Obama reveals the changes he was hoping for

snow scorpion · 12-04-2012 05:12PM #1

On 30 March, at a rally at the University of Vermont, President Obama proudly announced "In three years we’ve begun to see what change looks like." Here's what has changed since Obama took office:

1. Unemployment among men has reached 20%

2. On the last day of President Bush's presidency, petrol cost $1.84 a gallon. Today the average price of a gallon of petrol is $3.94 - an increase of 114% in 39 months.

3. In 2006 and 2007, 90% of all college graduates found a job. Under Obama, just 56% of college graduates are able to find a job.

4. President Obama has increased the national debt by $4.939 trillion in three years. (President Bush increased the national debt $4.899 trillion in eight years.)

5. A record 87,897,000 Americans are no longer in the labor force. When the number of individuals who have stopped looking for a job and/or who are working part-time but desire full-time employment is included--a figure known as the "underemployment rate"--real unemployment stands at 19.1%.

And the most amazing thing about all of this? Obama is out on the campaign trail bragging about it!

Caliden · 12-04-2012 05:16PM

I'll just leave this here:

Dr Galen · 17-04-2012 12:10PM

I've moved the posts (the detailed ones ) specifically talking about the price of oil and therefore the price of gas at the pump to a new thread. I think it's a good discussion, worthy of it's own thread.

This thread can then be used to debate the less specific and more general aspects of the OP - The perceived failure of the Obama change agenda

Cheers

DrG

Amerika · 17-04-2012 01:23PM

I’ll add another one to the list. Sadly back in 2008 Americans were all to happy to vote for him based on his rhetoric of hope and change rather than listen to what he really had in mind. Unfortunately I don't think this is the type of change most Americans were hoping for.
　

"You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."

http://www.mrctv.org/public/checker.aspx?v=e46U2Gnzpr

benway · 17-04-2012 01:39PM

Not meaning to exculpate Obama, he's been a massive disappointment overall, but you have to bear in mind how reckless and partisan the Bush the Younger era was - they pushed domestic policy way further to the right than anyone would have thought possible, even aside from their massive fiscal irresponsibility and warmongering. It'll take more than one term to repair the damage done - seems to me that pretty much everything cited in the OP comes as the result of a Bush era inheritance.

If he manages to lose out on re-election, seems unlikely given the rabble that are shaping up for the other crowd, then we can pretty much kiss the world as we know it goodbye. Disappointing, yes. But, given the alternative ...

RichieC · 17-04-2012 01:48PM

Amerika wrote: »

I’ll add another one to the list. Sadly back in 2008 Americans were all to happy to vote for him based on his rhetoric of hope and change rather than listen to what he really had in mind. Unfortunately I don't think this is the type of change most Americans were hoping for.
　
http://www.mrctv.org/public/checker.aspx?v=e46U2Gnzpr

When exactly did the republicans flip flop on their support for cap and trade do you know?

Amerika · 17-04-2012 02:32PM

RichieC wrote: »

When exactly did the republicans flip flop on their support for cap and trade do you know?

You mean our small resident herd of RINOs who seem doomed to extinction (sorta like the fate of Blue Dog Democrts)?

RichieC · 17-04-2012 02:42PM

Amerika wrote: »

You mean our small resident herd of RINOs who seem doomed to extinction (sorta like the fate of Blue Dog Democrts)?

That must be a big old tent full of RINOs..

Amerika · 17-04-2012 03:19PM

Hmmm… to get back on track, Fast and Furious hasn’t turned out so well in what appeared to be his efforts to restrict Second Amendment rights. Luckily for him the media is providing political cover, but I doubt even they can maintain the facade forever.
http://townhall.com/columnists/katiepavlich/2012/04/16/opening_the_flood_gates_on_fast_and_furious

RichieC · 17-04-2012 04:07PM

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm… to get back on track, Fast and Furious hasn’t turned out so well in what appeared to be his efforts to restrict Second Amendment rights. Luckily for him the media is providing political cover, but I doubt even they can maintain the facade forever.
http://townhall.com/columnists/katiepavlich/2012/04/16/opening_the_flood_gates_on_fast_and_furious

Sounds like a shoddy attempt to politicise what is essentially a law enforcement arse up. Add in the old CT attack on 2nd amendment nonsense and you have a right wing blososphere perfect storm.

Memnoch · 17-04-2012 04:17PM

RichieC wrote: »

That must be a big old tent full of RINOs..

Not Romney though right?

It's been made abundantly clear to us that Bush was not a 'true conservative.'

But not Romney. No sir. A staunch very, very conservative conservative if there ever was one, as per his own statement at CPAC earlier this year.

Certainly not a RINO by any standards.

