101 reasons – Why President Obama is a failure

Comments

406 responses to “101 reasons – Why President Obama is a failure”

1. Katya

   What about Obama selling out to China? This is clear. We get Chinese goods dumped on the US market and Obama ignores his human rights promises.

   Further, the Chinese place an order for US jets. Like that wealth is going to be spread around. It is more of a token special interest ploy. Bread and circus, while Rome burns.

   Reply
   1. Carmelita Ortiz

      Our country is in deep debt and yet the president stil go overboard
      with vacations. Why spend the gov’t money when we are already drowning in our debt ?Is this a benefit for him and his family ?
      Should the gov’t pay for his leisure ? Why not spend his own money
      for family vacations? The country is in bankcruptcy. All past first
      ladies had only 2 or 3 assistants at the white house and Michelle
      Obama has 22 assistants. How is this being tolerated ?

      Reply
      1. Adam

         I sense this President is over his head in problems that he was not prepare for. It’s time that politicians be chosen for there capacity to run the USA.

         Unfortunately when you leave every aspect of life to democracy it will leads to finding candidates on the basis of there ability to win election(s)at any cost.

         Election is the prise not the leading the country.

         Instead of competent leaders we have candidates that are nothing but professional political animals (mostly lawyers). It’s not who can lead but who can win. Generally we associate a leader as a winer but in politics its far from being necessarily the case. Lying is an attribute in politics. I think any person with a minimum sense of observation knows that, so why should we be surprise if we get a different result from what was promised?

         Obama fail on is promises because they where “obviously” not realistic. Thank God that the majority of the population is mot bellow 30 years hold it would have been a disaster. The word “change” appeals to younger generation since they have little to lose, are often vulnerable to mob rules and are still intellectually naive and therefore excellent targets for public serpents and there non realistic and miraculous solutions.

         “Change” is one of the oldest truck in the book of lyes.

         At the end of the day we confuse freedom with democracy.
         One is destroying the other.

         Reply
         1. Adam

            Sorry this should read in this order.

            At the end of the day are we confusing democracy with freedom and
            is one not destroying the other?

            Reply
            1. ian

               1. We don’t live in a democracy, we have a republic.
               2. Our country is not being run how it was intended to by the founding founders, and that is why you see your lack of freedoms being eroded. With the patriot act 1 and 2, NDRP, NDAA, SOPA, CISPA, etc.

         2. Mark Biernat

            Bill Clinton used ‘change’ to get elected the first time.

            I remember so many people walking around and saying we need change, but when I would debated them on concrete issues the pinwheels in their eyes stopped spinning. Change – but what happens if you go out of the pan and into the fire?

            Reply
         3. j bustos

            Attorney General Eric Holder is being cited for contempt after operation fast and furious and Obama is asserting executive priveilge? Please this is one more reason not to vote for Obama.

            Reply
         4. Concerned American

            I agree with the above comment and I applaud the author. Obama has not clue how to run a country, he never has and he never will. He does not understand markets, debt and he is a boldface liar, using the middle class (now lower middle class) as his launching pad. Most politicians are spin masters, that is true but Obama is so far in over his head and this country is in the worst shape it has ever been in & now he presents us with the God awful ObamaCare? This ‘health care plan’ has nothing to do with health care, physicians, hospitals, America will sink deeper in debt than it ever has before, and that is pretty bad since we are already at the bottom of the barrel. People over 70 are going to get tossed to the curb, the government is going to mandate what type of insurance, where one goes to get health care, what kind of health care will be approved…on and on this goes. Socialist does not work. Get Obama out of the Whitehouse or we are all surely going to pay an even higher price than we have already paid. It is scary to just think about it – let’s not have to live it.

            Reply
      2. Annemarie Weigle

         Did you complain when Bush took vacations during crisis and ask that he spend his money ? I’m sick to death of you bias, uncooperative, sour grapes hatemongers Republicans who rather see the country because there’s a black man running the country. I know a lot of you conservatives ate still in shock over the fact that a black man was elected to run this country. Get over for he will be here and in your face another four years.

