Obama, what has he done for you??
I see the whining of some of you because the majority of America has turned its back on the Democratic Party under the leadership of President Obama.
I ask you, what has Obama done for you? Are you better off under his administration??
Yes. I'm unemployed (through no fault of this administration, the fault of my industry, so don't go there) but am able to afford MY OWN health insurance that I really need. Continuous care and medication that I need and am covered for even though pre-existing conditions. Without this care I'd probably be dead.
And I'm not making the taxpayers pay for my medical care by running to the hospital every time something happens like some folks I know.
And there are jobs that maybe aren't what I'm used to doing but i can damn sure work in this economy. When I want to, I will. (benefits of having saved money.)
So, yeah. Trying to figure out what the repubs have done for us common folk. I'll get back to you on that one.
majority of America
You mean the single digit percentage of swing voters in a third of the states which were mostly red already who were slightly more motivated to actually show up at their polling place?
Are you better off under his administration??
By quite a bit. I started my investment portfolio after Bush left.
So I suppose I could give some credit to Bush for tanking the economy, so I could buy stocks cheap.
Sarge - tell me, what would a republican president do for you?
Obama, what has he done for you??
Well, he shit on my country...
I ask you, what has Obama done for you? Are you better off under his administration??
Yes, sweet Sarge, yes. Obamacare means that I can get health insurance with my new job IN SPITE OF THE FACT that I had a diagnosis of breast cancer in 2012. Never mind that I came through surgery and chemo like a winner, and have no further problems now, no evidence of any disease ... under the REPUBLICAN plan, insurance companies would be free to refuse me health coverage for the next 25 years ... as they have to many others in my situation in the past.
I see young people for pre-placement physicals every day, people who would never qualify for health insurance if the Republicans had their way. Young people who are healthy and willing to work, and who happen to have the odd medical condition like psoriasis, or childhood asthma with no current symptoms, or a diagnosis of cancer in the past with no recurrence.
None of these things are anyone's fault, and they should be covered by health insurance. I will always vote for a party or plan that intends to provide coverage for the slings and arrows that life deals us.
Right, I had a pre-existing condition when I got insurance last month and never even gave it a moment's thought.
But it's almost like the country wants the pendulum swing; today we'll focus on this side's issues, and next time we'll give the other side their issues. And all the while, two-thirds of our time will be spent criticizing, no matter who's in office. We can't have term limits, at least we'll have the never-ending swing. Could there be a country wisdom in it?
Well, he shit on my country...
That's so easy to say, Grav. Now do me a favor, and explain specifics why you feel that way.
I see the whining of some of you because the majority of America has turned its back on the Democratic Party under the leadership of President Obama.
Remember, Sarge, half the US's IQ is less than average. Those, coupled with some gullible smart people and some greedy, callous, selfish, rich people, get you a majority.
I ask you, what has Obama done for you? Are you better off under his administration??
The difference between you and me is that I care what it's done for others. I didn't really need help, and don't expect help, but I see that others, like you, Infi, Ortho, do. Obama expanded the care that veterans receive, after the repubicans cut funding for you.
Obama would have done much more if the repubicans had not cock blocked him at every turn. How much can a party really want to do what's best for Americans when the first thing McConnell said after the election was (to perephrase) "Our goal is to make Obama a one-term president?"
The thing that drives me absolutely NUTS is when people complain about how the economy is NOW and blame Obama. And when you dare to remind them that the problems were created by Bush, EVERY SINGLE ONE will respond with "Stop blaming Bush! He's been out of office for 6 years!!!". SO THE FUCK WHAT?!!! My reply is: "Hitler died in 1945. Should we stop blaming him for WWII and the concentration camp deaths?"
Obama hasn't done a lot for me personally that I can directly point to, but there is this:
Under Obamacare, insurance companies can only take 10% of the money they collect in premiums and use it for administration and profit. They must spend at least 90% of what they collect on actual patient healthcare. If they don't, they are required to give refunds to their customers for the difference. Each of the last three years under Obamacare, my insurance company has given me a partial refund of my insurance premium because they didn't meet that 90% requirement. It's never a lot of money, but I love it that Obama is keeping them honest.
The thing that drives me absolutely NUTS is when people complain about how the economy is NOW and blame Obama...
The thing is, the economy is doing well. Unemployment is not as low as we'd like, and wages aren't as high as we'd like, but it's the repubican philosophy that's causing it. Corporations are maintaining huge cash reserves. They're not hiring because demand is not increasing. Demand is not increasing because wages are low. :facepalm:
Otherwise, the Stock market is up, GDP is up, exports are up, inflation is below 2%, what more do you want that the POTUS can be blamed for not providing?
The thing is, the economy is doing well. Unemployment is not as low as we'd like, and wages aren't as high as we'd like, but it's the repubican philosophy that's causing it. Corporations are maintaining huge cash reserves. They're not hiring because demand is not increasing. Demand is not increasing because wages are low. :facepalm:
Otherwise, the Stock market is up, GDP is up, exports are up, inflation is below 2%, what more do you want that the POTUS can be blamed for not providing?
I know. But no matter how much proof you show them, they just ignore it and stick to their script. I had one twitter war yesterday with some knuckle-dragging she-ape because I posted how the GOP blocked the vote for equal pay for women in April. When I posted a link to the NYTimes from April 2014, she replied "LOL THAT article is from April! LOL THAT'S your proof?!! LOL. No matter how many times I pointed out it was FROM April because it HAPPENED in April, she just ignored it and kept to her script. It's like GOP stands for Gone Off Point.
And when you dare to remind them that the problems were created by Bush
Why do people stick to their vast oversimplification every time? It would be much simpler if they agreed with *my* vast oversimplification.
Why do people stick to their vast oversimplification every time? It would be much simpler if they agreed with *my* vast oversimplification.
Wrong. My vast oversimplification is not only vaster than yours, it's simpler!
That's so easy to say, Grav. Now do me a favor, and explain specifics why you feel that way.
I'm not into vast oversimplifications.;)
I just feel like my country, here at home, and perceptions abroad, is not
nearly the country we were before Obama took office.
I truly believe it was his intention from the getgo to make America
less.
I also believe it will take at least a generation to undo what he's done.
That's just how I feel.
Righties often call the left unpatriotic, but if the country you love could be squashed so hard by a single President in a few short years, how is that not unpatriotic? Isn't that saying it wasn't much of a country to begin with?
I love sitting here in the middle where I can take potshots at everyone...
