General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums7 years!
And to think that the RWNJs were afraid that Obama was going to destroy America!
Squinch
(50,916 posts)PS: Great to see your name. I haven't in a while.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)jimlup
(7,968 posts)say that Obama has destroyed America and that they have to take it back and make it "great again."
Squinch
(50,916 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,781 posts)OP is shocking!
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)The TPP has the potential to benefit every US resident in ever walk of life.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)dchill
(38,447 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)It will be the "gold standard!" Now you've got me doing it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)lousy ones) and caused our trade deficit to skyrocket.
Ah!!! I see the weasel words: "has the potential."
Meaningless. That is an empty statement. There is really nothing to back it up.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Republican presidents really are, and in their mass amnesia make hysterical arguments that republicans and democrats are more or less the same.
This affected poor al gore in 2000, hope smarter and less hysterical heads will prevail this time around
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)manage to exceed my worst fears.
But I would say - honest, fair assessment - that Barack Obama has arguably been the best President of my lifetime.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Because almost fifty percent of the pop disagrees with you, and they cannot be ignored
uponit7771
(90,302 posts)spanone
(135,795 posts)Andy823
(11,495 posts)Yet we still see posts here on DU from those who say otherwise. They say he was a do nothing president, he was republican lite, he was just like Nixon, and all kinds of BS. We also see those same posters saying that Hillary will "continue" what Obama has done, and they say that is bad for the future. I don't know about anyone else, but I would love it if she "DID" continue to rule the same as Obama has. For some reason I just can't buy into what right wing trolls here keep spewing, and I can't understand why anyone would, unless of course they too were trolls!
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)I think they may be saying that's not quite enough. That the American people need serious help.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)fasttense
(17,301 posts)Feel that signing away our trading rights to multinational corporations is not helping the situation.
We unrecoverred feel that using a Democratic lame duck congress to extend the tax cuts to the rich is a ripoff from the middle class. That setting up a committee to gut Social Security is Not democratic. That not prosecuting bankers and Not bailing out people and cities, yet bailing out bankers and corporations is not helping us to recover. He could have been another FDR. But he chose not to.
I suspect pople who want the next president to be just like the current president are doing just fine economically. The rest of us, not so much.
I know you folks who worship Obama are going to jump on me but I'm not going to respond to you. This beautiful Sunday morning in my old age, I have to go work my 3rd job to put food on my table.
Squinch
(50,916 posts)go back to a Republican? Or are you waiting for the revolution to overthrow the government.
Either way, you are cutting off your own nose.
And, no, he couldn't be another FDR. He didn't have the Congress behind him. Because we didn't give it to him. Because Democrats don't vote in the off year elections, and we don't fund the down ticket races. So if you REALLY want a revolution, that is what you change.
But there is a faction of Sanders supporters who simply won't do that. They'll keep sitting on their asses and waiting for the revolution that will never come while they complain that there is a conspiracy against them.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)But I bet you can rationalize that away. They shouldn't have been in the same country with terrorist suspects.
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)FDR?
How many dead in indiscriminate Allied bombing of civilian targets?
Or is it FDR has a "different" standard?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Why would you try to rationalize away what I believe is a war crime? Do you think these deaths are just collateral damage to a illegal process that is aimed at killing suspected, that's suspected, terrorists.
This has nothing to do with what FDR did or didn't do.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Understand that the man has done a good job. He has made mistakes, but when you and the same old anti Obama gang come in and ONLY post negative things about him, the party, and now Clinton, well one has to wonder what your real agenda really is.
I would be willing to bet that the same group of anti everything posters here would have gone after Bernie within 6 months when he couldn't get things done that they wanted done on day one.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)is to lose.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But that is why we are different...the other side is satisfied with words.
A good job is relative...good for whom?
The ACA was good for the insurance industry but not poor people...TPP is great for corporations but a disaster for ordinary people.
Some people want to worship the leader and that is what this seems to be about. And for me that seems like a dangerous thing to do...to much like a cult.
I prefer critical thinking...and there is no shame in that.
Skittles
(153,113 posts)also known as THE CRITICAL THINKERS
Hekate
(90,560 posts)...the new song would be "Where is the Love?" and his name would be mud.
Of course Obama got things done a lot faster than the old guy, because Obama was tossed under the bus within days of the vote count and long before the Inauguration.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Skittles
(153,113 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)sheshe2
(83,654 posts)Thank you so much for posting that fact. Appreciated.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)How big is the "war crime" in the vast scheme of things? Does that war crime make the glass 1/2 full or 1/10th full or 1/100th full?