         Reply
         1. Mark Biernat

            Why ‘in your face’? Why is it about race? It is not at all. A persons skin color has nothing to do with anything, it is the ideas and charater of a person that matters.

            Please explain to me in clear terms how you think Obama would help the people of the USA become a better place and respect the US constitution? How has he helped already? Lets start with the economy. I will wait your answer.

            Reply
            1. Luom

               The one that spews out racially charged comments like Annemarie Weigle are the most racist of them all. This article said NOTHING about his race. Good grief Annemarie Weigle,get over it that your man didn’t do the job he WAS elected to do. Plain and simple no racism there when his very own record of his presidency is in black & white by his own doing. Let’s take a step back-what say you Annemarie Weigle about he took our waterways during the BP Oil spill to the United Nations in 2010, prolong detention in the NDAA, the healthcare fiasco. Did you know that in it states Undesirables will be eliminated? Did you know that Medicare and Medicaid will be phased out? Did you know that ALL citizens will be monitored by their bank account of their food consumption, heating, gas, water bc the only way you can get health insurance is you must provide your bank information and IRS TAx returns. People MUST and can ONLY apply for Health care if they do it online. OBTW- that will be monitored too. Did you know that Obama’s family sold African-American slaves to the white plantation owners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade. So don’t even think about slamming about Whites racism against Blacks. Did you know that in 1876 the Republican party ABOLISHED SLAVERY in the US. You really have no grasp of what racism is.

            2. Ann

               That is all they ever say when things do not go their way-its the race card. It’s soo old and overworked.

            3. 12345

               Its always whites trying not to say its his race, thats how you know that what it is.

            4. Jack White

               Actually if anything Obama is getting a pass on almost everything he says and does because he is African-American. So yes it does matter in that context but in the race baiting context you are referring to it just does not matter to the people who you think it matters to the most.

            5. Deborah

               Your reasons are sound, but I think that the above commentator has a point. A lot of this is about Obama’s race-but I am not saying this has come from all Republicans, asn Mitt Romney seems to have some sound ideas over why you Americans shouldn’t vote Obama. Certainly the person who wrote this article is not a racist.
               Michele Bachman, however,and Rick Santorum duly failed because of their emphasis on race, an failure therefore to produce solid reasons for why they should be voted for.

            6. DIL

               If Obama was as white as the driven snow instead of half white, I still would not vote for him. I am an unaffiliated voter who used to be a Democrat. I voted for Clinton. I would have voted for Clinton if he were an African-American. I will not vote for Obama because he constantly lies and goes around the Constitution.
               How can we teeach our children to be color blind is we are constantly bring up race?

            7. JoSe

               He was voted in by Hispanic voters to allow their illegal family members from Mexico to stay here, but now it’s time to vote him out.

         2. ACE

            Sure sounds like it. The objections to Obama have nothing to do with race but rather his political views.

            Reply
            1. Deborah

               Don’t get me wrong, race is still a big reason that people are at odds with Obama- just ask the KKK.
               But not everyone is as crazy as those folks, and the main reason is Obama’s policies, or rather lack of successful ones.
               Also as a black person, I am annoyed with Obama’s lack of decisive action over high black unemployment-which affects the economy of all Americans regardless of race. But I am not American.
               Listen to Romney. He is all about being against Obama’s policies. Michelle Bachman however focused on race just to hide the fact that she couldn’t do much better or offer anything in stead of Obama. Consequnce: no vote.

            2. Mark Biernat

               Race has nothing to do with why someone who lead a country. I think the Democrats believe it does. Do not even mention the KKK. Just remember Lincoln was the founder of the Republican party and the Republicans waves the bloody shirt at the Democrats after the civil war, because they created the whole situation.

               Of course times have change but neither party should base the leader of our nation on color but ideas. It is crazy that people would say that.

               Race is not the issue in the presidential race in 2012.

               I personally think Alan Keyes is someone I would vote for over Obama, not because of race but his libertainian ideals, he is very moving and inspiring to hear speak. A true American. Do you know about Alan Keyes?

