PDA

View Full Version : Even Obama's own family admit he has failed



BJJ-Blue
08-06-2011, 09:20 AM
"Remember when liberals claimed Barack Obama was "probably the smartest guy ever to become president" and was "a sort of god"? Today they say "we are watching him turn into Jimmy Carter right before our eyes," and the center point of his presidency is "a disaster." So what changed exactly?

Is President Obama really a different man today than he was before he entered the Oval Office? The same Illinois legislator who voted "present" 129 times is now the debt-crisis-AWOL president who refused to present a specific plan of his own. The same presidential candidate who wanted to "spread the wealth" has unleashed redistributionist, collectivist policies on everything from health care and energy supply to runaway Keynesian spending and ever-increasing taxes. Should we be surprised?

The president may still win re-election in 2012, of course, but in recent weeks, his approval rating has crumbled, particularly among liberals, to an all-time low of 40 percent in a recent Gallup poll. Another poll shows that even among liberal Democrats, strong support for Mr. Obama's record on jobs has plummeted 22 points, to a paltry 31 percent. The hope and change of 2008 have given way to the joblessness and foreclosures of Obamanomics.

The only thing worse than the abject failure of a liberal president, at least in the eyes of the liberal, is the undeniable failure of liberalism itself. To claim Mr. Obama has been a good president no longer even remotely passes the laugh test. Consider the results thus far of the Obama presidency:

Two million-private sector jobs have been lost.

Unemployment jumped from 7.8 to 9.2 percent with a simply terrible 2011 first-quarter economic growth rate of just 0.4 percent.

A record 1 in 7 Americans is on food stamps.

Gasoline prices more than doubled, from $1.83 to $3.74 per gallon.

National debt increased 35 percent, to $14.5 trillion, or $137,000 for each taxpayer.

National unfunded liabilities increased 47 percent, to $114.9 trillion, or a cool $1 million for each taxpayer (and this does not yet include Obamacare).

America is on the verge of losing its AAA credit rating.

What's worse, and was as easily predictable, is the systematic dishonesty Team Obama unleashed to persuade Americans to tolerate its big-government, collectivist agenda. America is, after all, a center-right nation with nearly 3-to-1 self-described conservatives compared to liberals. How else besides trickery could Mr. Obama further an agenda so unpopular with voters? Witness the dishonesty:

The stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent.

Stimulus funds would go to "shovel-ready" jobs.

Obamacare would create 4 million new jobs - 400,000 almost immediately.

You could keep your own doctor.

The president's mother was denied health insurance.

Obamanomics would mean a "net spending cut."

So, as the liberal presidency of Mr. Obama becomes increasingly indefensible, the liberal is faced with an unthinkable dilemma: acknowledge the fundamental failure of his collectivist liberal philosophy, which tends toward socialism, or blame its failures on a single man whom, until just recently, the liberal deified.

The conflict between liberal collectivist ideology and its application was easily predictable by anyone who has studied big-government economic failures throughout history, from the collectivist all-stars including Mao's China, Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union to today's honorable mentions such as Castro's Cuba or Chavez's Venezuela. Enforcement of collectivism has always depended on government power, from Stalin's iron-fisted gulags to Mr. Obama's mere heavy-handed plan for punitive fines for failure to purchase your government-imposed health insurance. The degree of autocracy may vary, but still the collectivist road to economic ruin is universal.

Here's what I wrote one year ago:

"As President Obama's failures mount, there will be an awkward reversal of roles among liberals, and to a lesser degree, among conservatives, that we're already beginning to see. It will be the liberals, rather than the conservatives, who will decry this man as personally incompetent. In the collapse of the social-welfare state, the last bastion for these scoundrels will be to sacrifice their own anointed deity as though it is his personal failures, rather than the inherent deep flaws of statism, that are to blame. Of course, one must ask how valuable an ideology can be if one man, even (or perhaps especially) a flawed man, can destroy it.

"Conservatives will then find themselves in the uncomfortable position of defending Barack Obama personally, or at least reminding the liberals of their earlier effusive praise, in order to redirect the blame where it primarily belongs - at the feet of the statist policies themselves. The liberals will be left to explain, of course, how valuable the liberal ideology itself really is if even a learned and godlike leader cannot manage it. Further, if Barack Obama turns out not to be the deity they once claimed, what does that say of the liberals' perception (and honesty) when they eventually anoint another?"

