The Real Reason WHY Obama Is Hated So Much by The Right

[Bobcat]

Largely presidents don't do those things. Congress passes laws and control the purse. I think you are ignoring may of the causes that don't involve the president. What you really suggest when you write things like this is that government is the answer. With a better government, we'll all be saved.

well, thats true. But obama had control of both houses of congress for his first two years. He set the agenda and his party had the power to implement it.

Govt is not the answer, but under obama, congress has ignored its basic responsibilities--things like passing a budget.

 

[Boo Radley]

well, thats true. But obama had control of both houses of congress for his first two years. He set the agenda and his party had the power to implement it.

Govt is not the answer, but under obama, congress has ignored its basic responsibilities--things like passing a budget.

Only early on, and not to the point to control the economy (which no president or even congress does). And the budget only governs what we spend. We did keep some people employed, the auto industry solvent, and banks from crashing. Without that money spent, we may well be much worse now.

In any case, the deficit isn't new. Where was everyone before this? And I think there is good reason to believe the fever will die a bit after Obama leaves office, even with no real change in deficit spending.

 

[Bobcat]

Only early on, and not to the point to control the economy (which no president or even congress does). And the budget only governs what we spend. We did keep some people employed, the auto industry solvent, and banks from crashing. Without that money spent, we may well be much worse now.

In any case, the deficit isn't new. Where was everyone before this? And I think there is good reason to believe the fever will die a bit after Obama leaves office, even with no real change in deficit spending.

Obama did not save the auto industry, he saved the UAW. The auto industry would have been stronger after going through a bankruptcy and restructuring.

Yes, deficits are nothing new, but the magnitude of obama's deficits is something new--and very dangerous.

 

[Boo Radley]

Obama did not save the auto industry, he saved the UAW. The auto industry would have been stronger after going through a bankruptcy and restructuring.

Yes, deficits are nothing new, but the magnitude of obama's deficits is something new--and very dangerous.

That's your opinion (not really something that is factual). The industry by and large came to him hat in hand. They were going under.

And no, the magnitude is over stated by far too many:

And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush.

FactCheck.org : Dueling Debt Deceptions

It has risen, true enough. That is worrisome. Has been worrisome for a long time. But the fever over Obama concerning it has largely been dishonest.

 

[Bobcat]

That's your opinion (not really something that is factual). The industry by and large came to him hat in hand. They were going under.

And no, the magnitude is over stated by far too many:

And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush.

FactCheck.org : Dueling Debt Deceptions

It has risen, true enough. That is worrisome. Has been worrisome for a long time. But the fever over Obama concerning it has largely been dishonest.

LOL, the difference is that Bush did it in 8 years, obama has done it in 4.

Of course GM came running to obama begging for money. it was the only way to save some of the executives pension funds and the UAW. Obama needed the UAW's money and votes. This thing was govt corruption at its worst.

 

[Dickieboy]

That's your opinion (not really something that is factual). The industry by and large came to him hat in hand. They were going under.

Technically they came 'hat in hand' to GWB...who gave them $20b (or so)...which had he not they would have certainly filed bankruptcy prior to Obama coming to office thus negating his ability to 'save Detroit'...by funding their managed bankruptcy as Romney stated should have been done...

 

[H. Lee White]

In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush

Today is October 19 2012.
What's it look like now?

 

[Harshaw]

One of the weird things about Harshaw, and the right in general, is that they either pretend not to understand, or just CAN'T understand, that it's necessary to compare Obama's performance to that of Bush and other presidents to establish that the right wing reaction to Obama is not policy based. Thus Harshaw is HORRIFIED by the supposed tsunami of regulation that Obama has unleashed, but when it's pointed out that he has actually created less regulation than Bush did at the same point in his presidency, his only response is -- don't talk about Bush. Sorry, I know you want us to forget all about those eight years, but context matters. :shrug:

Aside from the gap in logic, that doesn't even make sense as a response to what I said:

One of the more amusing things about Adam is that he constantly blames everything on Bush, to wit, it was Bush policy which caused the economic dire straits Obama has to deal with.

But whenever Obama policy on the economy is criticized, his go-to response is that Bush did it, too. (See above.)

So, Obama does the things Bush did -- and in many cases, more intensely -- but somehow, they're not responsible for economic problems when Obama does them.

Now, it's a straight-up fallacy to say that the comparison to other presidents is warranted, because a) Obama's bad result is entirely independent of any other president, and b) just because another president did it, it doesn't mean it's a good idea. So, in neither instance is Obama absolved by said "perspective." Presidents aren't in competition with other presidents; they fail or they succeed, but they do it on their own.

But this "perspective" of which you speak strengthens what I said, which is why it doesn't make sense. You're defending Obama by saying he's doing the same things as the president you blame all of his troubles on. :lamo

And as for your hysterics about my being "horrified" (you almost never answer a point with mischaracterizing what I say), well, you have no idea what I thought about the Bush administration. I'm sure you'll full of assumptions, though.

 

[Harshaw]

Well imagine that, Harshaw issues generic right wing broadsides at the president and when challenged cannot back up a single claim. Shocked!