            3. Thomas Dye

               Hey Mark

               Keep up the good work your doing.
               Most people still don’t have a clue !
               As far as I can see”You got it right
               on the money.

               Like I said, History has a mirror
               look into it, To get all the real
               information, When everything is all
               about the Government and not the most
               precious commodity is””Their People””

               It always fail’s Early on Russia is
               a prime example of what happens, Stalin
               murdered millions of people either by
               shooting them and or worked them to death.

               That’s what will happen here if you don’t
               make changes “”Right Now !!!””

               Thank You
               Thomas Dye
               Stay on it Mark.

            4. plasticmoney888

               For the record: “the original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans both black and white.

               The Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats. Southern democrats did not want the blacks to vote republicans.

               To day about 90 to 95% of African-American vote for democrats.
               Several so-called “Reverent” Black leaders that benefiting financially from the present situation have failed African-Americans.

               It’s time for a new positive leadership that can promote self-reliance, responsible and successful black families as being a positive example to all medias instead of the present perpetual negative Victocratic leadership and it’s dependency culture.

         3. Ima Pissedoff

            He’s not black. He’s half-black and half-white.

            Reply
            1. David Rafael

               Using the MSM vernacular from the Zimmerman stories he would be a white black.

         4. NickT

            Annmarie, you are ranting on just like Joe Biden. Why aren’t you admonishing your liberal friends like Bill Maher for making disparaging remarks about
            conservative women.

            Reply
         5. Bobbie W

            There is one thing you need to get straight – and that is that Obama is also half-white. So, you are the racist. I did not vote for him because I did not like what he had to say to Joe the Plumber, among many other reasons, none of which because he was black. I would have voted for Herman Cain in a heartbeat. Also, you are so wrong about Bush. He quit playing golf, he took vacations mostly to his ranch, where he kept on working. His Country was more important to him and I cannot say the same about Obama. Bush never bowed to a Saudi king. He never down-talked to the Supreme Court, or to the American people. If you want someone like Obama, then I suggest you go to France, where they JUST elected a Socialist. Right up your alley – obviously.

            Reply
         6. Tinker-Bell Spots

            Just the facts:
            I did not vote for President Obama, not because he is black, but because I did my research and decided that he would be the poorest social engineer in the history of the United States.
            The books that he himself wrote helped me to decide that collectively he would not be the best choice, not that McCain was either. I don’t give a rat’s ass if the person is black, white or pea-green. I want the best leader for the country. Not an individual that goes around the world (at $100,000 per hour for airfare) apologizing for the United States;
            Cairo, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan etc.

            Fact: In response to comment about Michelle: Michelle Obama has the largest staff of any first lady, 24 and counting.
            Laura Bush 18
            Hillary Clinton 19, and on down the line. Mamie Eisenhower had one.
            Michelle Obama travels with a make-up artist/hair dresser for events. Name of make-up artist is Ingrid Grimes-Myles.

            Fact: The Obamas have not spent one Christmas at the White House or Camp David, the only Presidential family not to do so, including the Clintons who did. Lot’s of $$$$ to travel to Hawaii. What is wrong with staying a the WH for a Christmas?
            Fact: Vacations: The Obamas have spent more on vacations than either Clinton or Bush combined. The Clintons stayed with friends, both Bushes retreated to home bases, Maine or Texas.

            Fact: The Obamas have spent triple what Bush 2 did in 8 years for White House parties. Every week it is a social gathering for democrat friends of the Obamas. During Bush 2 tenure it was lights out at 9PM. Basically fiscal responsibility and saving the taxpayer dollar is a do as I say not as I do.

            Fact: Obama is selling out the United States. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians, with Americans living on Rangel. Look it up. He could stop the give-away but probably won’t unless Americans start sending letters to their congressional leaders. Jobs and money going to Russia.