This cycle of liberal, cannibalistic personal destruction is the predictable result of the Democrats' cult-of-personality politics. Those purveyors of big-government rule are the mob that Ann Coulter described in her recent book "Demonic," quoting Gustave Le Bon from a century ago, that "knows neither doubt nor uncertainty ... it goes at once to extremes." The absurdity of liberals' deification and then condemnation of their own leaders is second only to their unwillingness to confront the failures of their collectivist philosophy.

In the end, Barack Obama's failures as president are not because he couldn't faithfully execute the liberal collectivist philosophy - he ushered in the Obamacare era, after all - his failures are instead because he bought into the failed philosophy in the first place."

Dr. Milton R. Wolf is a board-certified diagnostic radiologist and cousin of President Obama. He blogs at MiltonWolf.com.

Source:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/2/liberals-unmaking-of-barack-obama/print/

This guy is pretty sharp. Just like me, he went on record and predicted Obamanomics' total failure. And now we've both been proven right.

mawali
08-06-2011, 10:45 AM
A president (USA) does not unilaterally make policy or decide such but his direction is a factor. Keeping that in mind, opposition has been strong to prevent Obama from creating some semblance of structural US policy in the present scenarios.
Why do I say this so here are some reasons:

a. There was a surplus in the Clinton Administration to the extent that when Bush et al came upon the scene, the surplus was wiped out by Bush policy(ies).

b. Bush's strategy was to rely on party unity to raise the ceiling debt (6-8 times minimum) while cutting taxes thereby creating a net decrease in revenue while declaruing war (more or less) and further diminishing the collected revenue base.

c. Add to this, the NAFTA chronicles whereby all US blue collar jobs moving to Ex-US locations for cheaper labour. i.e. refusal to pay higher wages to US workers. (Both Democrat and Republican part lines).

d. Obama even atempting to raise the debt ceiling once was/is a problem since the opposition claimed that it was the worst thing he could do while wholeheartedly agreeing with the 6-8 times it was done previously. Doesn't make it right but where was the outrage then! That's my problem with bioth sides a I speak/type!

e. Things are worse because with the blue collar jobs, at least people could go back to work. Now they are gone so where do the US workers go now! McDonalds, Wallmat, Burger King, CVS, Target, etc. and this is the alternative to getting back to work.

f. Companies are even refusing to pay retirement benefits because they cost oo much or they will lower what they pay. Military is saying that the 20 years retirement package is too generous so they are attempting to solidify points to vote for raising the age for payout and/or servicemenber contribution to retirement. Even Republicans are saying that Social Security should not be distributed and both sides want to raise the age to 70 when there is no way in hell companies will hire 65 years old people! WTF. Some companies even refuse to hire 50-55years old because they are too old. Again, SOLUTION: Walmart, K-MArt, McDonalds, etc.

g. If this is your elected representative choice as representation, we need to choose people whio actually will represent us! Not the fake faux politicians who trick us every year and we pretend to agree with them while they are asking us to bend over. HELL NO!

h. I just had to get this off my chest! Freedom for all

dirtyrat
08-06-2011, 10:53 AM
no one presidential administration can undo generations of unsound economic practices. that and the fact that political parties are unwilling to work together for the good of the nation.

bawang
08-06-2011, 11:06 AM
the crumbling of america givse me a huge boner

MAXIMUM BONER ENGAGED

Syn7
08-06-2011, 05:23 PM
no one presidential administration can undo generations of unsound economic practices.

word.........

BJJ-Blue
08-07-2011, 02:13 AM
a. There was a surplus in the Clinton Administration to the extent that when Bush et al came upon the scene, the surplus was wiped out by Bush policy(ies).

Who controlled both houses of Congress for Clinton's last 6 years in office? And it was during those 6 years we had a surplus, correct?


b. Bush's strategy was to rely on party unity to raise the ceiling debt (6-8 times minimum) while cutting taxes thereby creating a net decrease in revenue while declaruing war (more or less) and further diminishing the collected revenue base.

