Posing Question RE: Obama Doesn't Run - Page 2

Even the national debt? Fun fact: the Obama Administration added more to national debt in the first 19 months than all presidents from Washington through Reagan combined ($2.5260 trillion to be specific).

If he's just now "warming up", then I'm not sure I can afford much more change.

Ever heard the old adage that sometimes you need to spend money to make money.

I get a kick out of some of the things that US citizens blame on Obama. I was watching Dan Rather this morning and one of the people he interviewed blamed Obama because he lost his job to an Indian from India. Someone should tell him that that whole scenario started long before Obama became President.

But naturally, if one wants to blame someone for all their ills, they will find a way and justify it somehow.

As I said, it's all very subjective.

They do both chant "wasted vote", but while it is not physically impossible for a third party candidate to win, there are several real and physical barriers in place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-par...o-party_system

Ron Paul for example explained why he gave up trying to run as an independent. He stated that he wasn't able to get on to national debates and he spent over half of his money just trying to get onto ballots. "We get in the Republican party and use that as a vehicle to get in the positive peaceful changes that we want", is what he said in a TV interview last month.

Of course the challenge is that if you try to diverge too quickly from the traditional Republican platform, you can't win their nomination. Ugh... politics!!!

I agree. President Obama will get my vote as well.

I agree, we can't afford him.

Then we should all be millionaires by now at this rate.

In his campaign he promised transparency in government, and yet for the multi-trillion dollar stimulus package, they vetoed the request for 48hrs to read the thousand+ page document for fear of it being dissected and hitting the press to weaken support, had Pelosi lie saying 500 million jobs were lost every month the pork barrel wasn't passed (obvious nonsense), and held closed sessions when forming the bill. With sound money spending practices like that, and a clear return on investment on the tremendous debt accumulated, that was clearly a home run...
Outsourcing is not a new development, however, the handling of the US economy and of US tax code has an absolutely direct impact on outsourcing and offshoring in the US.

Many localities for example have at least banned government and contract outsourcing, which the Obama Administration has not endorsed on a federal level. Republicans have also promoted a plan to provide businesses personnel tax incentives for hiring Americans, especially individuals that are currently unemployed in the US, which again was shot down and would help address outsourcing. Obama talked the talk during his campaign, but has never been specific on whether he is going to address outsourcing or offshoring, and how, and to date hasn't endorsed any legislation within the party to make it happen.

The Democrats controlled the House, the Democrats controlled the Senate, and the Democrats controlled the executive branch. As was obvious with the stimulus bill, the bailouts, and healthcare, anything they want to shove through government they can regardless of public opinion.

So does Joe Schmo have a right to complain about the state of the economy, the high unemployment, and outsourcing to Obama...heck yeah!

The barriers are only products of the two party myth. The people that organize and hold debates do so for one of two reasons. To obtain votes, or to obtain ratings. If the voting public made it clear that their ratings (iow, advertising revenue) was dependent on adding the independents and minor parties to the debate, it would happen. As long as the people keep buying the myth pushed by the political fanboys, it will not.

I understand what you're saying, but hit up the wiki link, it goes into great detail about different factors that inevitably result in two-party platform, especially winner-takes-all systems. This affects not just winning votes where the largest single party takes all, but inside politics as well with partisan votes. Everyone knows how harsh Pelosi was at cracking the whip to ensure all Democrats were voting along party lines for example.

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be fantastic to have a multi-party system like in Germany with multi-party voluntary alliances so everyone gets a voice approximately proportional to their voter-base, but it would take serious campaign and legislative reform to make it happen.

I totally agree. For an independent to break into the system with any significance, he/she would have to pretty much be everything to everyone; and that's very unlikely to ever happen.

Puh-leese . . Perhaps the public could go back in history books and find more things to blame Obama for.

Many things Obama faced when he became President need time to fix but everyone wants instant gratification.

But the point is that he hasn't used his office to sponsor legislation that he promised in his campaign or would address the issue complained about. And considering that he had Pelosi cracking the whip to ensure all Democrats were voting along party lines, and the Democratic party controlled all three branches, they could pretty much pass whatever they wanted, which leaves no excuse for inaction.
They definitely should! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Gfzgxh3ZQ

Who not only predicted the Realestate bubble, but exactly how it would collapse? Who predicted that we wouldn't find WMD's and that Iraq would turn into a decade of nation building at tremendous cost? Who predicted that Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan? If you really want your mind to be blown, skip to 7:40 on the video and tell me that is not EXACTLY what is happening right now.

The best way to avoid disaster, is to have the understanding and foresight to steer well clear of the ice-berg before you see the tip across the bow.

You have a right to believe what you wish but I just think it is so unfair to blame one person for what has happened years before he even became publicly known.

I just don't agree that someone should expect him to fix overnight what took years to be broken.

It takes time to do that and he is certainly trying.

Again, the era of instant gratification comes into play here.

So, when hundreds of other people are responsible for fixing the problem, exactly what effect will it have to simply change the person who signs off on all those other people's work, IF they should ever get around to doing it?

My thoughts exactly. I don't have your gift for putting it into words.

I think if some folks could find a way to blame WWII on Obama they would.

I'm not sure why I'm explaining things to you that you already know, but the president is part of the Obama Administration, that surrounds himself with numerous appointed friends (more czars than you can shake a stick at) and the nominated head of the Democrat Party, that controlled the House, the Senate, and the Executive branch of government.

When Obama makes campaign promises on behalf of his administration and party, and then fails to deliver on them with no Republican scapegoats to blame for being in their way, there is NO excuse for inaction. And if he made promises that he knew were impossible to deliver on, then he was either lying for political benefit or simply incompetent to know the difference.

He said he'd close Guantanamo Bay, bring our troops home within 16 months (instead btw total deployment dwarfs the Bush-era "surge" and we've become involved elsewhere), let Bush tax cuts expire, refuse to consider earmarks on House legislation, ensure transparency in government and publish the text of bills at minimum three days before a House vote and allow public comment before signing bills (the bailouts, pork-barrel stimulus, and healthcare bills were a BLATANT violation of this promise), eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, provide tax credits to businesses for hiring new employees, allow Americans to withdraw funds from 401k and retirement accounts without penalties, ban lobbyists from serving in his administration, sign the Freedom of Choice Act, eliminate oil and gas tax loophoes, enact immigration reform, secure the borders, and more.

While his opponents may be happy about the numerous broken promises of his campaign, this is the main reason that so many moderates and even liberals and progressives have taken away their support for President Obama which explains the low approval rating for his job performance.

So then why aren't things getting done. From the way you explain it, all he has to do is tell Congress what he wants, and it shall be done. Isn't working that way, is it?

Besides, there are plenty of people on this forum from outside the US that may appreciate you explaining your view.

Of course there is. It would seem that Democrats think as individuals, not as partisan automatons.

It's all more of that thinking as individuals. That's a good thing.