Obama for 2012

~♥Little Miss - posted on 06/08/2012

******Locking thread, very old please feel free to start another*****

~DM Mod Little Miss~

America3437 - posted on 06/08/2012

Well I damn sure wouldn't vote for Romney. Obama is my choice because I see no other.

Jessica - posted on 06/08/2012

I will not vote for Obama...didn't the first time.

Christine - posted on 01/31/2011

Kati Color, nice list Kati, there actually is much more like you said of course, but one very important one is what he has done for women alone. The very first bill he passed was to allow women the right to sue for back pay if they were found making less than male counterparts with the same amount of experience, qualifications etc. I have a feeling this was a promise he made to Hillary in return for support in the election against McCain. He also nominated and succedded in appionting a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is extremely important for women and women's rights. The rights we have and know could very well be turned around by the right wing in a heartbeat. That seems to be on their agenda.

Erin - posted on 01/27/2011

@Sherri
I agree it's a no win thread, but I have to say one thing I am anti-obama and his policies. BUT I am happy he has taken a stick and beat the hornets nest with it. We as American's have become to apathetic to what is going on in our own country.
Would you have seen people just a few years ago doing research on our budget, social services, political figures, our economic situation, healthcare ect..?
I am happy he woke all of us up, not just conservatives, but everyone. Citizens should be involved in their government, since it directly effects their lives.

Erin - posted on 01/27/2011

I did not vote for him the 1st time, nor will I vote for him again.
That and why would Glenn Back run for office? He has more freedom to promote his message now than he would from that position. That's almost like when Stephen Colbert wanted to run for office, we don't need television personalities in office, we need real people who understand American's and their wants and needs to prosper.

Pamela - posted on 01/27/2011

How is he "just a puppet, but a dangerous one"?

Cyndel - posted on 01/27/2011

Didn't vote for him the first time. And definately won't the second time either. He's just a puppet, but a dangerous one.

Pamela - posted on 01/27/2011

If Obama runs for office in 2012, HELL YES I'll vote for him. The man has the most fierce ideological opposition I'be seen in years and has done a decent job in spite of it.

Kimberly - posted on 01/25/2011

Armageddon isa comin'! and the Hitleresque ANTICHRIST demon that you so fear will indeed pull off his mask -just like on a Scooby Doo episode- and maniacal laughter will ensue!! MUUUAAAHAAAAAA



He's just a man. A man with a crap job. I'm embarrassed that our country disrespects our president so much. What message does this send to terrorists? To your own kids? "United" my ass.

Sherri - posted on 01/25/2011

Have fun with this one. This is a no win thread. You are going to have the ones that hate him and the ones that love him. Each side is strong in their beliefs and no one persons beliefs are right or wrong. So have fun, but I am out.

Stifler's - posted on 01/25/2011

If I was you guys I'd be rioting for universal health.

Tiffany - posted on 01/25/2011

I proudly voted for him the first time. I'm not 100% happy with what he has done, I think he could improve in a lot of areas. I would like to see him get re-elected though I don't think it will happen. I can't say I will vote for him again until I know who is running against him. I am a democrat, but not afraid to vote for a republican. (Voted for Scott Brown) On a scale 1 to 10, I guess I would give him a 7.

Sara - posted on 01/25/2011

Yes, but there are supplemental budgets for war, supplementals that provides money that comes on top of funds from annual budgets, that Bush used, and that was not figured into his original Budget requests. The problem isn't actually supplements themselves (there will always be unforeseen costs), but supplemental funding becomes a problem when you use it to fund initiatives that you can anticipate far in advance, which is my understanding of what the Bush Administration did to make it appear as if they were not amassing so much debt. It was an accounting trick.

LaCi - posted on 01/25/2011

Math lesson 1:



population of america: 307,006,550

multiplied by: 1,000,000=

307,006,550,000,000= over 307 trillion....





Math lesson 2:

2,000,000,000,000

divided by: 307,006,550

We can make that simpler by knocking off the last 6 digits.