Amerika · 17-04-2012 04:27PM

Was there an attempt to track the weapons sold? Were the agents who tried to follow the purchasers told to stand down? Did the US government keep Mexican authorities wholly in the dark about the operation? Why are the only people punished in this only the whistleblowers? Has the Department Of Justice spent more time and resources trying to protect the careers of its officials who knew about the operation than in holding those accountable who were involved?

Nothing to see here... please move along, eh? And while we’re at it, let’s blame: 1) Right Wing blogosphere, 2) GWBush, 3) the Republican Controlled Congress.

RichieC · 17-04-2012 05:24PM

Amerika wrote: »

Was there an attempt to track the weapons sold? Were the agents who tried to follow the purchasers told to stand down? Did the US government keep Mexican authorities wholly in the dark about the operation? Why are the only people punished in this only the whistleblowers? Has the Department Of Justice spent more time and resources trying to protect the careers of its officials who knew about the operation than in holding those accountable who were involved?

Nothing to see here... please move along, eh? And while we’re at it, let’s blame: 1) Right Wing blogosphere, 2) GWBush, 3) the Republican Controlled Congress.

Well they managed to get back about 339 of the guns allowed to walk so I assume there was some kind of effort to track them albeit a crappy one.

I've no doubt there's at worst corruption here at best absolutely awful police work, but the right wing via some hysterical tea party blogger trying to pin it to Obama won't work. Though, I've been wrong before.

Amerika · 17-04-2012 06:09PM

339? Werent those that were recovered used in a violent crime? Thats about a 60% murder rate per gun recovered wouldn't you say?

I’m sure it’s tough to have to admit the Fast and Furious operation might be part of a larger objective by this administration of making a case for tougher gun regulations. (I had a tough time coming to grips with Tricky Dick’s role in Watergate LOL). But there is plenty of evidence out there (and I'm sure more to come) surrounding this operation so as to not dismiss it simply as a botched criminal investigation.

"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."

(not a "Right Wing" source in the least bit LOL)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/

Scofflaw · 17-04-2012 09:20PM

Can we save the conspiracy stuff for the appropriate forum, please. If there's evidence, produce evidence - if there isn't, save the fantasy politics for the CT forum.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Amerika · 26-04-2012 03:28PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Can we save the conspiracy stuff for the appropriate forum, please. If there's evidence, produce evidence - if there isn't, save the fantasy politics for the CT forum.

As you typed this comment in bold, and it wasn’t April Fools day, I must assume you aren’t kidding.

I highly doubt the Senate Judiciary Committee considers this to be merely "fantacy politics" or "conspiracy stuff."

I’ll try and keep this simple… I don’t believe my statement "Fast and Furious hasn’t turned out so well in what appeared to be his efforts (referring to the Obama administration) to restrict Second Amendment rights." differs all that much from high ranking US government officials, therefore in my opinion should not to be considered conspiracy stuff:
　

On July 12, 2011, Sen. Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department oversees ATF. They asked Holder whether officials in his agency discussed how "Fast and Furious could be used to justify additional regulatory authorities." So far, they have not received a response. CBS News asked the Justice Department for comment and context on ATF emails about Fast and Furious and Demand Letter 3, but officials declined to speak with us.

"In light of the evidence, the Justice Department's refusal to answer questions about the role Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to play in advancing new firearms regulations is simply unacceptable," Rep. Issa told CBS News.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is leading the Senate’s investigation into Operation Fast and Furious. In a recent interview with CNSNews.com he said he does not know definitively if there was a political motivation for launching the operation, but he suspects there was.

"My suspicion is they [Obama administration] don’t like the Second Amendment the way it is, and they are going to do everything to hurt guns and restrict guns," Grassley told CNSNews.com. "So they could have been building a case for that. But I can’t prove that."

Hence the investigation!

[URL]="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/"[/URL]

And in a round of hearing investigations of Operation Fast and Furious through the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, Representative James Lankford (R-Okla.) attended and went on to say he thinks responsibility for the matter will ultimately fall on the Obama administration.

"There’s no way they couldn’t have known this," said Lankford in reference to the senior personnel responsible for overseeing the ATF and its operations. "The facts just scream – even the Democrats -- in the hearing before were somewhat protecting the administration -- [are] now saying, ‘Who knew? When did they know? How did this get approved?’ Everything about this smells really bad."

"I mean, it’s going to end up on the administration’s desk," he said. "Somebody at DOJ had to sign off. There’s too much money involved in the process of these weapons getting out there and there’s too much clandestine operations that have to be tracked -- all those things have to be approved up the food chain. So it went through the food chain and it went up very close to the top, the top of DOJ. Someone was tracking this."

"This thing, the more it unfolds, the worse it smells," he said.　

　
Rep. James Lankford went on to say that some lawmakers are using information from that program to start restricting our Second Amendment rights.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/

Obama reveals the changes he was hoping for

Comments