General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsStuff that never happened
The insurance companies were supposed to love health care reform, but they're fighting the rules and trying to repeal it.
Wall Street executives were going to love President Obama, but they're whining and calling him mean.
The President was accused of being against the repeal of DADT, but he ended the policy and the ban of gays in the military.
Obama was supposed to be ignoring poverty and homelessness, but he has put policies in place to address those issues.
Obama was allegedly ignoring the environment, but he has enacted some of the toughest rules in decades.
It was rumored that he was going to destroy Social Security, but he hasn't.
He's been accused of wanting to destroy Medicare, but he has strengthened it.
President Obama was accused of not wanting to end the Iraq war, but he has.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DOMA has not been repealed
there is NO public option. (let alone single payer)
the Bush tax cuts have NOT been repealed
Gitmo has NOT been closed
Just helpin' you out! You forgot these big ones !! Thanks!
RockaFowler
(7,429 posts)He cannot repeal DOMA on his own
He cannot create a public option on his own
He signed the extension, but it was Congress who sent him the bill
He signed an order to close GITMO. Are you forgetting that the Congress overturned him??
Just helpin you out since you are such a one-track mind
comipinko
(541 posts)FAIL
RockaFowler
(7,429 posts)He's not the only part of the government. There are 3 equal branches. I guess everyone seems to forget that. He also doesn't write the Legislation - Congress does.
tclambert
(11,193 posts)They need to update Schoolhouse Rock to include that 4th branch of government.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)But then again it's all powerful if something good happens. I guess it all evens out.
Response to comipinko (Reply #5)
paranoid floyd This message was self-deleted by its author.
frylock
(34,825 posts)while all the success is attributed to obama. please, get with the program.
comipinko
(541 posts)Response to comipinko (Reply #14)
Hutzpa This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)just deleted.
comipinko
(541 posts)That's the one but did not want to say.
treestar
(82,383 posts)All successes are credited to whatever group says it "held his feet to the fire."
Response to frylock (Reply #9)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #83)
Post removed
tonybgood
(218 posts)Have you forgot the Patriot Act?
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,957 posts)It's important to remember that President Obama is not a dictator and cannot make 535 members of Congress vote his way on legislation. The Democrats, all too briefly, had a supermajority in Congress during the first 2 years but they didn't act ANYTHING like the "rubber stamp" Congresses George W. Bush was blessed with during most of his (p)residency and, in fact, many of them explicitly refused to act like one for President Obama, especially the Blue Dogs and "Independent Democrat" Lieberman. 
DCKit
(18,541 posts)In 2010, we allowed the Blue Dogs, DLCers and DINOs to stay, and allowed a few really good DEMs to be replaced with Teabaggers instead of replacing (R)s, Blue Dogs, DLCers and DINOs with progressive Democrats. Blaming ANY President for the situation we're in simply demonstrates ignorance of how our government works.
Anyone faulting our President for not giving us rainbows and ponies has no more understanding of our government than the average Teabagger.
We have to FIGHT for the future we want. It doesn't simply happen with the election of a (D) President.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)He gets credit for "repealing DADT" (which congress had to do), yet we can't blame him for not pushing to repeal DOMA (which congress has to do. Why?
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,957 posts)and my understanding is that he will sign a repeal of DOMA when it arrives at his desk. Of course, it goes without saying that THIS Congress sure ain't going to pass it though (last Congress probably would have been pretty questionable too).
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"DOMA has not been repealed"
....stuff he hasn't done yet, sort of like DADT before it was repealed.
..."there is NO public option. (let alone single payer)"
True, there's no public option, but the overall goal was to pass health care reform. Still, that has little to do with the insurance companies dissatisfaction. They hate the new MLR among other things.
"the Bush tax cuts have NOT been repealed"
"Gitmo has NOT been closed "
You're right, but again, time and obstruction is a factor here. The OP specifically cites claims made against Obama that are no longer accurate or never materialized.
comipinko
(541 posts)At least it gives you more ideas for your "cut and paste" hobby. Alot of folks like cutting and pasting. Finger painting is fun, as well.
