Obama's record and the effect of propaganda

Memnoch

So I happened to be watching an episode of the Daily show (the one with Cameron Diaz as special guest) where Jon Stewart mentioned how he had been castigated by Politifact.com for an error. He followed up by listing errors/lies by Fox News that had gone uncorrected on many issues.

I decided to have a look at the website. For those that are interested here is a link to what he was talking about: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/jun/22/jon-stewarts-politifact-segment-annotated-edition/

Anyway, that's not what this thread is about, that's just the context. While I was on the site, I noticed the 'Obamameter,' which ranks the promises he's kept/failed to keep etc.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

As I read through them, I was quite surprised at the amount of stuff he's actually delivered on and tried to deliver on as far as his promises are concerned. Despite the fact that I have a lot of admiration for him, I had been under the impression that he had been a lot less successful and effective than he has. And if the propaganda of the right wing diaspora could convince me of this, it makes one shudder to think of what they can convince themselves and indeed neutrals of.

A more interesting read was of the promises that are considered to be definitely broken or stalled, and how many of these are due to republican objections/blocking.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

Just goes to show the power of disinformation and propaganda.

Denerick

When evaluating his successes or lack thereof, people need to be aware of the limitations of the Presidency. His aspiratations are conditional on congressional support. In many ways the American electorate reneged on the Obama agenda in 2010 by delivering a right wing congress.

Memnoch

Denerick wrote: »

When evaluating his successes or lack thereof, people need to be aware of the limitations of the Presidency. His aspiratations are conditional on congressional support. In many ways the American electorate reneged on the Obama agenda in 2010 by delivering a right wing congress.

Just goes to show how people can undermine their own welfare through ignorance and lashing out blindly.

They bought into what he believed in, but got hoodwinked by the tea party nonsense (before it was really exposed fully for what it was) and voted stupidly in 2010 before he really had a chance to deliver.

Folks were angry that the economy was struggling and that rich assholes were being protected, yet they managed to vote in republicans(through the idiotic, anti-incumbant mode) who blocked Obama from ending tax breaks for the wealthiest.

Boggles the mind.

Amerika

And lets not forget his other accomplishments.

Congress won’t pass legislation on his cap and trade agenda… No problem! He gets the EPA to impose regulation on energy producers regarding greenhouse-gas emissions. Doesn’t want to deal with the War Powers Act over Libya… No problem! He sends in the Air Force and lets the few lawyers who agree with him to deal with it. Congress won’t pass legislation on the Dream Act... No problem! Just get ICE to change its deportation program by having them consider if an illegal is in school or served in the military. And just watch… Congress has reached an impasse over rasing the debt ceiling because his side doesn’t want to reduce spending… No problem! He’ll just have the Treasury keep selling securities and apply the proceeds against the interest on the debt, telling Congress and the American people… Screw You, try and do something about it!

This cowboy president wears a black hat of executive power.

matthew8

Memnoch wrote: »

Just goes to show how people can undermine their own welfare through ignorance and lashing out blindly.

They bought into what he believed in, but got hoodwinked by the tea party nonsense (before it was really exposed fully for what it was) and voted stupidly in 2010 before he really had a chance to deliver.

Folks were angry that the economy was struggling and that rich assholes were being protected, yet they managed to vote in republicans(through the idiotic, anti-incumbant mode) who blocked Obama from ending tax breaks for the wealthiest.

Boggles the mind.

He had 2 years to increase taxes and didn't follow through. Shameful for a guy who was "trying". He did not want to end tax breaks for the wealthiest that is a lie. 2 years with a huge majority in congress and the senate is a ton of time to deliver. People's welfare does not involve being double-taxed. Through his quantatitive easing he caused double digit food and oil inflation while doing nothing about unemployment, forcing more onto food stamps yet we are told to be thankful for these stamps while we could remove the need for them through reducing unemployment.

Also, his administration stole 20 billion euro from Ireland.