Why are those 4,000 lives so important to you? To me, they are very small in the big picture. 4,000 lives? Over seven years (or more?). There were 4,317 people murdered in just California, Texas and Florida in just 2009 alone. Take 10,000 a year for the whole country (it was 15,241 in 2009 so I am using a low estimate) and the total is 70,000 over seven years.
70,000 would seem to be much much larger than 4,000. So why should my hair be on fire over 4,000?
And is Al-Alwaki among the 4,000? Because I am still glad that he is dead.
1939
(1,683 posts)n/t
1939
(1,683 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)The unemployment figures used are U3 rather than the more accurate U6 (this is always the case) so the unemployment figure is actually much higher even for White People, but significantly higher for non-whites.
and
The jobs 'created' are mostly low pay, minimum wage service jobs rather than living wage jobs you can support yourself on.
John Willliams - generally more believable than BLS
http://www.shadowstats.com/
U3 vs U6
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Recovery Has Created Far More Low-Wage Jobs Than Better-Paid Ones
from 2014 but you'll get the idea
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/business/economy/recovery-has-created-far-more-low-wage-jobs-than-better-paid-ones.html?_r=0
JI7
(89,240 posts)shanti
(21,675 posts)Hekate
(90,560 posts)http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/252270-sanders-i-wouldnt-end-drone-program
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/08/31/3697175/bernie-sanders-wouldnt-end-obamas-drone-program-promises-to-use-it-very-selectively/
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/01/sanders-drones-foreign-policy.html
sheshe2
(83,654 posts)Boom!
betsuni
(25,380 posts)or special forces in counter-terrorism. As president, he would use drones.
Response to rhett o rick (Reply #6)
Post removed
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)has been given by Sen Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a huge fan of Obama's drone killing. Other sources are more conservative but the kill ratio has been reported as from 30 to 100 innocent men, women and children killed for every single terrorist "suspect".
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147
US drone strikes could be classed as war crimes, says Amnesty International
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/22/amnesty-us-officials-war-crimes-drones
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html
How can anyone wonder why Obama doesn't condemn the war crimes of the previous administration, when he is committing what some consider war crimes himself.
I wonder who gets to decide who dies by drone strikes.
BootinUp
(47,085 posts)due to his handling of the financial crisis.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I agree that Obama has helped to save the countryfrom what would have been a much worse financial crisis, if a Republican was in the white house, and he has helped to build jobs.
but I still don't see where he has changed anything about the money in politics...it's much worse now than when he first started. He still has not pushed hard enough on green energy and stopping oil production, and he still has done nothing to change the fact that this country is an Oligarchy, with most profit going to the top while the middle class keeps slip sliding away.
Yes we have jobs, and some of them are good jobs with good pay and good bennies, but too many of them have changed from good manufacturing jobs with union pay and bennies to low income jobs (many service jobs) and many manufacturing plants have moved to the south (those that aren't moving overseas) and are hiring non-union at much lower wages.
I admire Obama very much and I know he has done what he could against the congress he was dealt with, and getting ACA was better than what we had before, but he's still not progressive enough for what this country needs, if we want to compete with the world. Our educational creds are also slip sliding away, yet kids from other countries still come here to go to college. We have good colleges, it's just that kids here can't afford them any more.
All this has gotten worse on Obama's watch. I'm not blaming him for all of it, but I'm not letting him off the hook for all of it either.
Most of these children have parents who work, but low wages and unstable employment leave their families struggling to make ends meet.
http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html
When you look at that chart you see our unemployment and uninsured rates have improived, but have they really? Or is it that the people are working multiple jobs to make ends meet (and still not making it) and many have just dropped out of the search for jobs because they are too old to be hired now, and too many of the "new insured" have insurance they still cannot afford to use.
We are the wealthiest country in the world and yet we have some of the lowest living standards and poverty and health rates for developed countries. We are spending too much on war and for-profit prisons and a screwed up justice system, and not enough on our own people.
BootinUp
(47,085 posts)money in politics - Obama came out forcefully against Citizens United decision. I think a review of that whole episode puts a good light on him actually.
jobs - I think Obama himself would agree with you and would very much prefered to do more. He has recently spoken about this if I am not mistaken. I give him a B+ on this issue. I would have liked to see a push for a bigger stimulus initially in '09, and also a more effective mid-term campaign.
things getting worse or better - Its not easy turning around a huge ship of state when it was as badly damaged as ours was in '09. I give him an A on turning it around just because he started in such a massive hole.
