Obama's Done a Lot, but Gets Little Credit for It; Why?

Jubal - BOTH parties do the same shit. Both parties deny it.
I just prefer smaller govt. with less taxes.

sure enough.

Oh no, please!!! Liechtenstein is a lovely place, it doesn't deserve to be fucked-up by people like daveinLA!

preach it jubal...amen and amen again!

well what makes you think you got that with Bush? While he de-funded public programs, he did not return that money to your paycheck...it went to the DOD, who in turn dolled it out to defense contractors.

There are twisted bankers everywhere!

It's the fucking mess that the cons made. I love how you (the republicans) can take a giant shit on the country and then blame the Democrats for not cleaning it up fast enough.

Grow up, take responsibility and get the fuck out of the way!

I'm not worried, you guys can go ahead and try to defeat him in two years.

FYI deep recessions do not end after one and a half year!

I didn't hear you complaining when you republicans gave the banksters $700 billion. What do you have to say for that handout?

Here is what I hear from the republicans:

Hey guys, we took a giant shit in the middle of the floor and it's almost impossible to clean up. We are going to stop your from trying to clean it up. Then we are going to blame the whole thing on you for not cleaning up our giant pile of crap fast enough.

Sound familiar?

If by selfish you mean people that don't want to help anyone other than themselves you must be talking about the CONS.

OK. If republicans actually give a crap about the middle class, Name one piece of legislation that was sponsored by the CONS that helped the middle class more than the wealthy in the last 30 years.

Yeah thats what I thought!

Wrong. The middle class got a 8% tax break when the top 1% got a 17% tax break (nice addition to our deficit that has never been paid for.)

You lost this argument because I clearly asked for you to name a single piece of legislation that was "sponsored by the CONS that helped the middle class more than the wealthy in the last 30 years". and you clearly can not come up with one piece of legislation.

You loose!

Nope. It will go back to what it previously was.

Do you seriously think that our deficient will get reduced when we are giving out trillion dollar tax breaks?

This really is true... Bush and his gang of criminal warmongers totally destroyed the constitution and all this country stands for... as Democrats voted to attack Iraq with him and we all stood by letting them. So do you not as a citizen of this country with a duty as well not take any responsibility for what Bush and his gang of thieves and murderers got away with? I'm ashamed of it. And there were a few Democrats calling for impeachment of these thugs and what happened to them? EVISCERATED BY THEIR OWN PARTY. Let's at the very least tell SOME truth here. ok?

It is called accountability. Three trillion dollars is a great deal of money added to the deficit four thousand lives mean a great deal to their families, and two recessions under Bush have meant quite a bit to the shrinking middle class. If we don't assess or lay blame upon those responsible for these actions than no semblance of accountability will exist for them. If you expect the Democrats to fix the problem than it seemingly gives republicans carte blanche to bitch and moan when fixing these problems takes tough decisions for the electorate and hurts democrats approval. Republicans promise the moon and don't pay for it. Democrats promise the moon and actually put a man on it.

You keep believing that if it you gets you through the days. Where I come from, treason and obstruction of justice are plenty.

but those subsidies will only be there if Congress appropriates the money for them...now where have we seen this formula before...oh yes, it was the Reagan years.

Then how did W avoid impeachment?

It's passed the house and made it through committee in the Senate and is attached to a major piece of legislation dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq war policy that the majority of republicans support. DADT isn't a poison pill amendment, it has the support of even forty percent of republicans and an overwhelming support from independents and democrats so it can lure liberals to vote for war policy (that still is predicated on a phased withdrawal in 2011) and I believe that any attempt at filibuster on this issue will fail. DADT will end this year.

amen to that!

Profound summation. Kudos

Extending unemployment IS an excellent way to stimulate the economy. Its no long term fix but when were still hemorrhaging jobs its NOT a good idea to stop unemployment.

You do not stimulate an economy by accruing more debt, the more paper money the Fed pumps into the economy, the more it dilutes the value of the money supply... thereby requiring more dollars to purchase an item than it had previously... get the picture?

Tax breaks for the rich were supposed to stimulate the economy. It was said they would stimulate jobs. Well, how's that working for us? They just got richer, they didn't create jobs? If they did, where the hell are all those jobs. There are more millionaires, billionaires and unemployed. Take back the tax break for the wealthy! Really stimulate the economy by helping those who 'really' spend their money living, not living large.

Tax breaks for the rich were supposed to stimulate the economy. It was said they would stimulate jobs. Well, how's that working for us? They just got richer, they didn't create jobs? If they did, where the hell are all those jobs. There are more millionaires, billionaires and unemployed. Take back the tax break for the wealthy! Really stimulate the economy by helping those who 'really' spend their money living, not living large.

When the Fed sets % rates so low that the risk to reward ratio makes putting capital at risk of recovery and profit, those who have that capital will be very cautious of lending, if at all, until they're confident that they are entering into a hospitable and non-prohibitive environment that is not openly hostile.

Currently with this administration, although they've made verbal overtures that encourage business growth and expansion, the regulatory bills being introduced for passing into laws say exactly the opposite upon close examination.