            Fact: Obama devastated NASA and the surrounding economy. 28,000 jobs lost and small nearby towns now ghost towns. I’ll bet they don’t vote for Obama! (Good expose on 60 Minutes)

            Fact: The keystone pipe-line. More jobs lost and the oil now going to go to the west coast of Canada and overseas. If he had said yes that would have created a stir and oil/gas prices would have dropped.

            Fact: Gas has more than doubled since 2009. How about that?

            Fact: Secretary of Energy Chu and Interior Secretary Salazar want gas to hit the $8 to 10 per gallon range.

            Fact: Arrogance beyond the pale. Obama telling a jobless father (in PA) at a campaign stop that he should buy a more fuel-efficient car. No job? How can you buy a new car?

            Fact: The current administration will vote on a horrible treaty that continues to destroy the sovereignty of the US. It is called the Law of the Sea (LOST). Yep we are not only lost but doomed if the Senate ratifies this treaty. The UN will have more power over America than ever before.

            Fact: The administration is pushing UN Agenda 21 which also will undermine the United States. It is a plan to implement social engineering and communitarians. It puts the screws to American Farmers and curbs production. Is there no end to what this POTUS is willing to do to achieve a one world order?

            Fact: Look at the official guest list for the WH. Several names pop up who do not have the best interests of the US. George Soros is a communicant with WH staffers and the President. He is all for Agenda 21. Soros is the individual that devastated the UK with manipulation the British pound sterling (made millions off of that manuever. The POTUS is surrounded with not just progressives but people who have been committed communists such as Van Jones. Ms Anita Dunn who thought Mao was the neatest thing since sliced bread. Andy Stern head of the SEIU who took American tax payer dues overseas instead of helping his constituents here.

            Fact: Obama threw Israel under the bus. I predicated that would happen before the inauguration took place. If Americans had done their homework they would have known his sentiments towards Israel. I hope that the Jews don’t vote for him this time around.

            Fact: Tax and spend more has been the theme for 3 ½ years. Jobs still at an all time low, not including those who have given up or no longer receiving un-employment.

            Fact: The POTUS does not accept responsiblity/ownership for any of the current mistakes made/economy. Continues to blame the previous administration. This just follows is makeup from college days, always blame someone else or not my fault. That is not a leadership quality.

            So vote as your political intellect dictates. Remember, social engineering is what got Greece, France and other countries into financial trouble.

            Reply
            1. Mark Biernat

               Social enginneering is what the people of Eastern Europe experienced under the Iron curtain. I do not want to experience even a small measure of this in the USA (we have). I can not agree with a political economy that treats people as inputs or cattle to be lead. I am a human and want my right and freedom to choose my life and economic destiny.
               Thank you for these details about the truth about Obama.

            2. Marc

               As the saying goes, your are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts.

               I’ll start with Obama’s vacation days. It’ is a well known fact that Bush 43 held the record for days spent away from Washington for personal days off. Here are the cold hard facts:

               factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/

               And for what it’s worth, it is a long established policy that presidents must pay for their own way for personal trips and vacations, so don’t suggest for a minute that his time off was on the public dime. The only thing he doesn’t have to pay for is security detail. The OMB oversees this.

               As much as it has been written, Obama hasn’t once “apologized”. While it’s true that he was conciliatory at times, he never said “America apologizes for doing this to your country”. This reminds me of the time that Bill Hemmer on Fox news announced that Obama was going to apologize to the Japanese for dropping the two A-bombs prior to an upcoming trip to that country. Obama never apologized and Hemmer was forced into a rare on-air apology.

               You seem to be grossly misinformed about the Keystone pipeline. Anyone who has read the technical aspects of this would know that the oil was to be transported to Texas for refining then sent on to Asia for consumption. The oil and byproducts were never destined for American consumption. Read before you assume.

               As far as your comments on visitors to the WH, at least they are once again being logged and made public. Remember after the Abramoff scandal how the WH refused to release the visitors logs?

