good for America.

He's still batting zero. If he's proud of his record, he's a very sick man.

 

[OldRegular]

Perhaps, he got what he wanted.

But he is an absolute total failure at doing anything good for America.

He's still batting zero. If he's proud of his record, he's a very sick man.

He never intended to do anything good for America. His intention was to "Fundamentally Transform America" a campaign promise he repeatedly made and one he has had unbelievable success in achieving. We have advanced further toward a 3rd rate Marxist state in the last 5 years than in the previous 50 and all because of this "uber dictator" called Obamma.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Ignoring the repulsive practice of abortion, these women are condemned if they try to avoid pregnancy by demanding access to contraceptives since obviously that's just an excuse for rampant fornication.

False premise. No one is "condemned" for "demanding access" to something that is covered under all healthcare plans, and gladly so. You're making stuff up, starting from an erroneous dynamic and running with it, kinda like Roy Riegels. Look him up.

Anyway, that tactic negates this whole section of your post, since starting from there is the only way you can get to the end of that diatribe.

Considering I'm a traditional social democrat in the tradition of Wilhelm Drees and Hugh Gaitskell who has sparred with actual Marxists several times online, your amusing theory fails to hold any water.

Nice try, but Marxists aren't pure socialists, and Drees was one of the leading socialists in Nederlands history. He oversaw the establishment of the Dutch welfare state that nearly bankrupted the country. Sounds familiar.

Among other things, he got the Occupational Pensions Fund Act passed after WWII, which required union membership and pension fund benefits as mandatory for all laborers. He got the Old-Age Pensions Act passed as well, which guaranteed flat-rate retirement of all persons age 65 with no strings attached. I'm sure you don't see those as bad things, but today's Nederlands citizenship that nearly watched their country become a debtor nation because of those two destructive socialist programs -- hand-in-hand with the disastrous healthcare laws that came later -- would disagree. And that is your tradition? You need a new one, and your perspective is warped until you get one.

For that matter, I haven't ever accused you of being a paid shill of the Koch Bros in order to trick working-class whites to vote against their economic self-interest because the Democrats are all secret Commie Ayrabs, but that's probably at least partially because I think the Koch Bros could buy off someone who could make better arguments than your gloating paens to reactionary Know Nothingism.

My, my! That sounds almost angry. Over a political philosophy? Wow.

You don't think an unprecedented recession had anything to do with the rising debt.

Sure it does. But the recession only became "unprecedented" because Obama's sociopolitical agenda to turn this country into the Nederlands of the 1950s-60s prevented a smooth recovery that would have mitigated the damage he and his crony social engineers are foisting off on us either by badly written legislation, or his "pen and phone" dictatorship.

Yes,apparently cutting military spending from 729 billion dollars to 716 billion dollars (not counting veterans' benefits) is equivalent to the complete gutting of military spending, never mind we spend over three times China does on its military. Never mind too that we spent by comparison less than 80 billion on food stamps and 18 billion dollars on "welfare" (ie TANF).

Impressive numbers. Too bad it doesn't reflect the facts.

The U.S. isn't spending $716 billion on defense, and it never spent $729 billion, either. And the next several countries combined are spending a lot more than that. Here's a chart showing U.S. military spending the last 13 budgets.

How about everyone else? China, for one thing, lies. She claims expenditures of $164 billion in 2012. But it was probably much higher, according to Time Magazine. In addition, she started an ambitious aircraft carrier building program last year that will add four ships to the fleet. Aircraft carriers alone cost billions of dollars, and China is building four of them. So much for her "small military budget."

Russia? You can't invade Crimea on a shoestring. Though she reports only a $90 billion budget, $9 billion of that alone is to build a new drone program, and she's adding 40 new ships to the fleet this year alone. Figure twice the budget she's reporting.

Consider the relative costs to the economy. China's gross domestic product (GDP) in 2012 was $8.3 trillion. Russia's was $2.1 trillion. The U.S.? $16.8 trillion. So relative to GDP, who's spending more?

Nice try, General, nice try. But epic fail. You're a socialist, and we're spending more of our GDP on domestic programs than any other nation in the world. We're done here.

 

[church mouse guy]

In summary, Obama is the most successful of all Democrat presidents because he accomplished his agenda completely and the results of his handiwork are everywhere, overseas and at home.

Off the subject, I also think that he is the greatest of all Democrats because of his success. All history books will have to mention him for the Nobel Prize, the overhaul of the economy and the complete change of course on foreign policy.

Other Democrats will have to defer to the one who fulfilled the dreams of Woodrow Wilson. Hillary, for example, will have to promise to continue in the footsteps of Obama. Future Democrat candidates will have to be rebels without a cause, like the master.

 

[OldRegular]

In summary, Obama is the most successful of all Democrat presidents because he accomplished his agenda completely and the results of his handiwork are everywhere, overseas and at home.

Off the subject, I also think that he is the greatest of all Democrats because of his success. All history books will have to mention him for the Nobel Prize, the overhaul of the economy and the complete change of course on foreign policy.

Other Democrats will have to defer to the one who fulfilled the dreams of Woodrow Wilson. Hillary, for example, will have to promise to continue in the footsteps of Obama. Future Democrat candidates will have to be rebels without a cause, like the master.

Considering the state of the democrat party you may have "hit the nail on the head"!

 

[General Mung Beans]

False premise. No one is "condemned" for "demanding access" to something that is covered under all healthcare plans, and gladly so. You're making stuff up, starting from an erroneous dynamic and running with it, kinda like Roy Riegels. Look him up.