That is why banks are not lending and corporations are trimming their fat (so to speak), and why venture capital is staying away.
... to assume at this time that there is measurable stability with a business hostile congress, with its runaway regulations (that's how venture capital sees this environment) that will somehow encourage significant investment that would significantly impact the economy positively, at this juncture... is ludicrous.

I got news for you...they create electronic money more than they create paper money...and that is a fact.

It is accounted just the same, the effect of additional %'s = dilution of value, which still results in inflation, thereby demanding more $'s to purchase what previously cost less... and that's a fact - jack!

The Fed is a criminal enterprise...I can't understand why you would be defending them.

I'm not, but I know that it is what it is, a ponzi scheme that we have no control over, and it is the "fly" in the ointment that interrupts the stability and self correction of the free market, and it is foolish not to see the how and why of it's function... like it or not.

What makes you think they were all innocent? Im sure some were dont get me wrong but cmon were not just firing missiles willynilly across the middle east...

Oh yes because the color of thier skin, they are all terrorist. One or 700 it shouldn't matter to someone who has respect for all life, no matter what!!

Their not Obama's drones...they are the military's drones...haven't you heard of turf wars in Washington?

I've been thinking the same thing for a while, which is why I try to direct my real rants at Congress and am trying not to blame Obama for what Congress does and does not do. However, I have to agree with Colin below, the troop withdrawal time frame promised is a big one for most Americans. One of the things about Obama that earned my respect when he was campaigning was the fact that he would address his critics, and he would address the issues, even when they were uncomfortable. He hasn't really provided the American people with much explanation for why he isn't doing some of the BIG things he promised to do, and troop withdrawal is a BIG thing, so distrust is brewing. It isn't just that he isn't doing those things either, but he isn't saying anything to the American people about why his promises are not being kept...and that is quite different from the campaigning Obama.

haha awesome post

Wow, I don't know if I have ever seen quite so many lies and distortions packed into so few words -- even on Current.

1. What could possibly be wrong about a national bi and transgender day? It promotes attention to two widely misunderstood and wrongly maligned minorities.

2. He didn't give money to anybody. Congress loaned money to financial institutions at the same time it provided significant tax relief, money for states to help them with their individual massive deficits and funding for federal and joint federal-state projects to put people immediately back to work.

3. The lawsuit seeking to declare Arizona's ill-considered profiling law is supported by tens of thousands of Arizonans and is intended to relieve U.S. citizens from government harassment

4. He has not "bowed down" to anyone. He addressed a fellow head of state in the manner of that state's customs, just as heads of state have done for decades

5. The idea that he "pushed up" unemployment is so ridiculous as to defy intelligent discussion.

6. The only assertion that may have merit is the one about the oil spill -- I have been too busy to follow all the details, so I just don't know the basis for this allegation. Did he act 49 days after the spill began or 49 days after he knew about the spill. Obviously he can't be expected to act before he has been informed about it.

As is almost always the case with this kind of "shotgun bullshit," no attempt has been made to support any of them with factual evidence and logical analysis. For example, even if you had produced the usual picture of Obama bowing, that would not prove that he "bowed down" to a foreign leader -- "bowing" and "bowing down" are two completely different things.

It's the 'just say it' approach. If they repeat the falsehoods enough, they become equal to the truth. No one is held accountable when they distort the truth. 'Just say it' and a percentage will believe it. Truth and honesty are sooo yesterday. No accountability, no shame, just say it and move along.

Your reply is filled with errors and partisan double-talk. You say Obama .
didn't give money to anybody? And then you mention tax relief,,,,which IS GIVING MONEY. You mention tens of thous. Ariz. people,,,,but you ignore the fact that 73% of Arizonans agree with that law. You deny that unemployment has gone up in Obama's term,,,,but you are factually wrong. And you admit you are so ignorant on the BP spill,,,,, but you choose to comment anyways ! Way to go Einstien !

Dave! You responded...and did so with what you no doubt consider to be VENOM, I see. Well, I admire your courage even if I can't say the same about your judgment. Please allow me to share a little aphorism with you. I tend to say it to my son, especially when he is arguing with his girlfriend: "When you are already up to your nose in shit, stop opening your mouth."

1. Yes, I said that Obama didn't give money to anybody. I said that CONGRESS loaned money and provided tax relief in their stimulus package legislation.

2. As to the Arizona profiling law, I said that tens of thousands of Arizonans opposed the law. I said that in response to your allegation that Obama was suing all of the citizens of Arizona. I did not say that a majority of Arizonans opposed the law because that percentage is irrelevant to the point I was making. Besides, if a state law is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, the popularity of that state law is also irrelevant. A sizable majority of the citizens of states in the deep south supported racism and the denial of equal rights to African Americans...the state laws they tried to adopt to further their hateful position were nonetheless inconsistent with the Constitution and fell like leaves from a dead tree.

3. I did not say that I was ignorant of the BP oil spill. I said that I was unaware of the source of your allegation that Obama was aware of the spill for 49 days and did nothing. I doubt the veracity of your statement, but I cannot refute it because I don't know that piece of the story. I am well aware of other aspects of the spill, including the ludicrous notions that it happened because of Obama and that the duration of the spill is Obama's fault.

