28
   

Why are the American People punishing Obama?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 04:14 pm
@parados,
An excellent point; health care have made many families go bankrupt before ACA, because a member of their family had very high medical care costs. That's no longer the case, and everyone can get health insurance at affordable prices with no restrictions on preconditions and lifetime limits.

hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 04:25 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
everyone can get health insurance at affordable prices


Your funnybone is working well today I see. Are you going to do stand-up at the improv tonight?
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 04:30 pm
@parados,
Quote:
The average earnings per hours have gone up.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Going to do a set with CI tonight I take it....................

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-YE929_WAGES_E_20130716094848.jpg

Or are you rather another bold faced liar like Firefly? I sometimes strongly suspect that you are.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 04:57 pm
@hawkeye10,
Look in the mirror sometimes hawk; you're one of them.

As for 'real wages,' it's true that most have lost 5% buying power since 2009. No quibble there.

How you arrived at,
Quote:
Going to do a set with CI tonight I take it....................
is all part and parcel of your ignorance on most subjects.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 04:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
No hawk, premiums are based on income, and many can get subsidies. Nothing funny about it - except in your ignorance.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 05:07 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

No hawk, premiums are based on income, and many can get subsidies. Nothing funny about it - except in your ignorance.

What you need to be showing me, economic Einstein wantabe, is data from a reputable source showing that percent of income spent on healthcare is going down under obamacare, or at least it is up less than it has been last couple of decades.

Have you got any of that?

ANSWER: Course not, CI was talking out of his ass as normal.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 05:11 pm
@hawkeye10,
It's not about percent of income spent on healthcare; it's about premium increases have slowed from double-digit increases to what they are today.

When people didn't have healthcare, their premium for insurance was zero.

Now that they have health insurance, it increased from zero to whatever ACA program the consumer buys.

The issue is that insurance premium increases are dropping under ACA.

capish?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 06:25 pm
@cicerone imposter,
As I wrote, they think he's doing a lousy job. 65% of those polled think the country is on the wrong track.

I don't know where you're getting your approval/disapproval figures from but they are likely to be the very best for Obama out there. Gallup as of the week of 10/6/14 has 41% Approve; 55% Disapprove

Even using Gallup's results some of the folks who think the country is on the wrong track must believe it's not Obama's fault and that he's doing the best he can, but regardless, a 65% wrong track number is very high.

Over the last several months there has been one screw-up after another and one crisis after another. As respects the latter, some of this is simply the way the world turns. Obama didn't create ISIS, he didn't make Putin invade Crimea he didn't personally contaminate the bush meat that probably started the Ebola epidemic in West Africa, but in each case, as with virtually every other significant matter the American people are being confronted with, either the president or members of his Administration have done something or have failed to do something that has led to the crisis or made it worse.

His personal demeanor isn't helping him either. Whether it's because he is a deliberate deep thinker whose heart beats more slowly than the rest of ours or because he's over his head or even bored, he appears detached and unconcerned by the things that do concern the average American. In times of trouble, most people want their leaders to appear confident and under control, but clearly Obama, in terms of his appearance, has crossed that line into looking unfocused and not in charge.

Playing golf after the first ISIS beheading was a huge blunder, and you can't feel sorry for the guy that a photographer caught him yukking it up with Alfonso Mourning as the parents of the murdered American were giving a press conference. Obviously presidents need some down-time, but they don't need to be clueless as to when and when not to take it.

It's election season and during these periods all presidents are going to be raising money for their party, but whether it only appears to be the case or it is true, Obama seems to be doing very little as president other than attending fund-raisers, and they always seem to be scheduled for the day after a crisis breaks in the news. This is either bad timing or a function of just how often he attends these things.

It appears that, finally, one of his political advisers has told him or convinced him he should take a pass while the news is filled with reports of new Ebola cases, but everything can't be blamed on his staff. He has a brain of his own and he should be able to use it to tell him what looks bad. Just another way that people can develop the impression that he is out of touch and disengaged.

Plus after six years, a lot of people who used to like him are now sick of his mug and his voice. His responses to questions are so patterned it's easy for his critics to create video clip montages that make him look foolish. This happens to one degree or another with all presidents, but his problems extend beyond simple Obama fatigue.