               On gas prices doubling since 2009, that’s indisputable. However, here is a series of clips from Fox news from the summer of 2008 when American’s were complaining about the cost of gas and the GOP pundits all lined to say that the president had absolutely no control over gas prices. It’s actually very funny to watch the likes of Cavuto, O’Reilly and the pretty Fox girls emphasizing this. If you were educated on the subject you would know that prices strictly adhere to supply and demand. During the crash demand worldwide fell off sharply but as things slowly improved the demand rose to where they are today.

               msnbc.msn.com/id/45755822/vp/46661745#46661745

               Republican’s say they believe highly in education and I implore you to do the same for yourself. Remember, ignorance is bliss.

            3. Mark Biernat

               Now the election is getting near, lets focus look at the bottom line big picture. The economy is in a hole and so is the debt. Are you going to vote for more of the same?

            4. JoSe

               Ghostwriters write the books and someone else takes the credit, so did Obama write the books or was it someone else? I am not saying he didn’t write them, but only saying others sometimes do the actual writing for pay.

         7. Joey Faz

            Because we don’t like Barack Obama and his broken promises does not mean we are racist. Yes is half black. Democrats always throw out the race thing. It’s funny. Our country unfortunately has taken 6 steps back under this President. Go ahead and dispute the 29% growth in welfare or the 2.7 million NET lost jobs. The failed energy policy. Gas prices? Solyndra? Eric Holder and lying to Congress. Class warfare at it’s finest. Barack Obama is as good a President as Al Sharpton is a journalist. I know. I said, 2 black people were not good at their jobs. I must be a sheet wearing tea party member. Jokers. I am a proud American. I support my President.I will not make the mistake of voting for this joker again.

            Reply
         8. Anne-Marie Coppen

            Obama is no more black than he is white, he just played the race card to get elected. I take the exception to your characterization of conservatives as being racist. I could care less what color or race the president is as long as he is effective and honest which Obama is neither. He has dropped the ball on most of his promises and the things he has done such as the health program are simply ignorant. I pray you will wise up before the election and vote for our country and not that incompetent leader.

            Reply
            1. Kat757

               Your anger is spitting nails that are hitting nothing. It is not clear what you are aiming at and so that may be the reason those nails you are spitting are hitting nothing.
               There is no race issue here with Obama. By the way, he can’t be more of one than the other. He is of equal blood from a parent who is black and a parent who is white. It’s 50/50 in his blood.
               The issue here is not whether he is black or white. The color of your skin does not make you any less the liar. The color of your skin does not make you any less or any more qualified for the job. So, let’s just drop the race card, shall we?

            2. Mark Biernat

               I was watching Paul Ryan and Romney on 60 minutes and they are smart guys. I think people can pull ridiculous arguments about why people will not vote for Obama, but let’s be honest. The guy failed. Obama failed to save the economy and make the debt horrible.

         9. Camille Huntley

            Response to Annemarie Weigle:
            I could care less what his ethnicity is. I care that he is a liar.

            Reply
         10. jay holland

             You and Obama need to realize Bush has been gone for 3 1/2 years, and this country worse off than its ever been. You need to wake up, then ask your self if your better off. Then splash water over yourself in a cold shower again by voting for this loser one more time. You darn liberals think the world runs on fairy dust. See the facts you idiot. We may not have a country much longer because of people like you.

             Reply
         11. sigalph20

             I’m a black man and president Obama black, white, green whatever color he may be had completely ignored the wishes of the country to which he serves. I belive that if we are talking race, than the fact that we do have a black man in the white house who has done nothing for me (actually made my life harder) is an epic fail. I just hate when people start using race as a defense for the socialist egotistical king we now have in OUR white house.

             Reply
         12. Logan

             “You people” want to point fingers when the president you want is not the one who is in office.

             Reply
      3. Jackie Cong Ton Nu

         Sad for Obama, He accepted the Nobel peace prize for nothing. Violent crimes are many fold higher than other nations. Never help for kids or Veterans and Seniors people ,How his family go Vacation many time but they never safe money for hungry people. Look after Obama a lot families lost their house and jobs, America has to wake up and do not vote for a president who is a walking lie.