I truly believe it was his intention from the getgo to make America less.
.
But why? Why would he intend to do that? What possible reason could he have for wanting to diminish the nation he is president of? That makes no sense at all. Whatsoever. On any level.
I love sitting here in the middle where I can take potshots at everyone...
Your play is better than mine. I just shake my head at the self-delusion. Oh wait, that's a potshot! Winner winner chicken dinner.
But why? Why would he intend to do that? What possible reason could he have for wanting to diminish the nation he is president of? That makes no sense at all. Whatsoever. On any level.
Because half the world was pissed off about Iraq and Afghanistan, he tried to back the country out of bully mode. That way we wouldn't have to watch our back as hard, and could actually broker peace in hot spots. But the right wing, kill-'em-all-and-let-God-sort-'em-out crowd resents that.
I see a recurring thread on here about health care and Obama's not responsible for the economy My, my.
In regard to the Affordable Health Care, it has created a nightmare in my area. Many jobs have become part-time to skirt the health insurance benefits. I know a lot of people who have ended up having to pay more for health insurance. Plus, my son is a Medicaid Eligibility Specialist. He sees large numbers of people who had health care from work, but are now forced to purchase their own or go on Medicaid. Many lower middle class and working class families can't afford the insurance but make too much for Medicaid.
Obama is not responsible for the economy? He's only been president for 6 years during which the Democrats controlled the Senate and for awhile the House. We have the highest national debt ever. Remember when he called Bush un-american for having a 5.4 trillion debt during his 8 years? What is the debt now? I wish all of you would truthfully ask yourselves would you have cut a Republican president this much slack??
"We have the highest national debt ever."
You could have said that at any time in the last 30 years and that would have been true, and if we get a Republican president next term you will also be able to say that then too. The debt only grows.
Maybe you mean deficit, and not debt.
Two things impact the deficit. Revenues and spending. When the economy tanked (under Bush, if you are going to take the position that presidents are to blame) tax revenues went down and so the deficit increased. Obama initially pushed a stimulus package through, but then he stopped the spending increases. It's been 5-6 years that Obama has held spending down. It's the lack of huge tax revenues that is driving the deficit. And if you have been paying attention, the deficit is shrinking because the economy is slowly improving.
Yes, I did say the American public has sent a message on it's approval for the Democratic Party. I guess the public does not reflect the liberalism so many in the Cellar demonstrate.
In regard to the Affordable Health Care, it has created a nightmare in my area. Many jobs have become part-time to skirt the health insurance benefits. I know a lot of people who have ended up having to pay more for health insurance. Plus, my son is a Medicaid Eligibility Specialist. He sees large numbers of people who had health care from work, but are now forced to purchase their own or go on Medicaid. Many lower middle class and working class families can't afford the insurance but make too much for Medicaid.
Mississippi is right on the bottom, (50) because your Governor
refused federal money to help those very people you're talking about.
Mississippi also ranked
last or next to last in...
Economy > Median Family Income
Education > Assessments > % of Students Above Advanced > Grade 8 Math
Education > Percent of People Who Have Completed High School (Including Equivalency)
Health > Oral health > Visits to the dentist
Lifestyle > Best States to Live
Transportation > Public Transportation > Federal funding, 1995 (per capita)
Transportation > Seat Belt Use
Economy > Personal income (per capita)
Education > Assessments > % of Students Above Advanced > Grade 4 Math
Education > Assessments > % of Students Above Proficient > Grade 8 Writing
Education > Best Educated Index
Health > Health Index
Health > Physical exercise
Housing > Median Housing Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units
People > Sex Ratio
I don't think you can blame the federal officials for all those problems, best get your own house in order.
Oh Bruce thinks little ole' me can rush in and save the State of Mississippi after it was destroyed by repressive Democrat regimes? I thought y'all yankees came down here and saved everything in the 1960's.
I'm so glad Obama has turned our economy around. Who knows where we would be without him. Through his guiding hand we are ranked 12th and falling in the index of economic freedom. Bush is responsible for our economy? Hmm, I thought Obama was at the helm when our country was downgraded.
I was speaking about our national debt earlier. I'm concerned about the spiraling debt under this administration. As I said before, Obama denounced Bush as un-american for having a 5.2 trillion debt. I wonder what that makes the POTUS??
Interesting read:
http://wolfstreet.com/2014/10/05/dwindling-deficit-ha-us-government-debt-jumps-by-1-1-trillion-in-fiscal-2014/
When it comes to the Federal deficit, reliable numbers are as elusive as unicorns. Not that there aren’t plenty of numbers out there, but they don’t match reality. And reality is ultimately the change in the gross national debt which shows in its unvarnished manner just how much money the federal government actually had to borrow to fill the fiscal holes.
Regardless of what has been proffered by the White House, the Congressional Budget Office, and others, the total gross national debt outstanding of the US of A hit $17.824 trillion in fiscal 2014 ended September 30. A jump for the fiscal year of $1.086 trillion.
It could have been worse: note how it jumped on October 1, the first day of fiscal 2015, by another $51 billion. That’s certainly one elegant way of putting some lipstick on the debt in fiscal 2014 – by kicking part of it into the next fiscal year. But hey, we all do that. From the Treasury Department:
US-gross-national-debt-jumps-51billion-1st-day-fiscal-2015
The fact that the total debt taxpayers will have to deal with in the future soared by $1.1 trillion in fiscal 2014 is in part due to last year’s debt ceiling charade in Congress.
Starting in March 2013, when Treasury debt outstanding hit the debt ceiling, the Treasury Department couldn’t sell additional debt to bring in the money that the government continued to spend. So it borrowed that money via “extraordinary measures” from other accounts, to be repaid later. Then on October 16 last year, so in fiscal 2014, President Obama signed a deal into law that avoided default. The next day, the gross national debt jumped $328 billion to $17.075 trillion.
Most of the $328 billion should have fallen into fiscal 2013. If subtracted from the $1.086 trillion by which the debt ballooned in fiscal 2014, it reduces the increase in the debt to $758 billion.
The chart below summarizes the glorious fiscal condition of the US over the years. Note the exponential increase since 2001, after four fiscal years of so-called “surpluses.” In quotes because these “surpluses” between 1998 and 2001 that at one point exceeded 2% of GDP should have brought down the gross national debt by the amounts of the surpluses. But not these “surpluses!” The debt increased in every one of those four years, in total by $394 billion. That’s how much real money it took to cover these government accounting “surpluses.”