Denerick

matthew8 wrote: »

Through his quantatitive easing he caused double digit food and oil inflation while doing nothing about unemployment, forcing more onto food stamps yet we are told to be thankful for these stamps while we could remove the need for them through reducing unemployment.

Also, his administration stole 20 billion euro from Ireland.

Do you say these things whilst fully knowledgable that they are inaccurate? The global increase in the price of food and oil has very little to do with the policy of Quantative easing, which would have happened under McCain anyway.

Einhard

LOL, I swear to God, I was gonna post "Heeeeere's Amerika" after the OP, only to find I was too late!

You must have a bell that rings every time Obama is priased or the Right is criticised!:D

Overheal

Meh, I stopped reading whatever it is he is recycling from his tinfoil media.

Memnoch

matthew8 wrote: »

He had 2 years to increase taxes and didn't follow through. Shameful for a guy who was "trying". He did not want to end tax breaks for the wealthiest that is a lie. 2 years with a huge majority in congress and the senate is a ton of time to deliver. People's welfare does not involve being double-taxed. Through his quantatitive easing he caused double digit food and oil inflation while doing nothing about unemployment, forcing more onto food stamps yet we are told to be thankful for these stamps while we could remove the need for them through reducing unemployment.

Also, his administration stole 20 billion euro from Ireland.

Look at the promises he has delivered on...

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/

There is so much he can do at one time. Health care was his big project and he had to use all his political capital in the first two years to make that happen, and even so he had to compromise on aspects of it. He couldn't do the taxes at the same time. It was just too politically difficult.

You really need to look at these issues with a bit more nuance.

Also I'm not going to ask WTF you are on about stealing money from Ireland.

matthew8

Memnoch wrote: »

Also I'm not going to ask WTF you are on about stealing money from Ireland.

Timothy Geithner vetoed a 20 billion euro burning of bondholders last year, he is a good friend of Goldman Sachs (As is Obama) and was appointed by Obama as Treasury Secretary, giving him the power to veto this bill.

Also for all your nonsense about keeping promises the theme from his campaign was change and the change was more unemployment and debt. It's not about the promises alone it's about results and in this case when he had to go above and beyond the call of duty he's gone cowardly and raised the debt ceiling and printed money.

I seem to constantly hear about what Bush Or McCain would do but in 2004 I supported Kerry and though in 2008 I supported McCain today I accept he'd have been as bad as Obama and would have preferred Obama in late 2009.

To Denerick, printing money devalues money. Devaluing money raises prices. Whether or not the main cause it was a contributing factor and unless we get rid of money will remain one until the dollar collapses.

Memnoch

matthew8 wrote: »

Timothy Geithner vetoed a 20 billion euro burning of bondholders last year, he is a good friend of Goldman Sachs (As is Obama) and was appointed by Obama as Treasury Secretary, giving him the power to veto this bill.

The indo? Seriously?

Even if every word is true, the people to blame are the Irish government. If anyone should have been burning the bondholders, it should have been them.

Also, do you think a Republican leadership would have done any different?

matthew8

Memnoch wrote: »

The indo? Seriously?
Even if every word is true, the people to blame are the Irish government. If anyone should have been burning the bondholders, it should have been them.

Also, do you think a Republican leadership would have done any different?

Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, not a chance they meddle in European affairs. We asked the world politely to burn them (ask Cowen why) but Geithner stopped us, no way Paul or Johnson would've.

Also, I hate this idea that alll republicans are Mitch McConnell, George Bush and John McCain. The only person in a republican leadership role I like is Paul Ryan because he isn't spineless like the rest, came out with a plan and defended it from Gingrich of all people. Republicans no longer stand for anything, just the individuals in it do.

kev9100

Without a doubt Obama's biggest failure as President has been his inability to properly communicate his administration's accomplishments effectively. I don't know whether it was a conscious decision or not but he is paying for it. I still think he'll be re-elected though.

matthew8

kev9100 wrote: »

Without a doubt Obama's biggest failure as President has been his inability to properly communicate his administration's accomplishments effectively. I don't know whether it was a conscious decision or not but he is paying for it. I still think he'll be re-elected though.