2,000,000/307= about 6500/person.



Though I encourage you to check my math, I could have lost a zero in the widget or something.

That's what 2 trillion is.

Sara - posted on 01/25/2011

And Obama has had 2 wars to account for, as well as TARP (which was passed under Bush) and the economic stimulus, which every Economist that I have ever read has stated had to be done unless we wanted another Great Depression. Bush's budget didn't even include the costs of the Wars, so he actually added a lot more than people talk about.



You talk about it like Obama is running through a field of daisies throwing money into the wind. You can go online and see every, single cent accounted for. Here you go:



http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.as...



http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=vie...



http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/...



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/spe...

Kelly - posted on 01/25/2011

I found an article yesterday that compared how much Bush added to the deficit including the wars, and how much Obama added....I bet I can't find it again :P Anyway, it was really close and if I remember, Obama actually added more despite what Bush spent on military. Though I could be wrong, I skipped over it yesterday b/c it was not what I was looking for.

LaCi - posted on 01/25/2011

And actually, you need to check your math.

LaCi - posted on 01/25/2011

9/11 wasn't the expensive part. An unnecessary war based on unfounded ideas was. However, this is about Obama, not about all the things *bush had to fix* using fix very loosely.

Heather - posted on 01/25/2011

People also seem to forget that Bush had 9/11 and Katrina, 2 VERY expensive catasrophies to deal with. And he still did NOT spend like Obama has in just 2 years!!!! Does anyone understand HOW MUCH 2 TRILLION is??? I mean Obama could have given EVERY legal citizen in the USA a million dollars, and still would not have spent close to 2 Trillion, and actually I believe he's spent more than that. That would have def. boosted the economy. Many people would had started bus. created inventions, etc. Now I'm not saying he should have given that kind of money out,

Sara - posted on 01/25/2011

And in five years in the Bush Administration over 5 Trillion was added to the debt...so....

Heather - posted on 01/25/2011

Kept us from "Real Financial Failure!" He has added more than 2 TRILLION in debt in 2YEARS!!! The few jobs that he possibly created, mostly government jobs, cost a min of $180,000 per job.

Desiree - posted on 01/25/2011

I don't envy any American's at the moment. I wish you guys luck.

Krista - posted on 01/25/2011

I agree with Sara -- if the bill is bad, then fix it. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and go back to where you were, because I can almost guarantee you that the next 4 or 5 administrations won't touch healthcare with a 20-foot pole.

Sara - posted on 01/25/2011

Good point, Kelly. And that's why there's a lot of room for improvement with this bill. I don't think it needs to be repealed, I think it needs to be improved!

Bonnie - posted on 01/25/2011

Yes, I will vote for Obama again. Has he accomplished all he set out to do? No, but he has kept us from total financial failure and has really managed to goad congress to pass madly needed social legislation.

Kelly - posted on 01/25/2011

Thank you Sara, I knew about the "pools" but from what I understood, individuals with pre-existing conditions working for small businesses who are exempt from providing group insurance would still be excluded from the small business pools and will be limited to "high-risk individual pool" which is a separate pool from the overall "individual pool" and the premiums will be much higher. Are they actually to be included in the regular "individual pools" at the same cost as people without health risks? If so, that is great and I was simply misinformed in that area.

Also, while there are restrictions on how much income from premiums must be spent on healthcare, and this is a good policy in theory, it fails to address the issue that many board members with holdings in several of the major insurance companies also have holdings, and thus profit, from several of the major and smaller medical care facilities. While there is noting at all malicious or illegal about this, the same people can still raise profits by simply charging their own insurance companies more for services rendered by their own medical care facilities. Does that make sense? Instead of receiving the profit through the insurance company they will cut their profits there, but make up for it by over charging for medical expenses--it's like a legal conflict of interest.