Since 2002, the US government borrowed $12 trillion, or two-thirds of the total debt outstanding! Since 2008, the government borrowed $8.8 trillion, or about half of the total debt outstanding, at an average rate of $1.26 trillion per year. Come to think of it, not all that much as changed in fiscal 2014.
US-Gross-National-Debt-1972-2014
The Fed has been the enabler. After years of QE, it currently owns $2.45 trillion or 14% of the gross national debt, in addition to a couple of trillion in other securities. The Fed’s asset purchase binge with newly printed money allowed the US government to go on a borrowing spree and blow this money. There have been some big beneficiaries: Wall Street, the corporate elite, Warren Buffett in particular through the bailout of this financial and insurance empire, the military and intelligence complex, and others. And there have been millions of small beneficiaries: people receiving federal subsidies of some sort. But for the economy, which is going to have to pay for this debt one way (taxes) or the other (inflation), it has been a slog.
How fast will the debt balloon from here? The Congressional Budget Office has its own ideas. Relentlessly over-optimistic, it never sees any recessions in the future, nor further bailouts and similar shenanigans that Congress may inflict on taxpayers. In its annual update in the spring, it figured that the budget deficit for fiscal 2014 would be $492 billion. In reality, the US borrowed 121% more than that to cover the fiscal deficit. Even if we subtract the $328 billion from the total to lower the debt increase to $758 billion, the US still borrowed 52% more than CBO’s deficit projection.
Even based on these iffy numbers by the CBO, the deficit is expected to decline only for fiscal 2015 and 2016, with the total debt rising at a slower rate than in recent years. That assumes that the next recession won’t wreak its havoc. That’s the good part in those projections. But then, the deficit will rise again, and the debt will pile on even faster.
But heck, that’s government accounting. Corporate accounting is similar. It’s a mix of revelation and obfuscation. In the end, real money is spent on real expenses, and if real receipts don’t suffice to pay for them, the government borrows real money. It all coagulates in the moment of truth: changes in the gross national debt. And if history is any guide, the national debt will increase far faster than the rosy projections by the CBO.
Yes, I did say the American public has sent a message on it's approval for the Democratic Party. I guess the public does not reflect the liberalism so many in the Cellar demonstrate.
Of the 206 million eligible voters, 70 million are not registered. Then 63% of the registered voters stayed home, or pushed the "fuck you" button.
So the Republicans got a little over half about 54 million votes cast. That's the "American public" you speak of? Have some more Kool-Aid.
Oh Bruce thinks little ole' me can rush in and save the State of Mississippi after it was destroyed by repressive Democrat regimes? I thought y'all yankees came down here and saved everything in the 1960's.
It ain't Yankees, and it ain't the party, it's Mississippians who have dragged the state into the gutter.
I'm so glad Obama has turned our economy around. Who knows where we would be without him. Through his guiding hand we are ranked 12th and falling in the index of economic freedom. Bush is responsible for our economy? Hmm, I thought Obama was at the helm when our country was downgraded.
Congress makes the laws, collects and spends the money, and gets us downgraded. Guess you missed US Government class.
I'm not into vast oversimplifications.;)
I just feel like my country, here at home, and perceptions abroad, is not nearly the country we were before Obama took office.
I truly believe it was his intention from the getgo to make America less.
I also believe it will take at least a generation to undo what he's done.
That's just how I feel.
I think Obama improved our standing in the world. We're not perceived as that asshole bully anymore. If that was his intention, good for him. Fewer of our young people and less of our money are are being wasted in an unwinnable (at least through violence) cause.
I see a recurring thread on here about health care and Obama's not responsible for the economy My, my.
In regard to the Affordable Health Care, it has created a nightmare in my area. Many jobs have become part-time to skirt the health insurance benefits. I know a lot of people who have ended up having to pay more for health insurance. Plus, my son is a Medicaid Eligibility Specialist. He sees large numbers of people who had health care from work, but are now forced to purchase their own or go on Medicaid. Many lower middle class and working class families can't afford the insurance but make too much for Medicaid.
That's not the ACA, that's a greedy, selfish business owner putting more money in his pocket at the expense of his fellow Americans. And what Bruce said - If your state had participated, they'd had more covered at lower expense.
“[Governor Phil] Bryant made it clear Mississippi would not participate, leaving 138,000 low-income residents, the majority of whom are black, with no insurance options at all. And while the politics of Obamacare became increasingly toxic, the state’s already financially strapped rural hospitals faced a new crisis from the law’s failure to take hold: They had been banking on newly insured patients to replace the federal support for hospitals serving the uninsured, which was set to taper off as people gained coverage. Now, instead of more people getting more care in Mississippi, in many cases, they would get less."
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120026/mississippi-medicaid-expansion-decision-costing-states-poor
Oh and it looks like repubicans are continuing their racist behavior
Obama is not responsible for the economy? He's only been president for 6 years during which the Democrats controlled the Senate and for awhile the House. We have the highest national debt ever. Remember when he called Bush un-american for having a 5.4 trillion debt during his 8 years? What is the debt now? I wish all of you would truthfully ask yourselves would you have cut a Republican president this much slack??
Republicans don't want to raise taxes. Veterans need better care. Better care cost money.
Sarge, do you choose to not give better care to veterans, or do you go into debt to provide better care for veterans?
"In February Attorney General Eric Holder indicated in a press conference that the Obama Administration -- which favors physician-recommended access to medical cannabis -- would abate from what had been an aggressive law enforcement (and propaganda) campaign against medical access to cannabis."
Sheldon can marry the man of his dreams and be just as unhappily married as the rest of us. :eek:
Tsk, tsk so many trying to cast stones at one little state. My goodness all we need is Bruce & Spexxvet to mount their mighty chargers and come to the rescue. I had no idea you were responsible for the success of your own home states. Pray tell, please identify your state so we can all bask in the glory of the Democrats.
Obama killed Osama?? He was the number 1 in the stack & pulled the trigger?? A man with no military service who has ravaged our senior command? Now y'all must be snorting your koolaid. Osama was eliminated due to the efforts of the intelligence community that culminated with a tactical excision. I think Admiral McRaven was responsible for planning and executing the mission. Obama watched a computer screen.
Maybe you should consider the Obama administration vetted commander of the Inter-Services Intelligence knew Osama's location and withheld the information. The 9/11 events and War on Terror lay at the feet of President Clinton. He withheld the permission to eliminate bin Laden when he was was successfully targeted at the end of his administration.