As was the case in your initial post, you continue to throw around wild accusations without a scintilla of evidence to back those allegations, let alone any kind of thoughtful analysis demonstrating why that evidence proves your position. While I thank you for your comparison of my humble intellect to that of Albert Einstein, I certainly do not pretend or even aspire to play in his league. But then I am not debating Albert Einstein either. As would be the case if the two of us were being chased by a grizzly bear, I don't have to be faster than the bear, I just have to be faster than you...

Some questions for you:

#1 Where did all the stimulus money go? What banks, how was it spent, did any small businesses who really need it get the money or just mega corps that lobbied the government to get the money?

#2 I never read the Arizona Law, can you cite it for me so I can tell if it is racist or unconstitutional? For example if an undocumented worker from the UK that is white is sent back to the UK just like an undocumented worker from Canada that is white gets sent back to Canada like an undocumented worker that is Mexican gets sent back to Mexico, then it is not racist but based on national origin. Unless they state that that it is not based on natural origin but only affects those without US citizenship, a green card, or visa, or even visitor visa and only those with undocumented worker status are targeted, which could mean anyone of any race and from any nation and thus not racist. But if I am wrong on that please let me. So please cite me the part of the bill that is racist and also Unconstitutional and then we ca get the US Supreme court to strike it down. But calling others names won't do it.

#3 Why blame Obama, why not blame BP and Halibuton for not paying the $500,000 to replace the safety device the BP engineers said needed replacing a year ago to prevent this? The same thing happened in Mexico and they fixed it in a few days using the same device. All the stupid stuff BP tried was tech they bought from their subsidiaries and the cap was not. So BP was giving their subs the money until none of it worked and they bought the cap which they should have done ASAP. Why blame Obama for that?

The over arching assumption is that the most undesirable illegals are people of color...Mexican, Asians, etc,

Bunk jubal, the most undesirable illegal aliens are those that are *ahem, now get this... ILLEGAL!
... Nice try on obfuscation though.

How do you tell someone is illegal just by looking at them? Chances are the color of skin is going to be the number one indicator.

White illegals who speak good English aren't going to be even suspected.

You are the one that is in denial.

You've determined that only races other than white are stopped and questioned huh, and you're absolutely sure about that?... I detect racial bias here.

The racial bias is inherent in the SB1070...today 6 South American countries filed suit in Federal court against the law...hahahahaha....Arizona is going to be fucked.

You choose to make this an issue of race, when it is an issue of legality... are you making a stand to deny enforcing our border and our sovereignty as established by our rule of law because... just what exactly?

And by the way, fuck those 6 south American countries and their 'suits' against our law... I bet they'd not take kindly to illegal invasion of millions of people into their country... Ke-rhist your logic is so fucking convoluted and twisted that you'd put a cork-screw to shame.

And what exactly comprises the "liberal media"?

They set it up the way they did because they knew that the insurance companies were going to get greedy and raise prices to offset their losses...they left the backdoor open for the public option through the insurance exchanges. We will eventually get our public option and the insurance industry will become marginalized cutting out a huge middleman who literally steels lots of health care dollars from the flow.

Cute!

The Republican and Democratic parties will die, and be replaced by the Tea Party and the Coffee Party. LOL!!

America will become one big beverage cart.

As a mixed-race gay liberal atheist, I'll be in the Iced Soy Mocha Capuchino Party.

It makes perfect sense- I'm liberal, so it's a coffee beverage.
I'm mixed race, so it's got Chocolate.
I'm an Atheist, so it's cool as Ice,
And I'm gay, so it's, um, well, soy.
OK, the metaphor breaks down at the end.

maybe "atheist" should be "sugar-free"?

touche' !
Funny reply !

Sounds like the Tea Party minus testicles.

And why is that? Let me know when the tea baggers actually get something done.

I prefer Tea Party supporters, save your homophobic references. And the Tea Partiers don't hold any political office to do anything. Yet.

Whats wrong with tea bagger? Thats what they called themselves in the beginning. Also tea bagging isnt necessarily a homosexual act although it can be...

I love it...thanks for the laughs.

Who called what in the beginning? Tea bagger came from Janeana Garofalo.

Informative video, even if you dont agree with many of the things being said i recommend watching...

dang i forgot to watch it...i usually catch it before the squidbillies but i was on the computer......

Do you want him to be assassinated like JFK or RFK? They tried to go up against the international bankers and the military industrial complex while bringing about major social reforms and look where that got them?

A very important point . Labels like dem. and rep. mean little to who got the power money . And they are not elected .

Much of this is true and disappointing.

However, I must take issue with your statement,

"he is pushing legislation to tax the american people for carbon use, which means there would be new taxes for using gas, plastic, etc."

That is a necessary part of moving us from complete, comfortable slavery to fossil fuels, to something of an alternative.

You're not implying, I hope, that we should continue to be rewarded for it? How else shall we (and the multinationals) learn?

Overall, thanks for the comment.