Child poverty - I am not an expert on this issue. I am not sure I have too much to say worth typing except that I believe Obama shares your concern and did everything he could to address it.
Progressive enough or Is Bernie's way better - I think this is the question you are raising. My take on this whole question is to ask whether the politician in question is able to gain enough support to actually change something. In a nutshell, I do not see Bernie building the support needed to enact the changes he promises and therefore, it is not the better way. Just my opinion.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Obama did not start a revolution of the people and then keep it going. He tried to work within the existing system, which he could not work with because of republican obstructionism.
Bernie knows he can't do anything great without us behind him, continuously pushing for the changes we want and need now. Bernie is truly leading a revolution, not thinking he can do it on his own.
Obama could have gotten more done with our help, but he dropped us. Not deliberately...but without thinking about what he really meant when he said "Yes We Can". It takes the WE to get anything done.
Considering everything, he got a lot done on his own, but not enough.
sheshe2
(83,654 posts)But that's how America works: we have no sense of history. We don't understand just how bad it was right before the 2008 election. In actuality, we were losing 700,000 jobs per month. Unemployment was twice what it was now. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was below 8,000. The financial industry had crashed the global economy and was seemingly continuing those very same actions as if nothing they had done was even wrong. Retirees were losing their life savings. Millennials were unable to find their first jobs and were being crushed by student debt. Our country was bogged down in two costly wars that were contributing to the deteriorating conditions and instability of the Middle East. While all this was going on, the rich in this country, seemingly unaffected by everything going on around them, continued to profit at record levels.
When it came time for him to run for president starting in 2007, Barack Obama did not run on a promise of revolution.
What he did run on was convincing millions of Americans that were was a better way to govern. That we were all in this together and that if enough Americans stood up and voiced their concerns then Washington, D.C. would be forced to listen. His soaring rhetoric was based upon the idea that through hope and change we could advance the mission of our founding fathers and get ever so closer to our perfect union. That was his pitch: not simply that he would go in and overturn nearly 220 years of constitutional governance but that he would advocate for a way to govern more effectively. By voicing their support for his candidacy, Barack Obama's supporters were confirming that they too, agreed that we needed a candidate whose policies and whose views on government would best provide a way to make our system run as it was intended to run.
And so in 2008, America made history with its resounding election of Barack Hussein Obama. It was such a decisive victory that even Fox News had trouble describing it: nearly 69.5 million popular votes, a 365-173 victory in the Electoral College, and the winning of nearly all swing states including Florida, Ohio, and even North Carolina. Even better was the fact that Democratic senators rode Obama's coattails and with the defection of Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and the delayed seating of Democrat Al Franken of Minnesota, Barack Obama found himself in April of 2009 of having a filibuster-proof Senate and a Democratically-controlled House. Here was his chance to enact a progressive wish-list with things like universal healthcare, a way to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, an increased minimum wage, and free colleges and universities.
Does any of this sound familiar?
It should. Because it is the very same platform that now Senator Bernie Sanders is echoing for president. Yet despite this huge "wave" of enthusiasm that brought Barack Obama into the White House, he faced stiff opposition from not only Republicans, who vowed to make him a one-term president but also Blue Dog Democrats who felt Obama's "radical agenda" wasn't in the best interest of the American people. During a bitter and fought-out battle for the Affordable Care Act, not only did the landmark legislation not receive a single Republican vote from either the House or the Senate but Obama had to compromise on the legislation and even the idea of a public option was too much for certain Blue Dogs to swallow. The ACA that we now have in place passed after a nearly eight-month battle on Christmas Eve of 2009 with Obama needing all 60 votes in the Senate as well as having to fend off 34 Democrats who voted against the legislation in the House.
snip//
The American people are living through a revolution. It is not a revolution from a seventy-four-year-old democratic socialist from Vermont. It is the revolution from a fifty-four-year-old biracial man from the south side of Chicago. A skinny man with large ears and a funny middle name who has put our country on the path to prosperity for decades to come. A man staked his presidency on providing affordable healthcare to tens of millions of people. A man whose actions staved off a second Great Depression despite the fact that these actions gave his opponents the ability to misinform the public and to retake Congress. A man who slowly and methodically worked with Congress to improve our crumbling infrastructure. A man whose very first bill was a bill to help protect women in the workplace. A man who has used the bully pulpit to advocate for higher wages and more affordable college. A man who has done all this despite having two of history's least productive Congresses since 2010.