         Reply
      4. J M

         All the presidents in my generation have been rich and selfish people who are looking for global notoriety, still more riches and perks, and will do the bidding of whomever will benefit him more while in office. They are all so similar in this regard, it is pointless to point out their spending, vacations, etc. Morals. Why are they even considered for they are all rooted in Biblical teachings, and Christian values altogether are becoming an Old American tradition that, BTW, is dying at a rapid rate and our constitution is set up to allow freedom of religion so why even discuss things like abortion? Will a law actually stop this anyway?

         The main question is which president will lie and mess things up the most and make my life harder. I have heard it said that 90% of wealth is possessed by 10% of society in our country. And I am assuming its disposable income of individuals, not invested money to help drive business; correct me if I’m wrong. I may sound socialist in my thinking here, but no one person should ever have that much wealth, there’s something really wrong with that. As long as this is true, no president can help. Greed will always win. Obama talked of the importance of education and leadership. Can everyone be a leader? Is everyone going to have a wonderful job that paid well if they went to college and got a PhD? No. There is a much larger and logical need for common people doing common functions.

         Now, a common person can’t get a common job that supports a family of four because the work is given to non tax-paying non-citizens whether here or in their own countries. Then we get ridiculed for taking assistance from the government. We have a parking lot than only accommodates 100 vehicles, but there are 5000 who need to park and the ones left out are told they need to arrive earlier and better, but if they all did that, it wouldn’t fix the problem–still the same amount of space. And to make it worse, the superrich are all quadruple parked, and no one will ticket them because they have money power.

         What any presidential hopeful actually does once elected? It’s something no one can predict at all. They all lie lie to get elected, then either do stupid things, selfish things, or can’t do something useful because of greedy desires of other politicians. Why even bother voting at all? Oh, this one went on some expensive vacations and wasn’t born here, and Oh the last one is rumored to have caused the whole 9/11 and resulting war just for more control of oil because we all know that Iraq didn’t have Bin Laden or weapons of mass destruction, right? So who cares. I suggest we bring back Clinton, the most horrible thing he did was fool around on Hilary.

         Reply
         1. Mark Biernat

            You are making general sweeping statements without making any sense.
            For example the pro-life stance is not about the Bible, it is about when life begins and this is a human issue and can or can not include a discussion of faith-based ideas. For example, ethical atheists certainly are numbered among the pro-life group as well as the opposition. It is the idea that a living being with a heart beat has a right to have a life.
            Further, ‘why pass a law if it will not stop something’ is a nonsensical argument. If having a law that says lets say ‘attacking someone is not legal’, yet this still happens everyday on our streets, then by your logic we should repeal the laws? If the criteria for law and justice is based on mob rule and enforceability we would not have a civilization.

            Why is everything based on your economic accumulation on wealth compared to others. What do you care about other people and what they have. I have lived a good part of my life abroad and the poor in the USA are the super rich of other countries. You my friend are super rich and part of the elite of the world, even if you cry poverty.

            The reason the economy is in a hole is two reasons:

            The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates after 9/11 so we all could go shopping again and yahoo we went on the biggest shopping spree in history for homes and such and everyone was a winner and a genius with easy money flowing.
            The USA is not the USA of the 1950s. In the 1950s the world was rebuilding from the massive destruction of WWII and there was no China or India to speak of economically as they were post colonial. Now the world has rebuilt and is capital based we have a lot of competition. Therefore it is based on real value not fake value.

            You want to make money in the USA, you have to create something not just show up for work and not perpetual class envy and accuse everyone as being untruthful.

            Reply
         2. Thomas Dye

            Don’t forget that money talks
            And B.S Walks “”Every time””

            And if you confront the Federal
            Reserve, You might wind up being
            a statistic ?

            Tom

            Reply
   2. Diane

      Americans want cheap prices. China didn’t steal your jobs, you gave them away in return for Walmart prices.

      Reply
      1. Mark Biernat

         I am free trade and free market. China has made prices come down and the middle class today, despite the crisis ,is really living in a lap of luxury compared to the rest of the world.