Anyway, that tactic negates this whole section of your post, since starting from there is the only way you can get to the end of that diatribe.

Nice try, but Marxists aren't pure socialists,

What does this have to with anything?

and Drees was one of the leading socialists in Nederlands history.

As I said, he was a social democrat since he didn't advocate (much less undertake) state ownership of industries.

He oversaw the establishment of the Dutch welfare state that nearly bankrupted the country. Sounds familiar.

Among other things, he got the Occupational Pensions Fund Act passed after WWII, which required union membership and pension fund benefits as mandatory for all laborers. He got the Old-Age Pensions Act passed as well, which guaranteed flat-rate retirement of all persons age 65 with no strings attached. I'm sure you don't see those as bad things, but today's Nederlands citizenship that nearly watched their country become a debtor nation because of those two destructive socialist programs -- hand-in-hand with the disastrous healthcare laws that came later -- would disagree. And that is your tradition? You need a new one, and your perspective is warped until you get one.

According to the CIA World Factbook, Netherlands's public debt as percentage of GDP was lower than most other advanced countries including both United States and that paragon of financial sobriety, Germany. Also I'm not seeing masses of Dutch citizens out on the streets demanding the implementation of Tea Party policies-they and other European citizens want to reform the welfare state not abolish it.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt)

My, my! That sounds almost angry. Over a political philosophy? Wow.

Yet neither you nor anybody else on this thread says anything the constantly vicious and nasty tone of Aaron's posts.

Sure it does. But the recession only became "unprecedented" because Obama's sociopolitical agenda to turn this country into the Nederlands of the 1950s-60s prevented a smooth recovery that would have mitigated the damage he and his crony social engineers are foisting off on us either by badly written legislation, or his "pen and phone" dictatorship.

Besides the Affordable Care Act, which was largely based on private insurers the Obama administration has not proposed any new social welfare legislation. Indeed it has been constantly willing to roll back and tweak existing social welfare programs such as Social Security in order to compromise with the Republican Party. Also were this true, countries that are implementing harsh austerity measures should be thriving or at least doing better than us such as Britain or Greece or Italy. But they aren't.

Impressive numbers. Too bad it doesn't reflect the facts.

The U.S. isn't spending $716 billion on defense, and it never spent $729 billion, either. And the next several countries combined are spending a lot more than that. Here's a chart showing U.S. military spending the last 13 budgets.

May I ask what your source is?

How about everyone else? China, for one thing, lies. She claims expenditures of $164 billion in 2012. But it was probably much higher, according to Time Magazine. In addition, she started an ambitious aircraft carrier building program last year that will add four ships to the fleet. Aircraft carriers alone cost billions of dollars, and China is building four of them. So much for her "small military budget."

Russia? You can't invade Crimea on a shoestring. Though she reports only a $90 billion budget, $9 billion of that alone is to build a new drone program, and she's adding 40 new ships to the fleet this year alone. Figure twice the budget she's reporting.

Consider the relative costs to the economy. China's gross domestic product (GDP) in 2012 was $8.3 trillion. Russia's was $2.1 trillion. The U.S.? $16.8 trillion. So relative to GDP, who's spending more?

Even was this all true, it still means the assertions of the posters I was responding to are false. Neither of those countries have the sort of extensive commitments around the world the United States has nor our power projection capabilities around the world. Nor has this spending been affected by our spending on food stamps and TANF>

Nice try, General, nice try. But epic fail. You're a socialist, and we're spending more of our GDP on domestic programs than any other nation in the world. We're done here.

GDP or percentage of GDP? As you pointed out above were it GDP it'd be obviously the case since we have the largest economy on the planet.

 

[OldRegular]

GDP or percentage of GDP? As you pointed out above were it GDP it'd be obviously the case since we have the largest economy on the planet.

We may have the largest economy on the planet but we have to borry money from other countries to pay the bills of the monster in DC that the democrats have created. The average pay/benefits of the Federal Government bureaucrat is almost twice that of the average worker in the civilian work force.

The fact remains that Obama has increased the national debt by 7 trillion dollar in a little over 5 years. By the end of his second term he will have increased that dent by almost 10 trillion dollars, doubling it! But in doing so he is simply accomplishing his stated goal: "Fundamentally Changing America". Had he noy made the mistake of passing Obamacare without Republican he might have been further along. However, his dictatorial tact is finally stirred the country from its self-induced stupor and he lost control of the House.

Never mind, he has not been hesitant to assume the role of dictator on frequent issues, delaying certain aspects of Obamacare whose implementation would further demonstrate to the voting public what a monster he had created with the help of Harry Reid.

 

[Revmitchell]

 

[OldRegular]

GRREAT!:thumbsup:

 

[OldRegular]

Since the skinny dictator took over the rich have gotten richer and the middle class have gotten poorer. Their average income is down ~6% and food prices are soaring in part because of the idiotic idea of making fuel out of corn!

Perhaps the reason for Obamma's success as a fund raiser is all that money the rich have made since he took office!

 

[exscentric]

A thought - make Odrama federal money raiser in chief - the country will be debt free in short order.

 

[church mouse guy]

Since the skinny dictator took over the rich have gotten richer and the middle class have gotten poorer. Their average income is down ~6% and food prices are soaring in part because of the idiotic idea of making fuel out of corn!

Perhaps the reason for Obamma's success as a fund raiser is all that money the rich have made since he took office!

I thought that I was the only one against Ethanol. It is bad for the environment, expensive for the taxpayer, inefficient as a fuel but it makes the farmers rich. They all have remodeled their homes and added on, not to mention all the new huge machines and the fleets of new cars in the driveways.