Except that's complete bull****. They weren't broadsides, they were specific. And I explained them perfectly well; you simply refuse to accept the explanations.

Um, you said that Obama should have changed regs to pursue more drilling to create jobs (the benefit), and then you said that there is no way to guess how many jobs might be created. So yeah, you are saying that he should take that action when -- according to you -- the benefit CANNOT be quantified.

No, there isn't any way to quantify it. But there certainly is a way to say that new oil exploration, being new economic activity, will create jobs.

But hey, Adam, you're the genius here -- quantify exactly how many jobs wouldn't have been created without the overspending. Make sure to show all of your math.

What? You can't? Hmmmmm. I'll bet that's somehow different. :roll:

Reading comprehension! The article clearly stated that Obama had created 5% fewer regulations than Bush did AT THE SAME POINT IN HIS PRESIDENCY.

Fine, mea culpa.

But regulations don't happen in a vacuum. It's all cumulative. There wasn't much need for any more.

Besides, wasn't the huge fiasco of the Bush administration de-regulation?

I understand that your constant attacks on the president lose their force when they are put in historical context, so naturally you do not want me to put them in context. Par for the course.

See my post directly above; this, too, is bull****.

Look, you should not parrot Romney because it's well established that he lies and misleads all the time. Repeating his claims will make you look stupid when the claims are fact checked.

It's funny how you left this part out:

The 14 percent number

We turned to a report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration titled, "Sales of Fossil Fuels Produced from Federal and Indian Lands, FY 2003 through FY 2011." To produce the report, EIA worked with the Interior Department’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue, which tracks royalties to the government for oil, gas and coal produced on federal lands, including oil from offshore wells.

While Romney said "this year," the most recent data available is from 2011, so that's what we'll use. In 2010, EIA data show, 726 million barrels of oil came from federal lands, including offshore wells. In 2011, it was 626. That’s a drop of 13.77 percent, which can be rounded to 14 percent.

This data, as well as a more complex measure (it involves royalties and British thermal units of energy, but we’ll spare you), would appear to render the statement accurate.

And then they go on into a context Romney wasn't discussing.

Simple math makes things true. When the government spends it is paying money for someone to do something (a job), or buying something that someone has to produce, which supports jobs. Simple math -- common sense. Even Romney accepts that that there is a direct connection between federal spending and employment.

Like I said, quantify it. Or is that something you only demand of me?

And again, I know you don't ever want to put Obama in context, but I'm not going to let you get away with that. Obviously much of our current problem is owing to the fact that Bush inherited a balanced budget and immediately proceeded to cut revenue and raise spending, which doubled the national debt and severely hamstrung the next president's ability to deal with the crisis he inherited.

Every budget every year is a choice. You can balance it or not.

Keep in mind it's YOU who paints Obama as the most helpless president in history every time you invoke Bush this way.

 

[AdamT]

Aside from the gap in logic, that doesn't even make sense as a response to what I said:



Now, it's a straight-up fallacy to say that the comparison to other presidents is warranted, because a) Obama's bad result is entirely independent of any other president, and b) just because another president did it, it doesn't mean it's a good idea. So, in neither instance is Obama absolved by said "perspective." Presidents aren't in competition with other presidents; they fail or they succeed, but they do it on their own.

That, of course, is patently false. Every president is influenced to a greater or lesser extent by the state of affairs that his predecessors left him. Never has that been more true than in Obama's in case, where he inherited a five alarm economic meltdown, a financial system on the verge of collapse, an economy hemorrhaging jobs, a housing sector dead in the water, an auto industry at death's door, and a trillion+ dollar deficit before he could spend a dime on his own priorities. It is the height of dishonesty to pretend that he started with a clean slate.

 

[Harshaw]

That, of course, is patently false. Every president is influenced to a greater or lesser extent by the state of affairs that his predecessors left him. Never has that been more true than in Obama's in case, where he inherited a five alarm economic meltdown, a financial system on the verge of collapse, an economy hemorrhaging jobs, a housing sector dead in the water, an auto industry at death's door, and a trillion+ dollar deficit before he could spend a dime on his own priorities. It is the height of dishonesty to pretend that he started with a clean slate.

What's the height of dishonesty is to claim I said he started with a "clean slate." What I said is that what he chooses to do is on HIM, and it doesn't matter what previous presidents did or didn't do the same thing.

Why can you not EVER restate what I say accurately? What school taught you that consistent, continual lying is a good form of argument?

Oh, I'm sure I know -- suddenly, i"m not being "clear" again. Right? :roll:

 

[AdamT]

What's the height of dishonesty is to claim I said he started with a "clean slate." What I said is that what he chooses to do is on HIM, and it doesn't matter what previous presidents did or didn't do the same thing.

Why can you not EVER restate what I say accurately? What school taught you that consistent, continual lying is a good form of argument?