How many of those debt ceinling increases were passed by Democrat-controlled Congresses? Bush had to cut taxes as he inherited an economy in recession (the dot-com bubble bursting). He was able to pull us out of that recession. Whether those tax cuts paid for themselves is up for debate. Some economists say 'yes', others say 'no'. Either way, they did turn the economy around.

GDP growth under GW Bush was up 2.09%.

Last quarter GDP grew 1.3 %.
The previousquarter it grew 1.9%, but was revised by the Commerce Dept to 0.4% So the 1.3% number has a good chance of being alot smaller once it's revised.

Sources:
http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/08/03/us-gdp-growth-by-president-1948-2009/
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-won-debt-debate-just-doesnt-know-070000642.html


d. Obama even atempting to raise the debt ceiling once was/is a problem since the opposition claimed that it was the worst thing he could do while wholeheartedly agreeing with the 6-8 times it was done previously. Doesn't make it right but where was the outrage then! That's my problem with bioth sides a I speak/type!

Obama also flip-flopped, just in reverse. He spoke against raising the debt ceiling when Bush was President, but now supports debt limit increases while he is President.

But why can't Obama be the better man? Just because Bush raised it doesn't mean he should do it too. He called Bush a failure, so why is he doing the same things in that regard as Bush did? He promised to cut spending, not raise the debt. I'd have respect if he said, 'You know the debt ceiling was raised under Bush alot. I won't do that, this Administration will do as I promised and cut spending, no matter if it's painful or not. It has to be done, and I'll do what Bush failed to do. I will lead this country down a different path as I promised to do' If he did that, I'd be singing the guy's praises. After all, he promised that, he promised "Change". Now he does as Bush did and his excuse is, "Well Bush did it too".


e. Things are worse because with the blue collar jobs, at least people could go back to work. Now they are gone so where do the US workers go now! McDonalds, Wallmat, Burger King, CVS, Target, etc. and this is the alternative to getting back to work.

You are correct. But I say the solution is to make the USA more business friendly. Business always goes to the most business friendly areas to do business. We've passed so much regulation, red tape, etc that China is now more business friendly. And until we become more business friendly than China is, the jobs aren't coming back and more and more will be leaving. You agree with this, right?


g. If this is your elected representative choice as representation, we need to choose people whio actually will represent us! Not the fake faux politicians who trick us every year and we pretend to agree with them while they are asking us to bend over. HELL NO!

If you want honesty, vote for the Tea Party backed candidates. They've done exactly as they promised to do during the campaign. It was those guys who opposed rainsing the debt ceiling. And they didn't do it for any other reason other than the fact that they promised their constituents if they were elected to Congress they would not vote to raise the debt ceiling. Love them or hate them (and their poicies), but you have to admit they are keeping their campaign promises.

David Jamieson
08-07-2011, 09:02 AM
If you say it enough, eventually it will be true....

that little fairy tale seems to be major republican strategy in their rhetoric.

MasterKiller
08-07-2011, 10:42 AM
Drill baby drill! Drill baby drill!

BJJ-Blue
08-08-2011, 08:45 AM
If you say it enough, eventually it will be true....

that little fairy tale seems to be major republican strategy in their rhetoric.

What part did I say that was false?

Aren't you the guy who said the Federal Reserve was a private corporation, then kept posting more and more posts defending that false claim?

And speaking of repeating things over and over, if I had a nickle for every time I heard "It's Bush's fault" come out of a Democrats mouth, I'd have more money that the entire national debt.

BJJ-Blue
08-08-2011, 08:47 AM
Drill baby drill! Drill baby drill!

Well you could adress my posts instead of changing the topic. But I have already covered the comunity organizer's failure in that front as well:


Gasoline prices more than doubled, from $1.83 to $3.74 per gallon.

MasterKiller
08-08-2011, 09:11 AM
Gasoline prices more than doubled, from $1.83 to $3.74 per gallon.:

•2000 - $1.51
•2001 - $1.461
•2002 - $1.358
•2003 - $1.591
•2004 - $1.88
•2005 - $2.295
•2006 - $2.589
•2007 - $2.801
•2008 - $3.27

•2011 - $3.663


So, it's gone up a whopping $0.393 under Obama.

BJJ-Blue
08-08-2011, 04:49 PM
So, it's gone up a whopping $0.393 under Obama.

So that means you still haven't shown one single leading economic indicator that's gotten better in the 2.5 years he's been President.