I don't see things getting any better for him either.

Unless he gets a miraculous break on the global front I really can't imagine him turning this trend around. The problem for him (and us) is that if it is true that he is seen by the rest of the world as weak and indecisive (and I think it is), it will only lead to more foreign policy crises not less. If the Republicans takes the Senate, as it appears they will , his only chances of getting anything done on the domestic front will require an entirely new, for him, approach to dealing with the opposition or even more ballsy executive actions. I'm betting he goes with the latter rather than the former and while his core base and single interest groups may love such action, I don't think it plays well with moderates and independents.

By the time his second term is over, his approval rating is going to be even lower and there will be a lot of pundits pondering the question of how and why he squandered the huge opportunity he was given.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2014 06:32 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Gallup Poll; the last one I saw just a few days ago.

I think many have seen his demeanor change, and not for the better. I've already shared my disgust with Obama when I wrote him about lifting the embargo against Cuba. He just doesn't give a f...k how we think by answering with such ignorance to a citizen of this country.

He has no political skills, and limits his consult with a small group of people who really don't know what the f...k they're doing. If they did, Obama's rating would be much higher. They don't know how to communicate.

The rating I saw had him even with GW Bush. That tells the whole story for me.
Woman4Christ
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 09:44 am
@cicerone imposter,
Maybe because he is a murderer just like the rest.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 09:51 am
@Woman4Christ,
Don't let the thumb's down discourage you! Obama authorized the use of drones that kills innocent people; he doesn't care. No conscience. He is a murderer.

He expanded the war in Afghanistan by 50,000 of our soldiers - many getting killed and or permanently disabled for life. People as well as Obama do not care; they play politics as usual without having to pay for their crimes against humanity.

It's a lost cause. I will never again vote in national elections.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 09:52 am
@cicerone imposter,
I checked Gallup yesterday and the most recent poll was the 41/55.

That two people (you and I) with, essentially, opposite political views have no use for him speaks to the extent of his failure.

Actually, Bush's current approval rating is well above Obama's: 53/44, and his is on an upwards trajectory while Obama's is going down.

http://twitchy.com/2014/06/20/presidents-approval-rating-hits-9-year-high-pres-bush-that-is/

All president's get a bump up after they leave office, and unless Obama is responsible for a true catastrophe before he leaves, he will too.

Bush was president during two very long wars, with one being surrounded by controversy and in the end becoming very unpopular. I'm not trying to make excuses for his high disapproval rating in his second term because Iraq was all his so he deserved whatever fallout there might have been. However, this one war was the single major driver of his unpopularity, while with Obama it is a myriad of things. His disapproval rating is probably being driven by a seemingly endless list of failures that keeps growing.

You're right about his lack of political skills which is pretty amazing (his deficit, not you're being right). I'm trying to think of a president within the last 75 years or so who had a similar disability in this regard and I can't come up with one. Often political acumen is the one virtue of failed presidents. Say what you will about an obstructionist GOP, a skilled politician could have gotten more accomplished with them. The Republicans under Newt Gingrich were hardly push-overs and Clinton managed to work with them, and to the point where he is now getting credit for legislature to which he simply acquiesced.

I disagree to some extent with your comments about his close advisers. I agree that they are clueless when it comes to policy decisions, but I'm not sure how much they ever think of policy and its consequences. As I've written before, for this White House it's all politics; all the time, but it's really all Obama's image; all the time. I think at some point after the second term when insiders start telling tales more freely we are going to find that the obsessive focus on making Obama look not only good but perfect originates with the mysterious Valerie Jarrett.

It's pretty amazing that six years into this presidency we know very little about her and her influence on Obama. By this time in the Bush presidency there were scores of articles written about Karl Rove; with very few being flattering. Because so little has been written about her we are left to speculate as to why this is so. It could easily be that she is a great source for the reporters like Bob Woodward who might be inclined to focus on her but don't want to cut off the flow of inside information, and/or she could be so ruthless and vindictive a figure that everyone in the White House is afraid to talk about her. I haven't read Leon Panetta’s book but I figure that if it contained any bombshells about Jarrett, I would have read or heard about them. However he's not the type of person, nor is he in a position, to fear her wrath. So either she's not the highly influential person I think she is, or she does all of her work in one on one sessions with Obama.