Our Glorious Leader has saved the economy and the unemployment rate is shrinking. Wait a minute, we might need to check that.
Here is the stunning statistic on the economy that tells the whole story about why we aren’t growing faster. Since Barack Obama entered the Oval Office in January of 2009,the percentage of the working age population actually part of the labor force (either working or looking for work) has plummeted by 3 percentage points – to 62.7%. Not since early 1978 has such a low proportion of the working-age population been in the labor force. In effect, the labor force is 7.4 million smaller than it otherwise would have been had people either not stopped looking for work or, particularly with the case of younger Americans, simply failed to start looking for work. In effect, nearly as many Americans have either left the work force – or never entered — in this recovery than have found a job. That’s a very distressing trend. It also explains the big dive in the official unemployment rate to 5.9%.
Maybe we should check some of Glorious Leader's accomplishments a little closer.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemoore/2014/10/06/under-obama-one-million-more-americans-have-dropped-out-of-work-force-than-have-found-a-job/McRaven needs to close some blabby mouths, like he said he was gonna. Seals shouldn't be giving details of seal raids.
... Obama killed Osama?? He was the number 1 in the stack & pulled the trigger?? ...
The number 1 in the stack missed, the number 2 aced Osama according to No. 2 and corroborating witnesses.
McRaven needs to close some blabby mouths, like he said he was gonna. Seals shouldn't be giving details of seal raids.
Meh, they told Delta Force operators to be humble and keep everything to themselves only to have the retired CO write a book and market the rights to a movie. Trade secrets are one thing; but, the majority of what happened doesn't need to remain classified until the Admiral gets around to releasing HIS book. He's just upset because he can't while still on active duty whereas others who left the military can.
Tsk, tsk so many trying to cast stones at one little state.
Nobody's casting stones, just showing you why you blaming Obama and the Affordable Care Act for the troubles of all those Mississippians is wrong. Their woes, which go way beyond health insurance, are generated by the politicians in Jackson.
Sexobon - It has now come into question as to whether the first in stack hit Osama with one of his 2 rounds that were fired. The #2 followed with a round to the head upon entry into the bedroom. Seals are arguing whether he was already dead and which one of the operators was in the second position.
Personally, I feel the members of the mission and roles they played should remain classified. I don't understand how any of this has been released. These men had TS/SCI with dual scope, a read on for Gamma and others. Upon transfer of station, they are required to be read off and sign an NDA. If any of us had opened our mouths on our target packages, we'd probably be playing dress up with Little Miss Chelsea Manning. This whole shit storm started because the White House wanted to play look what I did with Hollywood.
... I don't understand how any of this has been released. ... Upon transfer of station, they are required to be read off and sign an NDA. If any of us had opened our mouths on our target packages, we'd probably be playing dress up with Little Miss Chelsea Manning. ...
It's not hard for those who weren't in the military; or, are no longer in the military to get away with it. An NDA won't put anyone behind bars. This was covered in a [post=869278]previous discussion[/post] about Snowden:
Divulging classified information has always been illegal; but, the government has always had difficulty in successfully prosecuting such cases. That's because the standard in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt" which can be created ...
... So the government went the corporate route back around '86-'87 and started having everyone with a security clearance sign nondisclosure agreements; otherwise, lose their security clearances and most likely their jobs ... including military personnel who would be immediately processed for separation. I signed mine.
The nondisclosure agreements in themselves did not make divulging classified information illegal, there were already laws on the books for that. The agreements reminded people that it was illegal and more importantly provided for forfeiture to the government of any tangible gains a violator may realize from the breach of security. The government can sue violators just as corporations can sue individuals who violate nondisclosure agreements protecting proprietary information. These are civil cases in which the burden of proof is simply "a preponderance of the evidence" that they broke the law. ...
Can you imagine the political fallout if the government tried to criminally prosecute the Seals who got bin Laden. Sue them, maybe.
I think Obama improved our standing in the world. We're not perceived as that asshole bully anymore.
Right, now we're perceived as disloyal and untrustworthy. Some improvement.
:runaway:
This is why I love Marines. They don't look for glory, they have it within themselves. Marines just ARE.
They're not running around trying to remind us of everything they've done for us. They don't look for glory in their actions. They know it. We know it. The few, the proud...there's a lot to be said for that.
I'm not negating what the SEALS did. I'm just sayin'...
Semper Fidelis
I see a recurring thread on here about health care and Obama's not responsible for the economy My, my.
...
Obama killed Osama?? He was the number 1 in the stack & pulled the trigger??
Obama killed Bin Laden just as much as he's responsible for the economy, unless you have a double standard.
Sarg, how about answering the question?
Republicans don't want to raise taxes. Veterans need better care. Better care cost money.
[COLOR="Red"]Sarge, do you choose to not give better care to veterans, or do you go into debt to provide better care for veterans?[/COLOR]
Our Glorious Leader has saved the economy and the unemployment rate is shrinking. Wait a minute, we might need to check that.
The government has used the same measurement for unemployment for a long time. The Cellar discussed this same argument during the bush administration, IIRC. I can't find the thread, though.
Obama killed Bin Laden just as much as he's responsible for the economy
I disagree. The Commander in Chief has direct control of the military, so he can order an operation like the Bin Laden one, and it will be carried out.
Fixing the economy requires herding the cats in Congress to pass stimulus packages and other fiscal policy laws. He can do a little by executive order, but mostly relies on Congress. And the Tea Party at the time was all about cutting government spending and sequestering and furloughing the government workers. They were doing anti-stimulus stuff.
They aren't remotely equal.
One he has direct control over, and the other requires cooperation with Congress.
If this gets deranged in the middle it's because I'm trying to post from my phone. Next to impossible to go back and correct.
What Obama gave me was what the Cellar does. Faith and hope in Americans and the fact you're not just paying lip service to that poor old bit of paper that has been used and misused and callen to excuse some sorry shit but also some wonders of the world besides.
Be proud. Be American. The rest of of don't always get you. But you elected a mixed heritage man, with a middle name which is suspect in your country. Don't be short term. The rest of the world maybe doesn't hold you in as high esteem as you think but that applies to every continent, country, principalities, capital, etc etc
From a foreigner's pov Obama seems about all Americans being equal. And yes, I am an admitted (again and again) bleeding heart liberal. I think he is bringing the US into line with European thinking and ideals. And yes of course I think that's good.