In case you're wondering he's trying to but people aren't buying the bs about "we've turned the corner" and "the policies have worked" outside of Europe.

SharpshooterTom

Obama's approval rating on Gallup is only 44%. Hmm I was hoping this would be his summer of recovery regarding that.

Denerick

Gnobe wrote: »

Obama's approval rating on Gallup is only 44%. Hmm I was hoping this would be his summer of recovery regarding that.

As has been stated many times before, 44% is around the historical mean for all first term Presidents a couple of years into their term since the Second World War. No amount of right wing spin will change this. Considering the economic difficulties and the propaganda war underway (And the general unvirtuousness of the American body politic) I'm surprised it isn't lower.

matthew8

Denerick wrote: »

As has been stated many times before, 44% is around the historical mean for all first term Presidents a couple of years into their term since the Second World War. No amount of right wing spin will change this. Considering the economic difficulties and the propaganda war underway (And the general unvirtuousness of the American body politic) I'm surprised it isn't lower.

The approval rating should be lower at election time than others considering the huge amount of people who think the country is on the wrong track but the obscure republican field more than makes up for this.

SharpshooterTom

Denerick wrote: »

As has been stated many times before, 44% is around the historical mean for all first term Presidents a couple of years into their term since the Second World War. No amount of right wing spin will change this. Considering the economic difficulties and the propaganda war underway (And the general unvirtuousness of the American body politic) I'm surprised it isn't lower.

Both Clinton and Reagan climbed above 50 in october this year in their presidencies and stayed there till election time.

In fact Clinton by this stage would only have 11 more polls scoring below 50. His last was january 12th-15th 1996, 46% (Gallup), from then on for the next 5 years every single poll he had would be above 50 (mostly above 60 actually). Pretty impressive for somebody who's constantly dubbed a crap president by Fox News.

Let's see if Obama can match that.

southsiderosie

kev9100 wrote: »

Without a doubt Obama's biggest failure as President has been his inability to properly communicate his administration's accomplishments effectively. I don't know whether it was a conscious decision or not but he is paying for it. I still think he'll be re-elected though.

I think this article comparing Obama to Andrew Cuomo, the current governor of New York who successfully ushered the same sex marriage bill through a Republican-controlled state senate highlights why so many Democrats are disappointed with Obama:

I’m generally of the view that individual politicians receive both more credit and more blame than they deserve, with legislative and electoral outcomes usually determined by broad cultural, economic and political undercurrents. But the type of leadership that Mr. Cuomo exercised — setting a lofty goal, refusing to take no for an answer and using every tool at his disposal to achieve it — is reminiscent of the stories sometimes told about with President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had perhaps the most impressive record of legislative accomplishment of any recent president.

It’s also a brand of leadership that many Democrats I speak with feel is lacking in President Obama.

Mr. Obama has some considerable achievements, including his health care bill and the reversal of the military’s ban on openly gay and lesbian soldiers. But he often seems to achieve them by outsourcing much of the work to Democrats in Congress or to his various lieutenants. And his considerable speaking abilities sometimes seem to be directed more toward healing the country in times of crisis than toward persuading it to move in a new direction.

It’s a strategy that Mr. Obama’s critics and admirers have sometimes characterized as “leading from behind.” One could rightly argue that being president of the United States is an order of magnitude more difficult than being governor of New York, and that Mr. Obama’s performance has been fair to good under the circumstances. But his seemingly risk-averse approach roils many Democrats, even as most of them approve of his overall performance.

Amerika

Einhard wrote: »

You must have a bell that rings every time Obama is priased or the Right is criticised!:D

You mean the majority of threads started here, which dominate the category every time one logs in?

Hmmmm… Heavens forbid some balance or opposition is thrown into the orgy of orgasmic praise shown here towards Obama, his policies, his administration, and Democrats as a whole.