Read More: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/2/24/its-all-been-done-how-barack-obama-already-achieved-bernie-sanders-revolution
**********************
Who is going to fly in on BS coattails? No one, he refuses to even raise money for them.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)started with Occupy wall street. Then Obama picked up on it and it carried him to victory, but instead of keeping the grassroots base powered up to put the pressure on congress, he tried to do it through his usual method of working with recalcitrant people. He is very much an organizer who can bring people together, but what he wasn't counting on was the hatred from the right that a black man was in the white house, and their constant obstructionism seriously limited what he was able to accomplish. He did amazingly well on some things, just through his own tenacity, but as the years went by, congress became more and more obstructionist. They were seriously pissed when he won a second term.
What he really needed, and what we should have kept up on our own, was a grass roots powered revolution that pushed congress to act and cooperate with Obama. And I think we could have done it. If enough people tell congress to do the will of the people or lose their jobs, they will get scared...especially if they don't see us backing down.
But we didn't stay in formation and that is what we needed to do. We need a leader to keep us together and that is what Bernie is trying to be for us.
Our young people get it. It's us older fogeys who need to stand up and fight for a change. Not something we are very good at.
sheshe2
(83,654 posts)I'll go find the list if you wish, it is huge and most of us don't know half of what he accomplished. The dreaded Peoples View has an excellent one.
As for the young ones, I will fight tooth and nail for them. However sorry, they just don't vote. They may go to the rallies, yet they can't get off there ass to vote. So they will not be there for the revolution either. Please show me polls that show a huge youth turn out for BS. I haven't seen it.
Thanks passiveporcupine.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I'm not one of the people here who give him no credit. But he got handed a lot of shit too and it would have been really nice if he had just had a normal congress to deal with.
I'm afraid "normal" and "congress" are two words that we won't be seeing in tandem for a long time. I'm so ticked off at congress I could scream.
Take care and I hope your spring is lovely.
PP
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)unless you broaden the definition of "top". The top 10% gets 50% of the national income. The top 1% only gets 20%. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023937994
As far as what we spend money on. I am guessing that our country spends billions on tattoos and more billions on coffee. Yep, $1.6 billion. http://www.statisticbrain.com/tattoo-statistics/
$13.6 billion on coffee. http://www.coffeereview.com/americans-spending-more-on-coffee/
We spend a lot more than that on public schools, libraries, universities, and parks.
I mention coffee though, because a local hospital is having a health fair, and for some reason they think they need to give away free coffee at it, so I had to make the damned coffee. There always seems to be free coffee. Staff meeting? Free coffee. Customer appreciation day was yesterday, the sign said "enjoy a free cup of coffee in the lobby".
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)We don't even call all of it income...we call some of the CEO pay "benefits" so they don't have to pay as much in taxes.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)but why should profit be more relevant than income?
Well, benefits too. That may be harder to measure, and that is true through the whole economy. My co-worker gets the benefit of $135.80 per month paid to his health insurance. We both get the benefit of paid vacations, paid holidays, and paid sick leave. We both get the benefit of our employer paying 6% of our salary into our retirement (we pay another 6% but then do not pay income taxes on that portion of our pay) and paying 7.65% for FICA taxes in our name.
I am betting that the bottom 90% still gets more of that than the top 0.1% does, but I am not sure where I would find data.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)The CEO's still get those. The bennies I am talking about are the millions in stock options they get so it doesn't need to be included in their millions in income. Not the same thing as the benefits we get. And the profit for the top comes mostly from stocks and dividends and sources that are not taxed like income. The profit of our corporations goes primarily to the top in this country. Very few of us peons have much in the way of stock and dividends. Not compared to the top who are the owners, CEO's, Board of Directors, etc. who always own most of the shared in the business.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)would be included in their income. (Not sure what their basis would be for a sale though - zero? or the price of the stock when they got it?)
I know the rich own most of the stocks, but I am not sure how pension funds figure into that picture. Or banks either. My credit union, for example, has $50 million in "investments" which is separate from the $52 million it has in loans. Of course, I am not sure how the $94 million in deposits is divided up, and 10.6 million of that is checking accounts (and how permanent is that money?) do 10% of the members have 60% of the total? I have about $70,000 in there (mostly retirement accounts) and that seems like a lot of money to me, but it is only 0.07% of the total.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I know
I have been blasting Obama for that for years. He's the one who made that portion of the Bush tax cuts permanent and called that a victory.