If you don't, it's your country. I wouldn't want anyone from outside to change orld and you really are. But only when you say Sains
Crap. I typed out a long response and outlined how the current administration had affected me personally. I posted it and the Cellar ate it!
Crap. I typed out a long response and outlined how the current administration had affected me personally. I posted it and the Cellar ate it!
Fuck. Hate when that happens!
Crap. I typed out a long response and outlined how the current administration had affected me personally. I posted it and the Cellar ate it!
I blame Obama.
I do favor an overhaul of the VA and a general reduction in benefits. This is what I would like to see.
Elimination of the Post 9/11 education benefit. The Montgomery GI Bill and the Veteran's Re-education Program is more than sufficient.
No medical services for non-rated veterans. If you do not have a service connected disability, you are not covered.
Elimination of VA hospitals. Disabled veterans would receive a voucher that would enable them to have local care providers of their choice. Also the voucher would permit the use of local pharmacies.
I think you get the picture.
Single payer health coverage covers it.
I think there are merits to the single payer health cover.
How difficult would it be to prove an injury was service related? I'm thinking of cancers that may or may not be related to Agent Orange or depleted uranium shells.
How difficult would it be to prove an injury was service related? I'm thinking of cancers that may or may not be related to Agent Orange or depleted uranium shells.
It took an acquaintance of mine about 30 years to get his diabetes recognized as being agent orange related.
I'm dropping the Freedom Hills vernacular and the rabid quotes of the conspiracy theory groups. This is my attempt to explain why I am displeased by the current administration.
1. My income is app a third of what it was 4 years ago. I went through a horrible period of nothing at all until the Wounded Warrior Project and the office of Rep Nunnley intervened with the VA.
2. The cost of insurance for Addie more than doubled this year. I had to drop it. Can't afford it.
3. Under Bush, I received above average medical care, meds sent to me always on time, and a dedicated group of care givers. Under Obama I have waits up to 6 months for appointments, my meds are routinely late for up to 10 days, and I never see the same care provider. I haven't been able to see a dentist to fix missing crowns and broken teeth since 2010.
4. I have to seek permission to use my education benefits under Obama. I never have the same education benefit adviser when I call. Under Obama, I can't transfer my education benefits to my children. Bryanna was forced out of school when I could no longer pay her tuition.
5. I applied for Social Security benefits in 2012. I am still awaiting my hearing. I am frustrated by minority and special circumstance individuals being front loaded.
6. Race relations have plummeted. Obama has made statements that unnecessarily added to the turmoil. I live in a town where whites are a minority. I'm a member of the NAACP. It makes me sick when I hear our local chapter calling for the replacement of government officials based only on race.
7. The shortages of reloading components and ammunition was caused by the massive purchases of Homeland Security drying up the market. At one point, more ammo was purchased by Homeland Security than the Marines. Local law enforcement agencies had to halt firearms training because of the shortage. This may seem like nothing to you, but in my area hunting supplies a lot of meat for families during the winter. No ammo, no meat.
That's my feelings.
Does anyone even attempt to understand my frustrations??
I think your frustrations stem not from what's happening, but being clueless as to the causes.
[YOUTUBE]0tJY6Od9ZuE[/YOUTUBE]
Dana - You have to resort to clips from a liberal comedy show based upon political farce to express your views?
Bruce - So if I was as "informed" as you, all my problems would disappear?
Dana - You have to resort to clips from a liberal comedy show based upon political farce to express your views?
No. I think I express my views often in here, on a number of issues, often at great length.
I saw that clip and thought of this thread.
I'm dropping the Freedom Hills vernacular and the rabid quotes of the conspiracy theory groups. This is my attempt to explain why I am displeased by the current administration.
...
That's my feelings.
I think your frustrations stem not from what's happening, but being clueless as to the causes.
Exactly, Bruce. Sarge, you have the internet. Google and find the facts. You'll find that it's the republicans who are trying to cut spending - on EVERYTHING. That includes Veterans benefits, and Medicatre/Social Security (which they'd like to eliminate entirely).
Sarge, how can you accuse Democrats of spending too much, and then accuse them of cutting spending.
GET THE FACTS, DOUBLE CHECK YOUR FINDINGS.
Dana - You have to resort to clips from a liberal comedy show based upon political farce to express your views?
Sarge, don't dismiss the message because of the messenger. Do you deny that the point is valid, regardless of the source?
Bruce - So if I was as "informed" as you, all my problems would disappear?
No, Sarge - voting in a Democratic House, Senate, and POTUS will.
Bruce - So if I was as "informed" as you, all my problems would disappear?
If it's raining, do you listen to the guy blaming god, or listen to the guy selling umbrellas?
Does anyone even attempt to understand my frustrations??
I am.
I am especially attempting to understand how this administration is responsible for your frustrations.
How is this Obama's fault, as you clearly imply?
'nuthin.
Just as I like it.
Great attempts made to, in my estimation, hobble folks (of which I am one)...little success on their part (against the cagey and criminal).
As it should be.
What has any elected person ever done that has had a(n):
direct effect on you
was it positive or negative?
indirect effect on you
was it positive or negative?
Although I don't think this is to what you were referring,
I met Gov Corbett in person. Speaking with him and a few members of his administration reinforced my extremely negative opinion off him/them.
What has any elected person ever done that has had a(n):
direct effect on you
was it positive or negative?
indirect effect on you
was it positive or negative?
I think this deserves its own thread.
Speaking with him and a few members of his administration reinforced my extremely negative opinion off him/them.
What did you talk about and why was it so negative?
Mostly TBI funding and benefits. Because I was informed and they were full of crap. They all attended the speech to smile and shake hands. They stood there and lied to everyone in the room. Sadly, most of the people there were, like me, well informed on the issues and the BS did not go unnoticed.
I don't know who this Cenk Uygur thinks he is, but in my mind he pretty much epitomizes the cluelessness of so-called "progressives". Here's another gem from Cenk, There are dozens of progressive priorities that are not even being considered. He writes this as if Darth Barack was supposed to be some progressive dream like "Fightin' Bob" La Follette. It was obvious from the mid 2000s that Darth Barack was just another representative of capitalist interests. That some people are disappointed that Darth Barack has not championed their "progressive" causes says nothing about Obomba and says a treasure trove about people's own ability to delude themselves. They seemed to think because he wasn't completely white, that he would somehow be "on their side". Sorry, folks, class trumps identity politics every time. Now watch "progressives" back Killery or Warren because they are women.