But as long as y’all continue to go after the poster rather than the issues presented, which are valid political discussion topics and is becoming more indicative of the American climate indicated by Obama and the democrats continual downward approval ratings, just proves the old adage… If you're getting kicked in the butt, at least it means you're still in the front.

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

You mean the majority of threads started here, which dominate the category every time one logs in?

Hmmmm… Heavens forbid some balance or opposition is thrown into the orgy of orgasmic praise shown here towards Obama, his policies, his administration, and Democrats as a whole.

But as long as y’all continue to go after the poster rather than the issues presented, which are valid political discussion topics and is becoming more indicative of the American climate indicated by Obama and the democrats continual downward approval ratings, just proves the old adage… If you're getting kicked in the butt, at least it means you're still in the front.

There are plenty of people on boards who critique Obama and liberal politics in general. However, they manage to do so without retreating to the same tired tropes that sound as if they were cut and pasted from a website run by a guy who lives in his mom's basement and wears a tin foil hat so the government can't read his thoughts.

I think that in the case of many of Obama's critics here on boards, it the posting style rather than the underlying grievance behind the posts that others have a problem with and are, frankly, sick of.

Overheal

Hmmmm… Heavens forbid some balance or opposition is thrown into the orgy of orgasmic praise shown here towards Obama, his policies, his administration, and Democrats as a whole.

Would you like us to implement a Fairness Doctrine?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Would you like us to implement a Fairness Doctrine?

Not at all. I get to say my piece even though some might complain of my “style” and would probably prefer I bel silenced (while of course they stay dumb to the ad nauseum hate-filled attacks leveled against Palin and the Tea Party.)

But I’m confused… was “I stopped reading whatever it is he is recycling from his tinfoil media” just a drama queen moment?

Overheal

the ad nauseum hate-filled attacks leveled against Palin and the Tea Party

They are hardly ad nauseum, they are legitimate points raised about the tea party and/or Palin. Similar to the way many people are capable of doing the same in regard to the President without whining about a birth certificate or his application to Harvard.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

You mean the majority of threads started here, which dominate the category every time one logs in?

Hmmmm… Heavens forbid some balance or opposition is thrown into the orgy of orgasmic praise shown here towards Obama, his policies, his administration, and Democrats as a whole.

What 'orgy of orgasmic praise'? Go ahead and detail this orgy. Please be very specific.

But as long as y’all continue to go after the poster rather than the issues presented, which are valid political discussion topics and is becoming more indicative of the American climate indicated by Obama and the democrats continual downward approval ratings, just proves the old adage… If you're getting kicked in the butt, at least it means you're still in the front.

Actually, if you're getting kicked in the butt, it's far more likely that you make rankly dishonest 'arguments', you fail to respond when you're pathological nonsense is dismantled, you run from your own posts and you pretend to be anything other than a partisan tool with no ability to actually reason.

matthew8

Memnoch wrote: »

Just goes to show the power of disinformation and propaganda.

Obama's time as POTUS really does show the power of propoganda. The war criminal is paraded and cheered by paddies who have been told how great he is by a biased Irish media. I once heard Marian Finucane say "whether it's bashing george bush or helping out the dems, Irish people always take an interest in American politics" failing to even slightly acknowledge the Irish republican support. We are also delivered propoganda about how great war criminal Kennedy was, at least a guy called Michael Graham from Boston gets to reach us with the truth on George Hook on Firdays (Haven't tuned in for a while don't know if he's still there), he described the end of the Kennedy dynasty as Massachusetts being freed.

Amerika

Gnobe wrote: »

Both Clinton and Reagan climbed above 50 in october this year in their presidencies and stayed there till election time.

In fact Clinton by this stage would only have 11 more polls scoring below 50. His last was january 12th-15th 1996, 46% (Gallup), from then on for the next 5 years every single poll he had would be above 50 (mostly above 60 actually). Pretty impressive for somebody who's constantly dubbed a crap president by Fox News.

Let's see if Obama can match that.