"Well, if you are going to post "stuff that never happened" these need to be included. "
...not unless you believe that they belong in the category of claims that proved to be inaccurate.
One of these things is not like the other.
"At least it gives you more ideas for your 'cut and paste' hobby."
Is that some sort of hangup?
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)
polmaven
(9,463 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 24, 2011, 01:20 PM - Edit history (1)
he was president as of 12:00 noon on January 20, 2009! Why on earth wasn't everything we wanted accomplished exactly the way we wanted it done by 1:00 PM on that day???? Did the magic wand break, or something???? 
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)I find that hard to believe, could you provide a link please?
Thanks in advance.
tblue
(16,350 posts)lol... For every one of those 'stuff that happened,' there should be an asterisk.
The big ones are the ones I just can't seem to forgive:
Bradley Manning pronounced guilty
Drone attacks
Blackwater contracts
Giving stimulus money to polluters
Going soft on BP & letting them resume drilling in the Gulf
And then theres:
Firing Van Jones
Calling it healthcare REFORM
opposing gay marriage
I could go on, but I'm already blue in the face and most of us already know.
Oy! Happy holidays, comipinko! That's a cute name.
comipinko
(541 posts)So many here are way too thin skinned.They get sad when you talk about "stuff" that's no fun. They should try fingerpainting.
tblue
(16,350 posts)I don't understand the knee-jerk defense of the indefensible. But then again maybe I do. People see in him things that aren't really there. I mean, he is a beautiful, intelligent, youthful, eloquent, charismatic, well-eduated man with a gorgeous family and nothing embarrassing in his history. He looks like he'd be another RFK or some other kind of powerful force for progressive change. Right out of Central Casting. He does look the part, I'll give him that. But his actions don't match the image, otherwise we'd all be cheering everything he does. I know I would. Oh, how I'd love to.
People see what they want to hear or hear what they want to see. Something like that.
I can't help but be objective enough to say he does some things I think are good and a whole lot that have me banging my head against a wall.
wizstars
(805 posts):burn:
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)look at all the things he didn't get done, and never mind that he was blocked by Congress from getting them done. Clearly he is a poor excuse for a President. 
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)details a party to the result doesn't like.
A dishonorable party will then seek to ammend those offending particulars. No surprise.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)No need for me to post anything else. It's okay to be angry. So I'm going to be.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)They whine about anybody who has a D following his or her name, even if that D is giving the whiny right-wingers exactly what they claim they want--i.e. a payroll tax cut extension.
-Laelth
Enrique
(27,461 posts)there's always more regulations they can gut, more tax breaks, more subsidies. Give them everything they want, they'll come up with more things to want.
tabatha
(18,795 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)He was going to close Guantanamo Bay. Still open.
He was going to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, rather than subscribe to the traitorous notion that his first job is to "defend America."
He was going to end war crimes and crimes against humanity begun by the Bush administration. Not even close.
He was going to end the excesses of the USA PATRIOT Act. Uh uh.
He was going to stop the military from blowing innocent civilians to Kingdom Come without warning. Another 60 Pakistanis killed in the last three months, bringing the running total in the last three years to an estimated low to mid four figures.
As long as we're running a list of "stuff that never happened." In the interests of fairness and balance, and the complete picture, y'all understand.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)is for Congress, which as we know they haven't done a god damn thing about.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Wow, what country have I been living in?
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)hence as a constitution scholar no one knows better than he how the constitution works.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Not the president's. Which is it?
And where in the Constitution is there an exception to the Fifth Amendment for . . . I dunno, depriving persons of their lives, liberty and property on the president's say-so? I'm not a constitution or even a constitutional scholar, but I don't think that can be summarily abrograted just because someone - even the president - says otherwise.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)Let me see if I understand your argument, which is you want this president
to become a dictator and take action without going to Congress and my point
is that it is impossible for him to do just that, as someone who is himself a
constitutional scholar that understands the constitution I just cannot see him
play the role of a dictator, secondly it will be impossible for him to act
unilaterally without the knowledge of congress.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Then you said that preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution was the President's job after all. It's been a while since I took a logic class, but I believe that's called a "contradiction."