Oddly enough, they are taxed at a lower rate for me too. I had $328 in dividends in 2014 which were taxed at a zero percent rate. Had $457.75 in dividends in 2015 but didn't save anything because the Retirement savings contribution credit (line 51) already knocked my taxes down to zero. In 2014 I ended up paying $1,375 in taxes on $30,493.27 in income. A 4.5% tax rate, which is higher than the average for those in the bottom 50%.
Rex
(65,616 posts)rurallib
(62,387 posts)Up until the ACA, even if you had insurance it was very iffy that insurance would cover you in a time of need. Thus even people with insurance, so called "good" insurance, went bankrupt due to medical bills.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Millions more insured and it's now illegal to deny anyone insurance because of a preexisting condition.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)And he certainly kept his word. Gay liberation is part of a longer movement. But Obama helped speed things up by not defending DOMA, getting rid of DADT, and so much more.
Marriage equality - amazing it passed during my lifetime.
There's a lyric from one in the songs from Hamilton: How lucky we are to be alive right now.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)For his inauguration, but Obama was a great president for us. I was wrong to be skeptical.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)I remember feeling disappointed about him being selected for the inaugural. That went away pretty fast.
In his second inaugural he connected women getting the right to vote, the civil rights movement and gay rights - From Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)I think it was ok for me to criticize the choice of warren but OTT to assume that meant he doesn't care about sexual and gender minorities
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)the Obama Dept. of Education appears to be a cesspool of corruption
that allows and even encourages private interest profiteering at the
expense of our young people.
The war on whistleblowers . .
Claiming (and exercising) the right to execute American citizens
without trial.
These, and others, are unforced errors.
I could go on . .
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... go away.
PatSeg
(47,279 posts)with a cooperative congress. There could have been many more well paying jobs if Congress would have worked with the President on infrastructure and green energy. Those who blame Obama for the increase in low paying jobs need to direct their criticism to a republican congress who is determined that this president does not succeed.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I thought he was, based on his first platform in 2004. I was wrong. He's still far better than a republican, but he's not what this country really needed (another FDR). I'm still glad he was our President because he's a good man and has done some very good things, and he was the best that was running at the time.
Now it's time for a new FDR.
PatSeg
(47,279 posts)Obama the man is more progressive than Obama the politician, but that is just a hunch. I think he's done what he thought he could do and even when he was being "moderate", he was hindered by the republicans. If he'd had the congress that FDR had, I'm quite sure he would have been much more progressive. Meanwhile, I can only hope that the more progressive side of Obama would have opposed the TPP - that one really bothers me.
If you want a new FDR, you need a new congress! We need to put more of our energy into down ticket races. While Dems put so much focus on presidential elections, the republicans quietly win congressional seats and state/local positions. They aren't always as stupid as they look or they are just maddeningly persistent.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)is one of Bernie's highest priorities. Get the money out of politics.
If money didn't drive politics, the republicans wouldn't be able to pull as much crap as they do, and the dems wouldn't be as weak as they are. Right now there are people in all parties who are fed up with the status quo...they want to see this econmic picture turned around.
And if money weren't driving politics, apathy wouldn't play such a big part in our failures. Young people want to see change, but too many of them have just given up trying (until a real revolution comes along, which they can sink their teeth into)...that's why Bernie is so popular with the youth. He's talking about getting the money out of politics. He's the only one who is.
PatSeg
(47,279 posts)Getting money out of politics is vital to the future of our country, though that money is not leaving easily. I'm not sure it is even possible short of a real revolution.
Hekate
(90,560 posts)...as the rewrite of Ronald Reagan by the GOP if we are not careful.
My mother was an anomaly in many ways. She was deeply scarred by growing up in the Great Depression, in which her father lost his business and went on the road to work for the CCC. She admired FDR, but she had to think her way past her father's anti-Semitism ("Rooosenfelt" etc.). The KKK was active in Colorado when she was growing up there, and they hated the Roman Catholics (her family, in other words) about as much as the Jews and the African Americans, so that also gave her a lot to think about.
She admired FDR for all the good things he did, but here's one thing she taught me when I was still in grade school: he interned the Japanese Americans, and while it doesn't negate the good he did, that was an un-American and horrifying thing to do. Ditto turning away a boatload of Jewish refugees.
People are not all one thing. My heroes are not plaster saints, which is why I can look at Thomas Jefferson, FDR, and Margaret Sanger and see their flaws but still call them my heroes.