Sara - posted on 01/25/2011

And actually, it does matter. It should matter to every single citizen that there are people going around and spitting out hateful rhertoric and attempting to limit people's free speech (the whole shut up the athiests comment kind of did it for me). .I don't want to live, nor should I have to live, in a theocracy and it offends me that you suggested it. So yeah, it matters to me, as well it should.

Sara - posted on 01/25/2011

Oh, you edited. So I'm not responsible for the corruption of school systems in America now. Whew.

Sara - posted on 01/25/2011

Okaaaay... thanks! I had no idea.

Jessica - posted on 01/25/2011

Sara B.

Really?



Jessica, people like you are why I'm concerned for America. Truthfully.







really? Mind over matter hun..i dont mind and it doesnt matter

Amanda - posted on 01/25/2011

Wait, Sara.... so what you are saying is there is such a thing as checks and balances????? you mean to tell us that the president is not all powerful? ipso facto, the president cannot single handedly destroy America......... and that past presidents' decisions can affect issues we face today? so it's not all the fault of the current president?
Whoa! my mind is blown (j/k)

Jessica - posted on 01/25/2011

I may not agree with him or like him as a president but I sure wouldn't wish him or any other person DEAD! No, I didn't vote for him the first time and wouldn't again, but everyone is correct in saying that whoever's in office will always have a lot of people that don't like him/her! I would never want to be a politician or president...you could never do right by everyone!

Sara - posted on 01/25/2011

You know what mistifies me? If I'm not mistaken, Congress has to approve the President's proposed budget...but even if President's were "personally responsible" for adding to the deficit, here you go:



Obama's last budget was 3.6 trillion - Bush's 2008 budget of 3.0 trillion and 2007 budget of 2.5 trillion equal 5.5 trillion. And Bush's budgets did not take into account all the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So...

Amanda - posted on 01/25/2011

Seriously people snopes.com! You cannot base your debate on rediculous chain emails about the president's birth certificate and bees and rats. Check your facts then formulate your thoughts. Its one thing to feel he's performed poorly but at least back it up with propper facts!

Rosie - posted on 01/25/2011

i want to see EVERY OTHER presidents birth certificate!!!!!! why havn't i???? *eyeroll*
and i like how being polite to other countries leaders is considered a bad thing. WTF?? do you salute when the national anthem is played? i've never heard of that? i'm also sure that this is part of the propoganda going on about hte president, a picture of him not saluting when everybody else is. so then a bunch of lies are made up about when and how the picture is taken. instead you might want to do some of your own research, and not listen to all those wonderful talking heads on fox news. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/pho...

Isobel - posted on 01/25/2011

Disgusting diplomacy...he really should have landed in those countries and flipped those kings the bird...that would've been FAR more respectful to America and it's traditions.



Health Care reform...that bastard!



Amnesty? I assume you are talking about the dream act? cause children who broke no laws should not be deported to a place they don't remember ever being? OK



I'm pretty sure he puts his hand on his heart for the anthem...cause he never had Military service...I'm pretty sure it's the military men that salute...civilians put their hand on their heart.



The oil spill? yeah, he could have worked harder and seen the disaster for what it was instead of taking BP's word for it...but he basically did what he was supposed to do after that.



those are all petty crimes for the WORST EVER award...I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that.

Isobel - posted on 01/25/2011

which is scary

Sara - posted on 01/25/2011

Well, perception is reality, I guess.

Sherri - posted on 01/25/2011

His disregard to our flag, Barack Obama’s deep bow to the emperor of Japan and earlier bow to the Saudi Arabian king is so deeply offensive to America’s history and traditions, his push for amnesty for 14 million illegal aliens, health care reform, increasing the national debt more than all other presidents combined within months of taking office, will not even salute when our National Anthem is played, When the oil spilled happened which was known as the largest spill in world history, he had other things to do. He basically could have given a damn and decided to go on vacation.