And no, you clearly don't understand my argument, as badly as you have misstated it. May I suggest a remedial reading course?
comipinko
(541 posts)Just shut up, Obama knows best.
Is that a correct sumation?
frylock
(34,825 posts)and we should just support that.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)please try not to twist my statement.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Unless it is an Executive Order, almost everything has to go through Congress. So blaming Congress for the bad and crediting the President for the good is getting kind of old. Almost everybody knows how it works, it would be best to find a new excuse.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Obama called on the former general chairman of the RNC to stop Spain's investigation of US torture crimes.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/25/105786/wikileaks-how-us-tried-to-stop.html
MIAMI — It was three months into Barack Obama's presidency, and the administration -- under pressure to do something about alleged abuses in Bush-era interrogation policies -- turned to a Florida senator to deliver a sensitive message to Spain:
Don't indict former President George W. Bush's legal brain trust for alleged torture in the treatment of war on terror detainees, warned Mel Martinez on one of his frequent trips to Madrid. Doing so would chill U.S.-Spanish relations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH
6. (C) As reported in SEPTEL, Senator Mel Martinez, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, met Acting FM Angel Lossada during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 15. Martinez and the Charge underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship. The Senator also asked if the GOS had thoroughly considered the source of the material on which the allegations were based to ensure the charges were not based on misinformation or factually wrong statements. Lossada responded that the GOS recognized all of the complications presented by universal jurisdiction, but that the independence of the judiciary and the process must be respected. The GOS would use all appropriate legal tools in the matter. While it did not have much margin to operate, the GOS would advise Conde Pumpido that the official administration position was that the GOS was "not in accord with the National Court." Lossada reiterated to Martinez that the executive branch of government could not close any judicial investigation and urged that this case not affect the overall relationship, adding that our interests were much broader, and that the universal jurisdiction case should not be viewed as a reflection of the GOS position.
Judd Gregg, Obama's Republican nominee for Commerce secretary, didn't like the investigations either.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH
4. (C) As reported in REF A, Senator Judd Gregg, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, raised the issue with Luis Felipe Fernandez de la Pena, Director General Policy Director for North America and Europe during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 13. Senator Gregg expressed his concern about the case. Fernandez de la Pena lamented this development, adding that judicial independence notwithstanding, the MFA disagreed with efforts to apply universal jurisdiction in such cases.
Why the aversion? To protect Bushco, of course!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/200177
The fact that this complaint targets former Administration legal officials may reflect a "stepping-stone" strategy designed to pave the way for complaints against even more senior officials.
Eric Holder got the message.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1
As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.
"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted," he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/cia-exhales-99-out-of-101-torture-cases-dropped/
This is how one of the darkest chapters in U.S. counterterrorism ends: with practically every instance of suspected CIA torture dodging criminal scrutiny. It’s one of the greatest gifts the Justice Department could have given the CIA as David Petraeus takes over the agency.
Over two years after Attorney General Eric Holder instructed a special prosecutor, John Durham, to “preliminar(ily) review” whether CIA interrogators unlawfully tortured detainees in their custody, Holder announced on Thursday afternoon that he’ll pursue criminal investigations in precisely two out of 101 cases of suspected detainee abuse. Some of them turned out not to have involved CIA officials after all. Both of the cases that move on to a criminal phase involved the “death in custody” of detainees, Holder said.
But just because there’s a further criminal inquiry doesn’t necessarily mean there will be any charges brought against CIA officials involved in those deaths. If Holder’s decision on Thursday doesn’t actually end the Justice Department’s review of torture in CIA facilities, it brings it awfully close, as outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta noted.
“On this, my last day as Director, I welcome the news that the broader inquiries are behind us,” Panetta wrote to the CIA staff on Thursday. “We are now finally about to close this chapter of our Agency’s history.”
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
Part I
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2
Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 3
No State Party shall expel, return {"refouler"} or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Article 4
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.
Article 5
1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
1. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
2. When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.
Article 6
1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.
2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.
3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, to the representative of the State where he usually resides.
4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said State and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.
Article 7
1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.
Article 8
1. The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offenses. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.
3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested state.
4. Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1.