Thanks for the kind words about President Obama, but in many respects the time shapes the leader. Obama's country has been very different from FDR's.
FDR took charge during a time of mass despair. He had a willing Congress. The country was still working its way out of the Depression when Pearl Harbor was attacked; suddenly the America Firsters were pretty much silenced and the rest of the country unified. Gearing up for a mechanized war gave jobs to millions of men and women, and millions of men were drafted into the Army -- coincidentally solving the unemployment problem.
Different times, different leaders.
PatSeg
(47,279 posts)FDR is also one of my heroes, but like you, my admiration is realistic and I am very aware of his flaws. I feel that he was the perfect president for that time and had he held office at a different time in history, he might have been relatively forgettable. I am in awe of what he did accomplish and as such, I am forgiving of his shortcomings.
As for President Obama, I feel certain that history will be very kind to him. Sometimes we can't see all that is happening until some time has passed. "Can't see the forest for the trees", so to speak.
By the way, MY father talked about FDR as well, but he really couldn't stand the man, so I came to my opinion on my own over the years.
angrychair
(8,681 posts)Ask the DNC. Nationwide, counting state and federal offices, Democrats have lost roughly a 1,000 seats to teapublicans. I largely blame DWS but feel PBO should have replaced her long ago.
PatSeg
(47,279 posts)Worse DNC chair ever. How incompetent does one have to be before they are fired? She couldn't be any worse if she was a republican spy. I think she has a "50 state strategy" to lose to republicans.
Also, shouldn't a DNC chair be a full-time occupation, not some extracurricular activity?
George II
(67,782 posts)Imagine if they didn't obstruct him every chance they got?
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)He HAS - to hear therm tell it!
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Left wing nut jobs. They have been agains him from day one for some reason, and they continue to this day to deny that he was a great president. Of course maybe thy are really "right wing nut jobs" pretending to be left wing nut jobs!
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)I don't say "great" and Obama's name in the same sentence. He might be great for the stock market, but he's done ZIP for labor.
mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)mainly because I recognized from the beginning, he was more moderate than me, but he won me with his opposition the Iraq war and his message of hope. That said, progress I expected, and progress we got. We also got 8 years of a scandal free administration, a first family we can be proud of, an improved economy, and new hope for many. My worst nightmare is what America would look like today if McCain had won in 2008 or Romney in 2012.
Hekate
(90,560 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)uponit7771
(90,302 posts)shireen
(8,333 posts)shove that in the face of Rethuglicans who accuse us of spending too much.
PBass
(1,537 posts)Gothmog
(144,934 posts)Iggo
(47,535 posts)SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)He certainly saved my brother's life with Obamacare.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,967 posts)forest444
(5,902 posts)Scorpios are known for getting right to the chase. And once again, we were not disappointed.
(we wordy Libras could take a page from your book)
betsuni
(25,380 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)yes, he is always the adult in the room, love that!
Hekate
(90,560 posts)Damn I am going to miss Barack Obama something fierce.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)President Barack Hussein Obama!
Thank you, Mr. President!
SusanLarson
(284 posts)The number only counts new fillings, and also ignores the long term unemployed and those who have given up looking. The real unemployment rate is somewhere between 11% to 24%
For the young and older workers jobs are almost impossible to find.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I will certainly give him props.
There are still many issues that have not or have become worse, I will still call out those areas.
That is what progress requires.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)To the gnashing of RW teeth, and sadly ... some far LW teeth too.
Soxfan58
(3,479 posts)I thought a republican said on TV the country was heading down the tubes with this horrible man Obama. They must have been mistaking.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)ailsagirl
(22,885 posts)I wish he weren't leaving-- he's been exceptional!!!
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Only some of whom call themselves Republicans.
JEB
(4,748 posts)I ain't eating cat food yet.
GOPblows431
(51 posts)It's a shame there are plenty of people in this country who are eager to reverse these changes. Pathetic.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)America was already fairly well destroyed after the last guy got through with it.
I am very proud of this President and his record of accomplishments.
Madmiddle
(459 posts)We are, right now, living under the regime of the most corrupt government of all time. So, these numbers, which are low balled to show that the problems we talk about are not so bad. They're a joke. We have jobs that do not pay anywhere near enough to live on. A GDP that doesn't reflect how pathetic manufacturing has become. An uninsured rate that doesn't count peoples' actual coverage, which means most peoples deductables are astronomical. I could go on but it's to depressing.