It's open enrollment season, so I checked how much my company insurance was going to jump this year. For the first time ever the increase is in line with inflation at about 2.5%. Every year for the past 12 it has increased 15 - 20 %
Thanks Obama!
This is from the place I just left. Keep in mind that a lot of those folks are living on something under $10 an hour. The format is wonky but the cheaper plan individual rate went down and everything else went up... a lot.
2015 Excellus Plans
2014 EPO K
Bi-weekly 2015 EPO K
Bi-weekly 2014 Simply Blue 40 2015 Simply Blue 40
Individual $132.78 $168.63 $69.88 $53.01
Family $335.04 $426.71 $194.77 $259.39
EPO Option K will have the following coverage:
• $25 co-pay for Office Visits for PCP and Specialist
• $500 Hospital co-pay per admission
• $50 ER Co-pay
• Eyewear Coverage $60/max every two years
• Dependant to Age 26
• $10/$30/$50 Prescription Coverage
Simply Blue Plan will have the following coverage:
• $40 co-pay for Primary Care Office Visits
• $60 co-pay for Specialist Visits
• $750 In-patient co-pay, per day for up to four day max
• $350 Outpatient/Office Surgery
• $350 Surgical Fee, any setting
• $350 ER Co-pay
• Dependant to Age 26
• $7 Generic ONLY Prescription Coverage (if you take a prescription that is not generic, you will be responsible for the full cost)
.
My employer subsidized family plan, which is a very high deductible with a health savings account type of plan, has gone up 0% this year. That has never happened before since I started working here 23 years ago.
Thank you, Obama.
Higher paid people pay less for insurance, that is the American way.
My current plan will not be available next year. Its changing again. The new comparable plan is $200 more a month and has an OOP max of $6350 (compared with $2500) AND my prescription coverage is now 50% up to $125 per instead of a $10 copay. The one prescription I use 5 times a year means I'll be out another $575 a year.
In fact, the company is not truly offering a "group plan" any longer. What they are doing is paying a % of each employees plan. The available options are all based upon age. Therefore all the older employees are getting screwed even harder.
ETA - One coworker will be paying over $900 a month for just him and his wife. Thats almost double from last year.
Thanks Obama!
Sounds more like, "Thanks unethical employer."
If your employer is offering shit plans, there are very likely better plans on the state/federal exchange. Your employer could have screwed you at any point along the way, they are doing so now because they want you to get off their plan and find something better in the new system.
While I'm pleased that my premiums haven't gone up this year, the costs of my health care are staggering. I can't get my hands on the 2015 numbers, but in 2014, I'm paying $4,560 per year for my family plan premiums. And since it's an HSA type of plan, I need to put funds aside for that to pay for the actual health care we use before the $6k in-network family deductible is met. I set aside $2,640 per year for that. So I'm spending $7,200 for family health care per year for simple wellness visits and basic stuff like contact lenses. This doesn't include dental. Doesn't seem like that much until you factor in what my company is paying. They pay $15,946.32 per year in premiums for my family plan. So that's a total of $23,146.32 per year for health care for a healthy family of 4. We also get the promise that if we get really sick, we will be taken care of (after that $6k deductible is met.) And I guess that's what insurance is all about.
What? Employer/Insurance co, screw you? In America? Poppycock.
I'm not surprised to see Humana team up with walmart and AARP, after all, scum congeals.
It was Humana sending bullshit letters to subscribers in the months leading up to the Obamacare start, tricking them into a most costly policy. Various states have fined them millions of dollars for being lying scumbags, but they are just saying 'oops, sorry', all the way to the bank. :mad:
Sounds more like, "Thanks unethical employer."
If your employer is offering shit plans, there are very likely better plans on the state/federal exchange.
Hahahaha ... funny lady.
These are the EXACT SAME PLANS available on the exchange.
Hi everyone! Remember me? :)
I was reminded of this forum when the torture report came out yesterday, because we had such
a great conversation about torture a few years ago. I was going to revive that thread, but thought I'd pop in here first because it looked like fun, too, so here goes (Part 1 of 2) ...
In regard to the Affordable Health Care, it has created a nightmare in my area. Many jobs have become part-time to skirt the health insurance benefits.
While I appreciate the anecdote, do you have any factual evidence of this occurring, as well as evidence that the Affordable Care Act is to blame for it if it is? I ask because if that's the case, it's contrary to what economists know from the data.
From the conservative Wall Street Journal:
[INDENT]
“Companies are just more inclined to hire part-time workers, not necessarily because of the health-care law, but for business reasons that make it a more attractive option,” Ms. Girard said.
Anecdotal reports have suggested employers have cut hours to prepare for the implementation of the health-care law, but that hasn’t been borne out by economic data. [/INDENT]
I know a lot of people who have ended up having to pay more for health insurance.
More than what? More than previous years? More than for bad policies that didn't actually cover them for anything if they got sick, which were disallowed under the new law?
Plus, my son is a Medicaid Eligibility Specialist. He sees large numbers of people who had health care from work, but are now forced to purchase their own or go on Medicaid.
Define "large numbers," please. Any factual evidence as to why they've been "forced" out of work-related health care?
Many lower middle class and working class families can't afford the insurance but make too much for Medicaid.
Now here you've said something quite profoundly true. Would you care to know why that is?
[INDENT]
The Coverage Gap: Uninsured Poor Adults in States that Do Not Expand Medicaid – An Update
Nationally, nearly four million poor uninsured adults fall into the “coverage gap” that results from state decisions not to expand Medicaid, meaning their income is above current Medicaid eligibility but below the lower limit for Marketplace premium tax credits. These individuals would have been newly-eligible for Medicaid had their state chosen to expand coverage. ...
Adults left in the coverage gap due to current state decisions not to expand Medicaid are spread across the states not expanding their Medicaid programs but are concentrated in states with the largest uninsured populations (Table 1). ...
The geographic distribution of the population in the coverage gap reflects both population distribution and regional variation in state take-up of the ACA Medicaid expansion. As a whole, more people—and in particular more poor uninsured adults— reside in the South than in other regions.[sup]3[/sup] Further, the South has higher uninsured rates and more limited Medicaid eligibility than other regions. Southern states also have disproportionately opted not to expand their programs, and nearly half (11 out of 23) of the states not expanding Medicaid are in the South. These factors combined mean 86% of people in the coverage gap reside in the South (Figure 2).[/INDENT]
That would therefore not be the fault of either President Obama or the Affordable Care Act. It would be the fault of the conservative Supreme Court who altered the ACA to make Medicare expansion
optional instead of mandatory for the states. In other words, blame your state Governor, not President Obama.