What do you envision that would possibly happen to cause Obama’s rating to raise and hold until election?

President Obama’s administration claimed his $800 Billion stimulus spending would keep unemployment under 8% and create about 500,000 jobs per month. We also have heard over and over again that the stimulus saved the economy. The first part regarding jobs and unemployment has been proven to be categorically false, and the second part regarding the economy is subjective, non-quantitative, and considered to be rubbish by many the average citizen. Jobs and the economy are primarily what are behind his high disapproval rating. I don’t see the economy improving much, and I don’t see the unemployment rate falling substantially, from now until the election. Therefore I don’t see how his approval rating can improve and hold in any way to make his chances of reelection a favorable proposition.

WTF (Obama’s “Winning The Future”) now has a new meaning, or should I say has the old meaning that we all understand?

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Jobs and the economy are primarily what are behind his high disapproval rating. I don’t see the economy improving much, and I don’t see the unemployment rate falling substantially, from now until the election. Therefore I don’t see how his approval rating can improve and hold in any way to make his chances of reelection a favorable proposition.

This I agree with. However, given the GOP field of candidates, his re-election does seem like it is still a distinct possibility. If a decent Republican candidate emerges and the party doesn't implode during the primaries, then I think Obama is toast.

Amerika

It is still way too early in the election cycle for the people to get a feeling about the GOP candidates. They are just starting out. When do you remember Barack Obama becoming a top candidate for president in the Democratic Party… Wasn’t it not until after Hillary Clinton’s miscues in Iowa, South Carolina and Michigan, causing Obama to become the chosen candidate of CNN and MSNBC? The Iowa caucus doesn’t happen until February 6, 2012. That’s still over 7 months to go. The GOP candidates are just now starting their push to be recognized and heard. Plenty of time for one or two to emerge as strong contenders against Obama. Right now Romney and Bachmann are the standouts, but there is lots of time for the others to have their policies and visions known to the general public (as long as the media gets off their bizarre circus of spending all their budget on Palin’s emails and Bachmann’s occasional gaffs). Plus there might even be a couple of new GOP candidates who might enter the fray… Perry, Palin and Christie. It’s way too early to start reading the epitaphs of the GOP party or their candidates. Remember how we were all reading about the demise of the GOP after the 2008 election. Then 2010 happened… WTF!

Right now Obama doesn’t have a bogeyman on the opposite side. He pretty much has to run against his own policies, record, and the economy which he owns. At the current time and climate, not a bad strategy on the part of the GOP… not bad at all!

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

They are hardly ad nauseum, they are legitimate points raised about the tea party and/or Palin. Similar to the way many people are capable of doing the same in regard to the President without whining about a birth certificate or his application to Harvard.

Hmmm… to refresh your memory, here are just a few choice comments from the latest Palin Hate-Fest thread… and these are only from PAGE 1 of the thread.

Denerick wrote: »

It terrifies me that someone so stupid has a chance - however slim - of becoming the next President of the United States.

Einhard wrote: »

It's not even her rewriting of history, but the fact that she can barely string a coherent sentence together.

20Cent wrote: »

She really is a half wit. Don't know why anyone would support her. Real republicans and conservatives should be disgusted by her.

Paddysnapper wrote: »

Personally I think "half" wit is more than generous

RVP 11 wrote: »

She breeds halfwits too.

Fattes wrote: »

She is all that is wrong with the US

Oh yeah... almost forgot... Sources...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056290533

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Right now Obama doesn’t have a bogeyman on the opposite side. He pretty much has to run against his own policies, record, and the economy which he owns. At the current time and climate, not a bad strategy on the part of the GOP… not bad at all!

Actually all he has to do is sit back quietly and let the crazy start to ooze out of its own volition. Yes it is still early, and the candidates are restraining themselves for the moment, but that won't last forever...

InTheTrees

Memnoch wrote: »

As I read through them, I was quite surprised at the amount of stuff he's actually delivered on and tried to deliver on as far as his promises are concerned.