LaCi - posted on 01/25/2011

Actually the new bill provides tax credits to small business in hopes of helping them to provide insurance to all their employees, as well as encourages states to offer specific programs for the uninsured with preexisting conditions "States have the option of running this new program in their state. If a state chooses not to do so, a plan will be established by the Department of Health and Human Services in that state. " which SOUNDS like a specific form of medicaid.

then in 2014, "The law implements strong reforms that prohibit insurance companies from refusing to sell coverage or renew policies because of an individual’s pre-existing conditions. Also, in the individual and small group market, it eliminates the ability of insurance companies to charge higher rates due to gender or health status."

Coupled with the laws impact of insurance companies spending, which requires that 85% of premium cost be spent on healthcare, and offers small businesses tax credits to help employees get their coverage (starting this year, and increasing in 2014) it's all in hopes of forcing eligibility and preventing all prices from skyrocketing. That's what I see, ideally. Of course, there are always loopholes.

But I'm in agreement with laura, public option.

Or we could just get with the times and go back to HR 676

Sara - posted on 01/25/2011

I was speaking in general about the debate about the bill, Kelly, not in response to anything you had posted specifically. But I will answer your second paragraph.

The main reason health insurance is so expensive for small business is that there is a narrow pool of people being insured. Bigger companies with more employees are better able to spread the risk, so premiums are lower, and they also have more buying power due to their size.

To counter this, starting in 2014, small businesses and the self-employed will be able to shop for plans offered through new state-based purchasing pools called exchanges. By pooling small businesses together, these purchasing cooperatives are expected to offer rates that should be lower because of 1) increased group purchasing power, and 2) bigger pools of insured customers.

And the mandates to buy insurance? For the most part these will have little effect on small business. Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will be exempt from the mandate, though it is expected that many companies will try to offer it for two reasons:

* The exchanges should create a more affordable option than is available now.

* The plethora of new tax breaks and credits written into the law as incentives.

Another expected benefit of the bill for business is that employees will likely be more willing to change jobs and join smaller firms because either there will be coverage at the new firm via the exchanges, or employees will be able to get affordable coverage themselves through the exchanges. The so-called "job lock" — where employees fear leaving a job because they don't want to lose their health insurance — should be a thing of the past.

Also starting in 2014, insurers will not be able to charge small business owners higher rates to cover employees with pre-existing conditions or for their female workers. The bill also prohibits lifetime benefit caps and recissions, as well as annual limits on medical costs. Despite expanding benefits, costs will be kept down because insurers will be limited on how much they can raise premiums and how much of the total premiums collected they must spent on medical care.

That is all in the bill.

Isobel - posted on 01/25/2011

How bout what it would have done...the original plan was to have a public option to stabilize the market.

Kelly - posted on 01/25/2011

Sara, everything I have said about this bill is true--it is documented in articles and in the bill itself. If I have said anything at all untrue about the actual bill, please point it out specifically. Yes, people have skewed certain parts of it and blown them out of proportion or played them way down, but *most* people can see through that to the core of the bill itself.

I have not read one thing from any supporter of this bill about what this bill will do to help the uninsured middle class who work for small businesses and have pre-existing conditions. They make up the bulk of the uninsured, and this bill was meant to "extend affordable coverage" to them, yet I see nothing in the bill that aims to do that except that it forces them to buy policies that they will not be able to afford. Tell me specifically what was in the bill to help them.

Isobel - posted on 01/25/2011

I'm shocked.

Sara - posted on 01/25/2011

Ok, I HAVE to have examples of what makes him one of the worst presidents in history...come on Sherri...let's see 'em!

Sherri - posted on 01/25/2011

Hell NO!! I didn't vote for him the first time either. I think he has done a 1 and may be one of the worst if not the worst president in history.

Isobel - posted on 01/25/2011

I disagree...that bill started out really strong. I watched coverage every day..and it just kept getting weaker and weaker and weaker.

Sara - posted on 01/25/2011

I think the latter, Laura! :)

Isobel - posted on 01/25/2011

that health care is a right? or that Obama's not an American and he's intentionally trying to destroy America?

;P