Article 9
1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with civil proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.
2. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph 1 of this article in conformity with any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them.
...
And he denied a US citizen (and his sixteen year old son) due process and assassinated them with Predator drones on suspicion of being terrorists. Wheee!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"He was going to close Guantanamo Bay. Still open."
President Obama Correctly Rebukes Congressional Attempt To Hinder Transfer Of Guantánamo Detainees To U.S.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-correctly-rebukes-congressional-attempt-hinder-transfer-guantanamo
"He was going to end war crimes and crimes against humanity begun by the Bush administration. Not even close."
http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/acalltocourage.pdf
Still, the list in the OP wasn't about stuff in progress or not yet done. It's about claims made that proved inccurate.
comipinko
(541 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)comipinko
(541 posts)
SammyWinstonJack
(44,316 posts)
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)No honest critics of this President would use Gitmo as a line of attack. He ordered the damn thing closed and YOU KNOW IT. And many members of both parties in Congress have used their legally granted power to tie his hands beyond that, and YOU KNOW IT.
This is my problem with a lot Obama's critics that post around here. They simply don't even pretend to try and be honest about the situation with their criticisms. Criticism in and of itself is fine. Its the dishonesty that gets under my skin.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)As it is, the President has done squat-ah about closing Guantanamo Bay. He hasn't made it a priority, and dozens of men continue to just rot in the sun, denied access to counsel, courts or even to be charged with anything. See, that's part of "stuff that never happened." The United States used to be against the sort of indefinite incarceration without charge we're practicing at Guantanamo. Signing one piece of paper with no follow up or negative follow up (see his March 2011 order) for nearly three years doesn't qualify as doing anything in my book.
"But gratuitous, you don't UNDERSTAND! If the President stood up for constitutional ideals, the Republicans would say mean things about him." Yeah, cry me a river. If the President of the United States can't rally the population to stand up for the right thing, then maybe we should just pack in this little experiment. Indefinite detention is illegal. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, we continue to murder dozens of people every month with drone attacks. And we support demented dictators like Nursultan Nazarbayev and Islam Karimov.
As I say, as long as we're making a list of stuff that never happened, let's be sure we get all the things on there that never happened. Guantanamo never closed. Torture continues. While some black sites have been closed (and from where I sit, it appears that happened because they were discovered), others remain open for their reprehensible business.
Response to gratuitous (Reply #65)
Post removed
Number23
(24,544 posts)He has ordered it closed and signed an EO for it to be closed. Congress denied him the means to be able to do so.
Obama can do nothing more than order Gitmo shut down and wait for Congress to allow him to transfer the prisoners somewhere.
Yep. Yep and yep.
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)If Gitmo were closed, none of the people screaming about it here would acknowledge it. Just like how people were screaming that Obama was never going to get DADT repealed. And then he was going to veto the repeal when it passed. And then the Pentagon wasn't going to certify that the military was ready as required in the bill. Yet once it all happened and DADT was officially dead and gone, it was on to the next outrage.
It was also claimed that Obama would not veto the foreclosure bill. Yet he did. And then, silence.
Etc. etc.
There are those here who refuse to acknowledge a single positive thing done by Obama and deride those who would point out any of them. It's always "Yeah, but..." no matter what.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Read the updates here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/
start from the bottom of that page and work your way upward and you'll see that Obama did all he could to CLOSE GITMO and The Congress did everything they could to obstruct him.
I'm not going to spend time on the rest of your list.
If the first item on a list is misleading then there's no reason to pay attention to the rest
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)with these facts Pro.
They will start attacking Obama supporters in about 3... 2... 1....
RockaFowler
(7,429 posts)Brother Buzz
(39,900 posts)Until it arrives, I'll enjoy the list of Obama's quiet accomplishments
treestar
(82,383 posts)The internets sure are good for spreading rumors.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)"Unlike the Republican candidates, Obama can raise money for both his own campaign account, which can take donations up to $5,000 for the 2012 cycle, and for his party’s national committee, which can accept $30,800 per individual each calendar year. The same donors will be able to give another $30,800 to the DNC next year.
The result is more money from fewer donors in the finance business.