He isnt assured the political support that a leader in a parliamentary system relies on so these "promises" are really promises to try to get something passed rather than any firm commitment that they arent in a position to make.

gargleblaster

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think this article comparing Obama to Andrew Cuomo, the current governor of New York who successfully ushered the same sex marriage bill through a Republican-controlled state senate highlights why so many Democrats are disappointed with Obama:

Editorials like that annoy me.

I mean he campaigned on not being a president for half of the country. He campaigned on the idea of trying to heal a country that had been split apart by the divisive and hateful rhetoric of the past administration. He openly said he would be working for compromise, and not shoving anything down anyone's throat. He's done exactly that.

Understandably, many think that isn't the right thing to do. That should be a good motivator for them to pressure their reps in Congress to fight to push things to the left.

The worst thing about his 'let's all try to reach a compromise we can agree with' style is that the republicans seem to refuse to engage in good faith. Current example: They are now refusing to agree to policies they previously supported (eg reducing / ending oil subsidies to enormously profitable corporations) to tackle the debt. They're doing it to make Obama look bad, so they can slam him with his 'failures' in the upcoming election. It's beyond shameful for them to play politics with the economy that way, people are suffering and all they're thinking of is how they can make Obama look bad.

Amerika

gargleblaster wrote: »

Current example: They are now refusing to agree to policies they previously supported (eg reducing / ending oil subsidies to enormously profitable corporations) to tackle the debt.

And the democrats are talking about another round of stimulus spending. How is that dealing in good faith?
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110622/ts_nm/us_usa_debt_stimulus

It's just politics!

They're doing it to make Obama look bad, so they can slam him with his 'failures' in the upcoming election. It's beyond shameful for them to play politics with the economy that way, people are suffering and all they're thinking of is how they can make Obama look bad.

And Pelosi is doing nothing but trying to make the Republicans look bad. Tit-for-tat-and-all-that.

No, it's too early in the negotiations for either party to play their final hand. They have until 2 Aug. An agreement will probably be reached in the final hours. I think in the end the democrats will allow some spending cuts - even to their coveted programs of Medicare and Social Security; and the republicans will close some loopholes in the tax laws in order to increase revenues.

And through it all Obama will go golfing.

Mark200

matthew8 wrote: »

He had 2 years to increase taxes and didn't follow through. Shameful for a guy who was "trying". He did not want to end tax breaks for the wealthiest that is a lie. 2 years with a huge majority in congress and the senate is a ton of time to deliver.

I believe that his promise was that he would allow the Bush taxcuts for the rich to expire. They were due to expire in 2010.. but then the Republicans had the power to block it.

Also, as anyone who has any knowledge of US politics knows - a "huge majority" in the Senate means absolutely nothing since 41 Senators can at any time get together and block any bills that are trying to be passed.

matthew8 wrote: »

Through his quantatitive easing he caused double digit food and oil inflation while doing nothing about unemployment, forcing more onto food stamps yet we are told to be thankful for these stamps while we could remove the need for them through reducing unemployment.

matthew8 wrote: »

To Denerick, printing money devalues money. Devaluing money raises prices. Whether or not the main cause it was a contributing factor and unless we get rid of money will remain one until the dollar collapses.

Actually, the Fed isn't printing money. That's just a myth:

“Well, this fear of inflation is way overstated. One myth that’s out there is we’re printing money. We’re not printing money. The amount of currency in circulation is not changing. The money supply is not changing in any significant way. What we’re doing is lowering interest rates by buying treasury securities. And by lowering interest rates we hope to stimulate the economy to grow faster.”

http://pragcap.com/bernanke-explains-why-qe2-is-not-money-printing-again

Overheal

Republicans (and those that lobbied them) fought tooth and nail to keep the tax cuts (or budget expense, depending on how you wish to view your glass at 50%) and they got them. No I don't agree that the cuts expiring would have solved the budget by a long shot but it simply sends the wrong message about Washington. One that people will remember when the election rolls around.

matthew8

Mark200 wrote: »

I believe that his promise was that he would allow the Bush taxcuts for the rich to expire. They were due to expire in 2010.. but then the Republicans had the power to block it.