Oh, I'm sure I know -- suddenly, i"m not being "clear" again. Right? :roll:

That is NOT what you said! :lamo

What you said, specifically, was: "Obama's bad result is entirely independent of any other president"

And as I said, that is complete and utter bull****. His result is entirely dependent on the problems he was facing. If he had been handed a balanced budget and he ballooned it into a trillion dollar deficit I would be the first to call him an incompetent, reckless fool. But he wasn't. He was handed a trillion+ dollar deficit with no realistic way to reduce it any time soon.

 

[Bobcat]

What's the height of dishonesty is to claim I said he started with a "clean slate." What I said is that what he chooses to do is on HIM, and it doesn't matter what previous presidents did or didn't do the same thing.

Why can you not EVER restate what I say accurately? What school taught you that consistent, continual lying is a good form of argument?

Oh, I'm sure I know -- suddenly, i"m not being "clear" again. Right? :roll:

Harsh, you are wasting your time and effort with Adam. He is an obamabot through and through. He will support obama if obama declares war on the USA. The truth about obama cannot penetrate his head and if it ever did it would be killed by the defective liberal gene.

Obama is his religion, he believes everything that his messiah says. To debate him using truth and facts is like pissing into the wind on the top of Mt Everest. All you get back is frozen piss.

 

[AdamT]

Harsh, you are wasting your time and effort with Adam. He is an obamabot through and through. He will support obama if obama declares war on the USA. The truth about obama cannot penetrate his head and if it ever did it would be killed by the defective liberal gene.

Obama is his religion, he believes everything that his messiah says. To debate him using truth and facts is like pissing into the wind on the top of Mt Everest. All you get back is frozen piss.

Wow, I would get suspended if I said **** like that. :roll:

 

[Bobcat]

Wow, I would get suspended if I said **** like that. :roll:

stating the truth does not get one suspended. The pissing analogy is not a personal attack. I actually think you are an intelligent guy, just very confused and misguided.

 

[rocket88]

I've never hated anybody I never met. Wait...Does Chris Mathews and Rachel Maddow count?

Have you met them?

 

[AdamT]

stating the truth does not get one suspended. The pissing analogy is not a personal attack. I actually think you are an intelligent guy, just very confused and misguided.

Stating the truth can absolutely get you suspended. :lamo

But that's not what you did.

 

[Bobcat]

Stating the truth can absolutely get you suspended. :lamo

But that's not what you did.

so you are not an obamabot? really? can you cite some of your posts that prove that?

 

[AdamT]

so you are not an obamabot? really? can you cite some of your posts that prove that?

Obamabot is a pejorative term. Folks have been warned about using it in the past. Just sayin'.

 

[CedarBear]

Obamabot is a pejorative term. Folks have been warned about using it in the past. Just sayin'.

There are plenty of others where that came from.

Care to list them for us?

 

[Fisher]

Even if Obama started off in a hole as big as Texas, still doesn't tell me what he plans to do in the next 4 years. His silence on the subject other than "keep doing what we are doing" leads me to distrust him. In 2 debates, the only specific platform plank he put out there was more teachers in science and math. Will that take his whole second term? Is that all he plans on doing in the next 4 years?

 

[Bobcat]

Obamabot is a pejorative term. Folks have been warned about using it in the past. Just sayin'.

Oh, I jus feel turible bout dat adam, how bout I be callin you an obama suppota? how bou dat? dat be ok?

by da wey, what do dat peeeejative be meanin? :lamo

 

[Boo Radley]

Today is October 19 2012.
What's it look like now?

Missing the point?

 

[Harshaw]

That is NOT what you said! :lamo

What you said, specifically, was: "Obama's bad result is entirely independent of any other president"

Sweet Jeebus.

Yes, following my posts about the policies he pursued.

This puerile, casual lying about what I say is, as I said, pathological with you. Of course, it's not just with me; it's with everyone.

He was handed a trillion+ dollar deficit with no realistic way to reduce it any time soon.

THIS is what's bull****.

The deficit he "inherited" included TARP, which was supposed to be a one-off.

Then, the deficit he ran the next year included his "stimulus," which was also supposed to be a one-off.

Neither was supposed to be included in the baseline for spending. The very next year should have been $800BN lighter in spending, but of course it wasn't. Neither was the year after that, and the year after that.

All spending, every year is a choice made THAT year.

 

[head of joaquin]

Do a search for Obama hate sites. Then do a searcvh for romney hate sites. You are right there is a distinctive hate for Obama.

There is one thing I have to note. The people who seem to hate Obama are the most downright ignorant nasty self rightious people you would ever want to meet. They are just mean and bitter. You would think that obama came to each one of them and personally placed a pile of crap in their hands. There has been a lot of low brow, tasteless, racist, nasty jokes going around about him. It is not everyone, but there is a very loud minority of people who make it their life's work to hate on Obama. He touched a collective nerve of hate and bigotry I think america forgot existed. We wouild like to think that the Jersey shore and desperate housewives are all the dumbass drama queens in the world, but the radical right is downright miserable.

I just hope the election ends and they can all crawl back under the rock they came from. It is really distasteful and it is stinking up the country.

It's the tea party types: subliterate, insecure, fearful and xenophobic. Conservatism has devolved into an ideology of fear and hate. It's become totally incoherent and morally bankrupt.