Obama has raised a total of $15.6 million from employees in the industry, according to the Post analysis. Nearly $12 million of that went to the DNC, the analysis shows."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-has-more-cash-from-financial-sector-than-gop-hopefuls-combined-data-show/2011/10/18/gIQAX4rAyL_story_1.html
comipinko
(541 posts)Not for stuff that did, and continues to happen. Silly!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Hey ! This thread is for stuff that did NOT happen!"
...that didn't happen either. The DNC fundraising can't be conflated with the Presidential fundraising, and many Democrats fundraise for the DNC, which also doesn't take PAC money.
comipinko
(541 posts)I bet you won't!
Also, post this graph in November, updated, of course. You will not.
Sorry "graphic" FAIL.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Show me the 2008 graphs."
...Wall Street reform was passed in 2010. Why would they be whining about WSR in 2008?
Logic "FAIL"
stockholmer
(3,751 posts)Furthermore, how about those trillions in pure fraud and theft (both direct and indirect) from citizens by the banksters and NOT ONE person at the top has been charged, let alone prosecuted.
When Obama brings in someone like William K Black
to tear apart the banks (Black put over 1000 bankers in prison over the Savings and Loan scam of the 1980's/90's) I will then start to give hime credit.
I am not holding my breath.
Dodd-Frank? What a fucking joke. It's as much a reform as a chasity vow in a brothel.
Banksters whine for the public, then laugh at their raping of the same group behind closed doors.
They don't even have to laugh 'all the way to the bank', as they already are there.
comipinko
(541 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Your premise makes the assumption that anyone that has a job dealing with the managing of money can't possibly be a liberal. Thats a bigoted assumption.
The fact of the matter is. Wall Street has spent barrels of money lobbying against this President's policies. If they approved of them, they'd need not bother to do that. That fact alone completely obliterates any notion that Obama "answers to Wall Street corporate masters" or whatever the ludicrous, foamy mouthed bullshit line of the day is.
As far as I'm concerned, Obama can fund raise any way he has to, as long as its legal and ethical. Citizens United has really screwed the whole game and made it more unfair than it ever was before, and it was pretty bad before. This is about survival. And just because we want to change the game doesn't exempt us from having to play within its rules in order to win. We'll never again be in a position to change the rules if we believe that naive nonsense.
comipinko
(541 posts)Which is it? It did not happen, or it is OK that it did?
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Obama has raised money from people who work in the financial sector, yes. And yes, that is ok.
However, your attempt to conflate his numbers with the DNCs number is a bit of dishonest spin. But I'll just go with it, because it really doesn't bother me.
If there were any real conflicts of interests, there would have been no financial reform bill at all. There would be no consumer financial protection agency. As long as those kinds of policies, or even better ones, stand, then I don't really give 2 square shits.
Obama hasn't done everything that could/should be done in terms of reigning in unbridled capitalism. But he has worked a lot more on the side of progressive policy that he has for pro-corporate agendas, regardless of what the Internet left says. The proof is in the laws that have been passed and the lobbying money spent to defeat those laws and the lobbying money thats still being spent to try and get rid of them.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I draw no conclusions at all other than: the Op needs fact checking.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Raising money from the financial sector does not automatically mean raising money from Wall Street executives. Thats not even mathematically possible as there are a whole lot more people working in the financial sector who are not CEOs than people who are. That alone defeats any supposed point you were trying to make.
The OP just alluded to the fact a good number of Wall Street executives, particularly the ones who hate taxes and regulations, have been slamming Obama, backing Republicans and spending tons of lobbying money to defeat policies that Obama has enacted or at least tried to enact. The OP didn't go into detail the way I just did because they probably assumed that most people would have the common sense to realize what they were getting at. Just my guess.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I posted data that would appear to indicate that the alleged hatred is not expressed in any lack of fundraising.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Its not data that is particular to Wall Street executives. Its data that is particular to the financial industry as a whole, which like I said, is made up of a lot more people that are not Wall Street executives than people who actually are.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)so I'll decline to accept your analysis.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...and made no actual statement about the graph itself whatsoever, unless theres some post I'm not seeing.