Also, as anyone who has any knowledge of US politics knows - a "huge majority" in the Senate means absolutely nothing since 41 Senators can at any time get together and block any bills that are trying to be passed.

I don't know if you were living in an alternate world where the dems had 59 senators but they had 61, enough to override a filibuster. The "letting the tax cuts expire" was a dumb strategy for someone trying to increase taxes on the rich. He should've ended the cuts when he could if he wanted to tax the rich.

Overheal wrote: »

Republicans (and those that lobbied them) fought tooth and nail to keep the tax cuts (or budget expense, depending on how you wish to view your glass at 50%) and they got them. No I don't agree that the cuts expiring would have solved the budget by a long shot but it simply sends the wrong message about Washington. One that people will remember when the election rolls around.

Republicans don't want to increase taxes. People vote for them to keep taxes low. Why would republicans want to increase taxes rather than lower spending? If they increased taxes they would be kicked out. It doesn't send the wrong message if the republicans follow through on promises regarding taxes. It sends the right message.

Back to the topic of the thread: We are affected by RTE propoganda, making people think Obama hasn't been terrible. The facts are he has and economic problems are worsening.

Mark200

matthew8 wrote: »

I don't know if you were living in an alternate world where the dems had 59 senators but they had 61, enough to override a filibuster. The "letting the tax cuts expire" was a dumb strategy for someone trying to increase taxes on the rich. He should've ended the cuts when he could if he wanted to tax the rich.

Well first of all, if I'm not mistaken Democrats did have 59 Senators. However two independents were counted as Democrats because they caucus with the party.

Second of all, my (very obvious) point was that your implication that passing any laws the Democrats wanted would have been no problem is just simply untrue. You said they had a "huge majority", which is misleading when you take into account that they needed to have EVERY single Democrat AND the two independents to vote for a bill in order for it to pass through the Senate. You may remember Lieberman making all kinds of demands because he knew the Democrats needed his vote.

Third of all, Obama doesn't control every single Democrat and the two independents.

Fourth of all, letting the tax cuts expire was not a "strategy" - it was a promise. It is what he said he would do. It's not like he said "oh I think the best way to tax the rich is to wait two years for Bush's tax cuts to expire". His tax plan was this: Let them expire for the rich, extend them for everyone else. Not very complicated.

matthew8 wrote: »

Back to the topic of the thread: We are affected by RTE propoganda, making people think Obama hasn't been terrible. The facts are he has and economic problems are worsening.

Labelling something as a fact does not make it a fact, unfortunately.

Jonny7

matthew8 wrote: »

Back to the topic of the thread: We are affected by RTE propoganda, making people think Obama hasn't been terrible. The facts are he has and economic problems are worsening.

I wouldn't agree entirely, Obama's lowest approval ratings are better than every president since Kennedy.

I mean one in five Americans think hes a Muslim, Fox news is the second most watched news outlet in the States, if anything, the propaganda is stacked against him where it counts most.

matthew8

Mark200 wrote: »

Well first of all, if I'm not mistaken Democrats did have 59 Senators. However two independents were counted as Democrats because they caucus with the party.

Second of all, my (very obvious) point was that your implication that passing any laws the Democrats wanted would have been no problem is just simply untrue. You said they had a "huge majority", which is misleading when you take into account that they needed to have EVERY single Democrat AND the two independents to vote for a bill in order for it to pass through the Senate. You may remember Lieberman making all kinds of demands because he knew the Democrats needed his vote.

Third of all, Obama doesn't control every single Democrat and the two independents.

Fourth of all, letting the tax cuts expire was not a "strategy" - it was a promise. It is what he said he would do. It's not like he said "oh I think the best way to tax the rich is to wait two years for Bush's tax cuts to expire". His tax plan was this: Let them expire for the rich, extend them for everyone else. Not very complicated.