Obama is not responsible for the economy? He's only been president for 6 years during which the Democrats controlled the Senate and for awhile the House.
I'm happy to give President Obama credit for the economy. I think he's done a great job with it. (Though you're incorrect in the length of time Democrats in Congress had any kind of meaningful majority. It was actually more like five months that Democrats had control of both houses of Congress with filibuster-proof majorities. But you should know, in spite of that obstacle, the 111th Congress was one of the
most productive of any Congress since WWII.)
Here is Politifact's assessment of the economic numbers as compared to when President Obama took office. For the most part, the numbers you want to see going up, are going up, some of them significantly. And the numbers you want to see going down are going down.
Where the numbers aren't doing what we'd hope for, there are factors that have little to nothing to do with anything President Obama has done or not done. You'll find (should you choose to read through it in full) that "bad" numbers are often attributed to the financial collapse that occurred as a result of the previous administration's bad policies that brought us to our knees in a deep recession.
For instance:
[INDENT]
Median household income rose just slightly to $51,939 in 2013, Census reported. In “real” income, adjusted for inflation, that was 0.3 percent higher than in 2012, but still 4.6 percent below 2008, the year before Obama first took office, when the first effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression were just starting to be felt. ...[/INDENT]
[INDENT]
As of September, the U.S. had 5,459,000 more people employed than it did when Obama took office in 2009. And the official unemployment rate had dipped to 5.9 percent, which was 1.9 percentage points below where it was when he first took office.
But scars from the great recession of 2007-2009 remain.[/INDENT]
His policies have been extraordinarily great to Businesses and Wall Street -- those folks Reagan promised would "trickle down" their financial rewards on us if we would lower their tax responsibility to "free up" more of their cash -- yeah, those guys. Who never actually did that.
[INDENT]
The Obama years have brought dramatically better times for corporations and their stockholders.
Corporate profits (after taxes) reached a record annual rate of more than $1.8 trillion in the second quarter of this year, the most recent figures available. That was 174 percent higher than the quarter before Obama first entered the White House.[/INDENT]
Do you think the average worker and family would be doing better if corporations stopped using taxpayers like you and me to supplement their payroll departments with our money in the form of survival security programs? Did you know that if Wal-Mart would take their $28 Billion in annual profits (profits -- as in after taxes -- not income) and raised all 1.4 million American workers' salaries by a mere $5,000 a year, it would pull families out of poverty, reduce reliance on social programs (freeing up tax dollars to be used for infrastructure repair, creating jobs for millions of Americans), and
still leave them a multibillion-dollar corporation with annual profits of $18 billion?
It's true. Do you not think corporations in America have a responsibility to pay their own payroll from their own profits? Why should they be allowed to suck off the government teat when they have way more than enough to cover their own payroll expenses and still be filthy rich? How does that promote American values? How does that promote a self-reliant public? If people were doing that -- forcing the government to pay their mortgage or rent, their utilities and their food, while all they paid for was their car and their clothing while they were sitting on million-dollar bank accounts -- you'd be UP IN ARMS and you know it.
We have the highest national debt ever.
Yes we do. Are you interested in why? Because it's not all President Obama's fault, you know.
[INDENT]
The federal debt held by the public, which had not quite doubled as of our last report, is now nearly 103 percent higher than it was the day he first took office. The “total” debt, which includes money the government owes to itself, has gone up by more than 68 percent.
Both figures are staggering, but are not entirely Obama’s fault. As we’ve often noted, the FY2009 federal deficit was running at a rate of $1.2 trillion on the day he took office in the midst of a financial crisis.
The debt is now growing less rapidly than during Obama’s first years, which saw a string of trillion-dollar-plus annual deficits. CBO projects this year’s deficit will be $506 billion, so the deficit has fallen by more than half since he took office.[/INDENT]
I'd love to see it do better. What have Republicans who control the purse strings in Congress done to make it better? They've spent a lot of time and taxpayer resources to make
54 votes to repeal or gut the Affordable Care Act. How many jobs bills have they introduced, let alone passed? Actual jobs bills, not tax cuts that they claim will create jobs in the way Reagan's peeing program claimed but failed to deliver.
--continued--
Part 2 of 2:
Remember when he called Bush un-american for having a 5.4 trillion debt during his 8 years?
Not exactly, but close enough. Here's the full quote, made while he was still candidate Obama, not President Obama:
[INDENT]
The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.[/INDENT]
Now that sure seems damning if President Obama and his policies had actually done worse. But have they? The number is higher, but why? From Politifact again:
[INDENT]
Both figures are staggering, but are not entirely Obama’s fault. As we’ve often noted, the FY2009 federal deficit was running at a rate of $1.2 trillion on the day he took office in the midst of a financial crisis.[/INDENT]
So if you step into office and the deficit (the difference between what you're spending and what you're bringing in) is averaging $1.2 trillion a year because of spending bills and budgets that were passed before you even took office, you can't really be said to have
caused all of the increase in the debt.
But if you're the president who put two multitrillion-dollar wars on the nation's credit card, hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans on the nation's credit card, and lied to the United States Congress to get them to pass a massive giveaway to the Pharmaceutical industry that you put on the nation's credit card,
then left all those obligations in place still racking up the debt for the next guy who steps in ("Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs.), I think you can rightly be blamed for being irresponsible and unpatriotic.
What is the debt now? I wish all of you would truthfully ask yourselves would you have cut a Republican president this much slack??
I'd like you to ask yourself why you've cut Republican President George W. Bush and his Republican Congress this much slack for the trillions of dollars of debt
his and their policies and actions have saddled this country with, making it that much harder for
any president of
any political party to make the slightest bit of headway against. How do you think a President McCain might have changed our nation's spending and tax revenue structure so that we could stop the still-current bleeding caused by the irresponsible wars, tax cuts and corporate giveaways Bush put on our credit card?
Hmm, I thought Obama was at the helm when our country was downgraded.
John Boehner was at the helm of the branch of government that was held responsible for said downgrade.
[INDENT]
“The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently.”[/INDENT] You remember who was threatening to default on our obligations and actually shut the government down rather than raise the debt ceiling, right? That would be the irresponsible actors in Congress, I'm afraid.