Someone else brought up wall street fundraising. ProSense just posted the numbers out there and let it speak for itself.
Regardless, I'm not arguing here to defend ProSense. He or she handles fine on their own. I'm arguing here to refute the statements that you made. If you want to refute ProSense, then go reply to ProSense. When addressing me, you'd be better served by trying to refute my arguments or defending my refutations of yours, none of which you've managed to do so far.
patrice
(47,992 posts) 
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Unfortunately, that has not happened either.
patrice
(47,992 posts)government; he's not supposed to address it from perspectives other than law. He's NOT a Republican. That's THEIR thing.
zipplewrath
(16,698 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 22, 2011, 08:53 AM - Edit history (1)
"The insurance companies were supposed to love health care reform, but they're fighting the rules and trying to repeal it."There are parts they love, and parts they don't. They'll always try to change the parts they don't.
"Wall Street executives were going to love President Obama, but they're whining and calling him mean."
So he gave them trillions and got nothing for it. You'd think he'd learn sooner or later. Did the same thing with HCR. Passed what Krugman and Obama refer to as a GOP inspired piece of legislation, including items that the GOP proposed, and didn't get any GOP support in the process.
"The President was accused of being against the repeal of DADT, but he ended the policy and the ban of gays in the military."
Actually, he was "accused" of dragging his feet, which he did. He was accused of not stopping the expulsions until the repeal was passed, (which he could) which he did. He was accused of asking congress to wait and delay implimenting the repeal until the bigots in the military could finish their study (and congress complied). And his strategy of attaching it to the funding bill failed, and a few senators rescued it at the last minute by creating a stand alone bill (well as stand alone as they get these days).
"It was rumored that he was going to destroy Social Security, but he hasn't."
It's been "rumored" (if him stating it in public can be considered a "rumor" ) that he was willing to put cuts and restructuring "on the table". There's not reason to believe he won't again.
"He's been accused of wanting to destroy Medicare, but he has strengthened it."
For various values of "strengthen". He's cut costs to the feds.
"President Obama was accused of not wanting to end the Iraq war, but he has."
He was accused of execting the Bush SOFA instead of keeping his campaign promise, which he did.
He was accused of trying to negotiated an extension of our occupation but couldn't get Iraq to agree to the conditions, which he did.
But keep up the straw men.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Straw men indeed. Nice dismantling of bogus framing.
Iggo
(49,928 posts)Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Much to the chagrin of the cat food industry.
FrenchieCat
(68,868 posts)The "Cat Food Commission".....and what was going to happen due to them? Good times! 
Otherwise, I wish folks would spend half as much time destroying the Republicons,
as they do attributing the actions and non-actions, both wildly speculative and rumored as well as actual,
of an entire government of the past 30 years to just one man. Why is this necessary? What problem does it solve?
I am also amazed of how much passion and time folks put into advocating the negatives of this President,
while apparently not caring about how many lives could potentially be destroyed if Republicans ran all branches of
the Government. If they can't see the damage being done with Republicans only having majorities in the House and
the Supreme Court, then perhaps they don't really "care" about others as much as they claim to.
The Bush v. Gore saga should have taught us all that just the Supreme Court alone can change an entire world.....
and that framing this President in black and White negativity all of the time is simply not going to help anyone,
and in particular those who need help the most.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)He gave a speech, big deal!1!!
lolz There will be no amount of information that will make a difference for some, Obama sucks at all times, in all ways. For-evah!
Julie
ProSense
(116,464 posts)but equal time!
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)but leave the rest intact. That will mean that everyone with a few extra dollars lying around and some expensive chronic medical condition like Lupus or cancer will rush to sign up for insurance, while all the healthy people will elect to spend their money on a new TV instead.
Insurance makes money ONE way. By insuring the healthy and spending no money. They do not make money when they insure the sick---not unless they are allowed to insure a whole bunch of healthy people, too.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)That is called 'adverse selection' and would result in the immediate collapse of the insurance industry.
If there were no mondates BUT the insurance companies were REQUIRED to take all applicants with no regard to prior history then everyone would drop their health insurance and only get it again when they were sick, dropping it when they were better.