Labelling something as a fact does not make it a fact, unfortunately.

He had 61 de-facto democrats. Stop making excuses. The tax cut expiration thing was in that case a spineless promise because he didn't follow through.

matthew8

Jonny7 wrote: »

I wouldn't agree entirely, Obama's lowest approval ratings are better than every president since Kennedy.

I mean one in five Americans think hes a Muslim, Fox news is the second most watched news outlet in the States, if anything, the propaganda is stacked against him where it counts most.

How are the people who would hate anyone left of the republicans (Those who watch Fox and believe he's a muslim) the places where it counts the most? If anything, this carry on alienates the general population from hating Obama.

Jonny7

matthew8 wrote: »

How are the people who would hate anyone left of the republicans (Those who watch Fox and believe he's a muslim) the places where it counts the most? If anything, this carry on alienates the general population from hating Obama.

I mean at home in the States - not RTE viewers

matthew8

Jonny7 wrote: »

I mean at home in the States - not RTE viewers

I was talking about Americans.

Manic Moran

matthew8 wrote: »

Jonny7 wrote: »

I mean at home in the States - not RTE viewers

I was talking about Americans.

How many of thee one in five Americans who think that Obama is a muslim would be likely to vote for him even if they thought he wasn't?

NTM

Jonny7

matthew8 wrote: »

I was talking about Americans.

I don't think you're understanding this..

That's a potential one fifth of voters..

Mark200

matthew8 wrote: »

He had 61 de-facto democrats. Stop making excuses. The tax cut expiration thing was in that case a spineless promise because he didn't follow through.

He didn't have the power to. As said already, nearly all Presidential promises are conditional on Congressional support. That's a given.

I really don't understand how you can blame him for the fact that there wasn't 61 Senators who'd agree to let the tax cuts expire for the rich.

Memnoch

I think matthew8 seems to have the strange delusion that were Ron Paul to be elected President (which he won't, won't even get the nomination) he'd somehow magically get the law through. Because that's the kind of thing Republican senators are bound to go along with.

matthew8

Jonny7 wrote: »

I don't think you're understanding this..

That's a potential one fifth of voters..

All of whom are republicans who would not vote for Obama.

Manic Moran wrote: »

How many of thee one in five Americans who think that Obama is a muslim would be likely to vote for him even if they thought he wasn't?

NTM

0.

Mark200 wrote: »

He didn't have the power to. As said already, nearly all Presidential promises are conditional on Congressional support. That's a given.

I really don't understand how you can blame him for the fact that there wasn't 61 Senators who'd agree to let the tax cuts expire for the rich.

He went 2 years without trying much on the budget and waited until he had less of congress and the senate until he tried. I can blame him for that.

Memnoch wrote: »

I think matthew8 seems to have the strange delusion that were Ron Paul to be elected President (which he won't, won't even get the nomination) he'd somehow magically get the law through. Because that's the kind of thing Republican senators are bound to go along with.

I have this idea that Ron Paul isn't spineless. I have the idea he'd do more than a half-hearted attempt to come through on his promises. I have this wild idea that he would, for example, end oil subsidies and stop propping up an immoral and unenvirenmentally friendly business.

gargleblaster

There is this idea among a few that if only they could get Ron Paul (or Dennis Kucinich, on the left) into the White House, that they could just rule by executive decree.

I'm not sure why the concept of checks and balances is hard for some to grasp, but absent a compliant congress it is extremely difficult for any president to move his agenda forward without an awful lot of horse trading.

Mark200

matthew8 wrote: »

He went 2 years without trying much on the budget and waited until he had less of congress and the senate until he tried. I can blame him for that.

As I said already, it was his plan to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.

Also, the health care bill was estimated to save a huge amount of money.

gargleblaster

Mark200 wrote: »

Also, the health care bill was estimated to save a huge amount of money.

Facts have no effect on anti Obama hype.

The media's conduct while that policy was developed should be a case study in the way that corporate influence taints democracy.