In any case, communication has not been this president's problem. When he wants to, he can communicate very well, and the people around him can only do so much with the stories they have to tell. Susan Rice is a very intelligent woman and speaks exceedingly well. If you listen to her you will find she falls back on "uhhs" and long pauses very rarely (far less often than her boss who is a pretty lousy speaker when he doesn't have a script.) However, when an excellent speaker is speaking lies (Benghazi) or stupidity (Bergdahl) all the eloquence in the world doesn't help.

There's been some talk about a shake-up in the Administration after the elections, but I doubt that's going to happen or that it will result in a major change if it does. With Panetta and Gates writing tell-alls while the president is in office, I don't suspect he wants any more "independent thinkers" with whom there is any question of loyalty. If anything, I would expect any changes to result in an even more insular White House.

I never allow myself to wish away any of my life, no matter what the current circumstances, but I am looking forward to the day Obama leaves office. That's only two years away. I'm also looking forward to an unbiased and penetrating account of his presidency, but that's probably at least a decade or more away.

0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 09:58 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
It's a lost cause. I will never again vote in national elections.


Then you lose all right to complain about anything an administration does.
Sturgis
 
  3  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 10:04 am
@cicerone imposter,
I rate him as mediocre.
Not the worst by any means; however, he has not been anywhere near what he was expected to be, or what he promoted himself as being in his first run (and to some degree, though less so, in his second run).

As to the economy, the job increases sure sound good; but, there are factors. Many folks stopped looking, stopped trying and so eventually fell off the listing of unemployeds. Add to that that many of the jobs which opened up and jobs which were created have been at lower wages than prior. Many have been at minimum wage or barely above it. These factors combined help explain why the people are not that confident in either the economy or the President.

Regarding the stock market, that is by and large something invested in by the wealthier folks, so they are just getting richer by the day, while Joe Schmo is remaining treading mud down at the bottom of the pond.

Obama placed the first nail in the economy back at his start when he froze social security increases 2 years running. While he did that, costs went up- including insurance rates for both prescription coverage and health. He never really did address that.

So my rating on the President is mediocre and my reaction towards him is that of disappointment. He had a chance to make a real change, yet he decided to toss the promise aside and not give it another thought.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 11:57 am
@Sturgis,
Good observation. Why is it that Obama-lovers hate to hear criticisms about him? I don't understand that! We're supposed to be a democracy where we are afforded the freedom of speech. Yet, many liberals wish to silence us.

Can't they handle the truth? Your rating of Obama is much better than mine. I believe Obama is a big failure based on his playing politics rather than improving the lives of the majority, including the many innocent people he got killed, injured, and poorer, and I don't mean only Americans.

0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 12:00 pm
@Sturgis,
Sturgis wrote: "Obama...froze social security increases 2 years running."
Really?
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 03:45 pm
@realjohnboy,
He has obviously mistaken the president for congress. They are the ones who based increases in soc. sec. on cola.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 03:51 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Since I'm not the one screwing up this country with voting no-goods into congress, it's no longer my 'responsibility.' The majority of Americans seems to prefer the GOP over democrats. It looks like the GOP may take over the Senate in November. They'll have the majority in both houses of congress.

It'll be fun to watch the further destruction of this country - the will of the majority who votes.

I have more respect for the people of Hong Kong who go out to demonstrate for democracy at the risk of getting injured or killed.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 06:18 pm
@realjohnboy,
That is technicality (as opposed to a mistake). There was a COLA adjustment this last year to SS bennies but the previous two years there was a freeze for 2 years in COLA adjustment on SS.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 08:00 pm
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:

That is technicality (as opposed to a mistake). There was a COLA adjustment this last year to SS bennies but the previous two years there was a freeze for 2 years in COLA adjustment on SS.


If memory serves...the reason for the freeze had to do with the fact that the COLA adjustment is tied to the consumer price index.

Apparently it actually went down one year...but there was not a downward adjustment.

So it appeared to be reasonable and fair to withhold an adjustment when the cpx went up...and the powers that be took advantage and withheld the increase.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/29/2021 at 03:13:52