The insured pool would include lower and lower risks and that would result in astronomical premiums.
You could pass some of the changes in the health bill but you cannot take out just the mandates, keep all of the other requirements and have a viable system.
The trade off for having an open enrollment with no preconditions and 100% acceptence is mandating an inclusive risk pool
This is true whether it is private insurance or if it was a single payer system like Medicare.
Generally private insurers do not think that it will be struck down because the fundamental basis of law would also apply to social security and medicare, which are not voluntary plans.
madokie
(51,076 posts)in our times of need. Hell I went 54 years without any medical problems at all. I caught a few colds and had food poisoning a few times but other than that nothing. Food poisoning is a lot more prevalent than we would like to think it is. Many times when someone thinks their coming down with the flu its really food poisoning. We're supposed to have a government to protect us from that kind of shit but the pukes, some dems too, have got our government so watered down that its only there in its shell, the innards are gone.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Germany uses and other countries are similar.
But a tax, large or small is in fact a mandated fee that requires all to participate.
madokie
(51,076 posts)I have no payroll but I'd like to participate, meaning I'd like to pay my part.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)They have had this moral compact for almsot a century.
None of the rich their complain about it either.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)is never going to get passed.
cstanleytech
(28,473 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)nor did I hear it on the teevee or the radio. I read it all here and I'm still seeing that shit being posted.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)directly into the crafting of the legislation but that doesn't mean they won't stop trying to shape it to better favor them further.
boomerbust
(2,181 posts)Obama coming to Wisconsin to show solidarity with the working and union folk there, which would have guaranteed his reelection.
reACTIONary
(7,162 posts)Having Obama show up would make the recall effort all about Obama. Having candidates before the recalls are authorized would make it all about the candidates, not the recall authorization.
I think they are playing it right.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)Despite promises, Obama, Dem Congress have been gun-friendly
By Bob Cusack - 08/26/10 11:41 AM ET
Gun-control supporters are expressing frustration with the White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress for not standing up to groups like the National Rifle Association.
More:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/115953-despite-promises-obama-dem-congress-have-been-gun-friendly
December 1, 2011, 9:00 pm
Gun Nuts in a Rut
By TIMOTHY EGAN
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/gun-nuts-in-a-rut/
Whisp
(24,096 posts)guess Matt Damon must be far down on the list. WHEW!
(just in case)
olegramps
(8,200 posts)It seems to me that many so-called liberals on this board find Obama more a fault for the disastrous conditions that threaten the nation than the Republicans who are fully responsible for the situation. It has become so ridiculous that the Wall Street Urinal, the bastion of extreme Right Wing extremism, has been forced to speak out against their insane policy of of obstructionism.
Has he been able to achieve everything that the Democrats desired? Hell NO! I don't find him at fault. Its like trying to negotiate with the Devil. I actually believe that many of today's Republicans are down right evil bastards who thrive on the misery of their less fortunate fellow citizens and take joy in their misfortune.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)It doesn't matter if you are winning a game or not, you still attempt to push more on your side to assure that you continue to get their way.
If WallStreet and the Insurance companies were suddenly jubilant and praised president Obama how would they be able to justify continuing to get more? The idea that they would suddenly applaud politicians for giving them exactly what they want is a hopelessly naieve expectation of the lobbying game.
DADT finally ending was good, it would have been better had it been done earlier, but its done and I won't begrudge the president its ending. I will give him some credit for that, even if his justice department drug its heels.
AS to the dealing with poverty and homelessness and the environment, I would like a bit more detail. Enacting the toughest environmental rules in a decade isn't difficult. You could pass a law stiffening fines on highway littering and you would outdo Bush.
I am witholding judgement and watching Social Security and Medicare carefully and would respond on a case by case or legislation by legislation basis.
I have never accused president Obama of not WANTING to end the war in Iraq. I am certain he doesn't like war and I am confident he would prefer to go that direction. However he really should probably stand up to the 'War on Terror' propaganda that has resulted in a continuation of the very ideas that make us spend money stupidly, station our troops abroad in a wasteful fashion, and continue to allow aspects of the Patriot act to continue to fester on the books.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)