• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bush now more popular than Obama

No damaging mandates? Right! My health insurance went from $250.00 a month for a $1200.00 deductible, to $678.00 a month with a $6000.00 deductible. That is what the first obamacare mandate did to me. You may not think of that as damaging. I do. Why have health insurance if you cannot afford to use it? I dropped out of the private health insurance market.
I am confident that if we compared those two policies side by side, you didn't have the great insurance policy you think you had.

Under Obamacare, there are indeed winners and losers. The winners are the poor, old and sick while the losers, the young, healthy and rich pay a bit more. Overall, healthcare costs are under control and everything the right predicted did not happen.
 
Is this a joke? The entire Republican platform is "not Obama." Holy ****ing projection.

That's a claim made every election cycle.
 
Let's come back and talk about this in 30 years after everything has a chance to settle down.
 
President Bush is more popular than President Obama.

And President Carter is more popular than President Bush.

So what are you trying to say here?

These days Carter is a mere afterthought. Probably half on this talkboard were of an adult age when Carter was president.
 
I am confident that if we compared those two policies side by side, you didn't have the great insurance policy you think you had.

Under Obamacare, there are indeed winners and losers. The winners are the poor, old and sick while the losers, the young, healthy and rich pay a bit more. Overall, healthcare costs are under control and everything the right predicted did not happen.

Sorry....but that is a a line of bull. There are some winners with regard to Obamacare, however they are the relatively few who qualify for the subsidies. And even many of them are suffering sticker shock when tax time comes around. The biggest losers are the middle class. Many are now paying health insurance premiums that surpass their mortgage payments. And I don't care how poor or wealthy a person is. Health insurance should not be more costly then buying a damn house to live in. As for comparing my policy side by side, that was easy......I read contracts before I sign them. I knew exactly what was in it. I shopped when I bought the policy. And I had my policy in front of me when I read the cancellation letter and the parameters of the obamacare approved policy I was expected shift over to. About the best I could say for the obamacare approved policy was that with a nearly $700.00 premium and a $6000.00 deductible, it would have been an enormously expensive catastrophic policy. And your suggestion that healthcare costs under control is intellectually dishonest. Healthcare spending has decreased, however that is only because at least a third of Americans simply cannot afford to use their health insurance. Healthcare costs and health insurance costs are still going up. Or did you not notice the news over the last couple of weeks about the insurers requesting approval for higher rates, which depending on your policy could range anywhere from 20 to 70%. And why should the young and healthy chip in more for the old and obese with bad health habits such as smoking and heavy drinking? And pretty much everything the right predicted would is happening. Read the following: $474M for 4 failed Obamacare exchanges - Jennifer Haberkorn and Kyle Cheney - POLITICO.com
 
Making the right decisions with the information available at the time is how a president should be judged.

Unfortunately it comes down to party or a popularity contest for too many Americans.

Getting us involved in WW2 was extremely unpopular with the American people. It literally took the Japanese dropping bombs on this country for the American people to wake up and pull their head out of their a$$e$. American companies had to be ordered by congress to stop selling materials to Germany and Japan that were being used to kill our allies and eventually Americans.

Then you have a president who was so focused on Vietnam that it allowed Russia to plant Nuclear weapons right under our nose. He should be judged on his epic failure at the bay of pigs and how he pushed Cuba into relations with our enemy endangering the American people and bringing us to the brink of ww3. Any president today screwing up this bad would have an approval rating of 0 if he was not thrown out of office. In the end he reaped what he sowed.
 
When Obama was elected, I suspected he wouldn't do a very good job based on his beliefs and political philosophies, but with the media carrying water for him like they have and continue to do, I never suspected he would actually be less popular that George W. Bush. To me, that speaks volumes about how poor a president he really has been.





Bush now more popular than Obama - CNNPolitics.com

I don't believe this is n opinion about Bush as much as it is a statement about Obama.
 
I don't believe this is n opinion about Bush as much as it is a statement about Obama.

I'd have to agreed. Seems that Obama's legacy is to be the one president worse than Carter.
 
Perhaps...but there's no way to project how a current President's legacy will be judged by history.
 
The news on Bush isn't likely to get much worse for the middle class.

Obama's legacy is only likely to continue to get worse, especially to those in the middle class, who are paying for all his social program expansion, and still don't have robust job growth, demand growth, and wage growth.

Don't put any money on it. ;)
 
Don't put any money on it. ;)
Always with the rose colored glasses Pete. Nut that's OK. I've become used to it.
Bush II was worse than Carter.

So we've had a a really bad Republican prez, followed by a really bad Democrat prez.

Need a prez that's gonna be a good one, a leader, one that won't divide the electorate with class warfare or divisive politics, but more unites the country and the electorate.
It ain't gonna be Hillary. She's not capable of this.
 
I think it's too early to make decisions about popularity of one or another POTUS while one of the compared is still the President and the other is retired.
 
Im surprised anyone approves of Obama at this point.
 
Back
Top Bottom