Interesting read: http://wolfstreet.com/2014/10/05/dwindling-deficit-ha-us-government-debt-jumps-by-1-1-trillion-in-fiscal-2014/
What I find most interesting is that that pretty little graphic fails to find fault with either Reagan (who more than doubled the debt and stole from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for his tax cuts) or GW Bush, who did worse, then adds an adorable little color block of a "projection" just to make President Obama's numbers appear that much worse than Bush's actual numbers. Not to mention completely ignoring the source for the ongoing rise in the debt, which is a combination of the still-not-closed gap between spending and income which causes a deficit in our annual budget (something President Clinton left in a state of surplus) and -- again -- two unfunded wars, unfunded tax breaks for the wealthy and an unfunded giveaway to Big Pharma which are all still costing us major bucks for. Seriously, that's just precious.
Of the 206 million eligible voters, 70 million are not registered. Then 63% of the registered voters stayed home, or pushed the "fuck you" button.
So the Republicans got a little over half about 54 million votes cast. That's the "American public" you speak of? Have some more Kool-Aid.
That doesn't even take gerrymandered districts into consideration. In 2012, Democrats cast 1.7 million more votes for Congress nationwide, but
lost seats to Republicans because of gerrymandered districts. And while Democrats did not out-vote Republicans with raw numbers in this most recent election cycle, gerrymandering gave Republicans 57% of the seats up for re-election even though they only received barely more than half the votes: 52%.
And let's not forget all the states where strict voter ID laws had a negative impact on Democratic turnout. Or the fact that by mere chance, there were more Senate elections in Red states than in Blue.
Obama killed Osama?? He was the number 1 in the stack & pulled the trigger?? A man with no military service who has ravaged our senior command? Now y'all must be snorting your koolaid. Osama was eliminated due to the efforts of the intelligence community that culminated with a tactical excision. I think Admiral McRaven was responsible for planning and executing the mission. Obama watched a computer screen.
Come on now. That's just a silly argument and I believe you know it. How about we put it another way: President Obama made it his mission to have his network root out bin Laden's location, then gave the order to have his ass killed. George W. Bush, on the other hand, "really didn't think about him that much."
Bush told conservative Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes that "bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism." And in a subsequent press conference he scolded us for not "understand[ing] the scope of the mission" because bin Laden was just "one person" whom he "really just [didn't] spend that much time on." His exact words:
[INDENT]
Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.[/INDENT]
You preferred that tactic over the one President Obama employed: Having him hunted down and his ass shot dead?
Our Glorious Leader has saved the economy and the unemployment rate is shrinking. Wait a minute, we might need to check that.
Here is the stunning statistic on the economy that tells the whole story about why we aren’t growing faster. Since Barack Obama entered the Oval Office in January of 2009,the percentage of the working age population actually part of the labor force (either working or looking for work) has plummeted by 3 percentage points – to 62.7%.
While interesting, it fails to account for a single reason that might be the case, merely laying the entirety of the blame at the feet of this president. Allow me to explain the majority of the reason why today's workforce is smaller than that of 1978:
[INDENT]
One big reason the participation rate dropped involves long-run demographic trends that have nothing to do with the current economy. Baby boomers are starting to retire en masse, which means that there are fewer eligible American workers.
Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.
But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.[/INDENT]
Maybe we should check some of Glorious Leader's accomplishments a little closer.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemoore/2014/10/06/under-obama-one-million-more-americans-have-dropped-out-of-work-force-than-have-found-a-job/[/QUOTE] Will you please stop with the insulting names for your president? It's really unbecoming and officer and a gentleman.
I hope at least some of this insight has been edifying for you.
Jill
As for what President Obama has done for me personally, it's everything he's done for this country as a whole. Here's a short list of the accomplishments of his administration that I'm most proud of:
[LIST=1]
[*]Passed health care reform which now precludes insurance companies from discriminating against women with higher rates, refusing policies on the basis of pre-existing conditions, and dropping subscribers when they get sick
[*] Saved the American auto industry from collapse
[*] Passed Wall Street reform (even though more needs to be done)
[*] Eliminated Don't Ask Don't Tell
[*] Stopped enforcing the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act and led the fight to have it overturned by the Supreme Court.
[*] Saved the country from the Republican Great Recession
[*] Has presided over the longest stretch of private-sector job creation - 56 straight months - adding 10.6 million jobs (Bush netted 3 million in eight full years)
[*] Ended the war in Iraq as promised
[*] Killed Osama bin Laden instead of ignoring him like Bush did
[*] Improved the U.S.'s image abroad
[*] Reversed Bush's torture policies
[*] Increased veterans support and created a new GI Bill with $78 billion in tuition assistance for our veterans
[*] Tightened sanctions on Iran and opened the door to talks for the first time in half a century
[*] Passed credit card disclosure reforms with the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act
[*] Created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
[*] Has invested heavily in renewable energy - the more than $800 million in interest already earned outpaces all failed loans combined (including Solyndra), with an expected net income of $5 billion over their lifetime
[*] Expanded stem cell research which Bush cut
[*] Saved us $4 billion by eliminating the F-22, which has never flown a single combat mission
[*] Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
[*] Immediate and efficient responses to numerous natural disasters over the past six years (flooding, tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes)
[*] Got the Swiss banks to let the U.S. government have access to records of tax evaders and criminals
[*] Reduced federal student loan interest rates
[*] Established a new cyber security department
[*] Instituted tax cuts to 3.5 million small businesses
[*] Took GDP growth from -5.4 to +4.6% (2nd quarter 2014)
[*] Improved consumer confidence from 37.7 to 78.1%
[*] Presided over an economic recovery that has taken the Dow from 7,949 to 17,777 (the highest in history -- ever)
[*] Ended no-bid defense contracts
[*] Closed the Medicare Part D doughnut hole and significantly lowered the cost of prescription medications for our seniors
[*] Expanded health care to children through renewed SCHIP
[*] Has thwarted numerous attempted terrorist attacks here at home
[*] Stopped prisoners from collecting Social Security benefits
[*] Re-established statutory Pay As You Go policy
[/LIST]
I could go on and on and on, but this is a good enough list, I think. Has he been perfect? No. He's human, as subject to err as any of us. Have I agreed with all his negotiated compromises? No. But I recognize the necessity of them, given the obstructionism of Republicans. Do I like all of his policies? No. But then that would only be possible if he were me, because I'm sure no one in the world agrees with 100 percent of everything I believe except me.
But we are so, so, so much better off as a country in so many myriad ways since he took office than we were when his predecessor left, it's almost beyond the ability to measure.