         The problem now is jobs that pay well are not being created by the private sector. This is because of a number of factors, mostly a crowding out effect created by government spending, debt at all levels. Poor monetary policy because of government control of the money supply, and taxes.
         But still the USA is not a bad place to live.

         Reply
         1. Thomas Dye

            Mark, Thomas Dye Here!

            Here’s something you might want to see
            it is a tool to really understand how are
            Unites States Monetary System really works
            It will absolutely give them the truth !

            Go here & Get them Educated http://scrnch.me/go-here <<<===

            Pass this around get them educated !!

            Thanks
            Thomas

            Reply
      2. Camille

         You are exactly correct. The playing field is not level. China pays its manufacturing workers 12 dollars a week, no OSHA, no Environmentalists, no unions the list goes on. American companies couldn,t wait to shed American workers. The same goes for NAFTA, Mexico no better. Now either have a PHD or work in Walmart. The American dream is dead. If we stop imports we will be , TV less, cell phoneless and barefoot. We are no longer a self sufficient nation.

         Reply
      3. Sam

         Well Diane I think you you are 100% right and the junk you get from the Chinese is for the most part trash. That falls apart. And most likely full of toxin’s. And Wal-Mart is the worst offender in the world as far finding a Market for this junk. Ialso think that if the people of this once fine Country would wake up and boycott Chinese good’s, and spend a bit more money to buy American good’s there would be a lot more job’s here in the manufacturing of these product’s. And the money spent to buy them stay here in this Country.

         Reply
   3. Malinse

      Katya, Nixon began the Chinese connection, but it was Clinton who taught Obama how to capitali$e on the Chinese to get elected. (he later paid them, and Riyady, the coal man and indicted illegal campaign contributer back. Riyady he paid back by shutting down Utah coal, thereby making Riyady coal fields the largest in the world. And with China he gave them their pro quid quo, by allowing them to get nuclear secrets, setting up military hardware exchanges, and helping GE to open their nuke plants building. Arkansas was the most corrupt place in the U.S. during the Clinton Crime Family with the god-mother Hillary at the helm: From Mena airport cocaine importing, to Rose law firm selling Arkansas bonds, to Walmart (H. Clinton on the Board of Directors) moving the Chinese junk merchandise, to Tyson Chicken’s illegal alien factories, etc.. It’s funny how each President has their headquarters of corruption. With Obama it’s Chicago

      Reply
   4. Koolnightes

      It seems the “blame game” is alive and well here at this post. Where were you when little Bush said I just don’t have time to spend on Bin Laden? Was that ok? Obama got Bin Laden for you. where is the cheers? he got the guy that took down the WTC and that little bush couldn’t be bothered with.
      As for our trading with China, I think it was Nixon that opened that door. And it was Reagan that deregulated the businesses to go where they chose.
      Unemployment is 7%, where was it when he took office, close to 10%. How much help has he received from across the isle? Zero.
      he tries to get you health care, you slap him in the face and say I would rather pay higher premiums each year and they have the right to drop my coverage anytime they choose. Any Lord forbid they ever find out I had a cold and now have pneumonia, so that disqualifies me for a preexisting condition.
      If you have 101 reasons not to elect Obama. tell me 10 reasons to elect Romney? Ok, that is too hard. Tell me 1 reason? And please give a date that he spoke in favor of the reason, I will then counter your reason when he said the opposite.

      Reply
      1. Mark Biernat

         1. Almost 4 years later and blowing the bank and all the US savings and putting us hopelessly in debt, the Unemployment is over 8%, get your facts right
         2. I do not blame Obama, rather he has no idea about Economics, I wish I could give him a lesson. Government takes from the poor and gives to the rich with externalities involved in government crowding out. He supports the haves so have-nots can not reinvent the economic order via the price system. Let the markets work.
         3. He does not protect the unborn – Romney protects life.
         4. Obama’s record on civil liberties is questionable with the expansion of big brother. Next thing you know it they will be using drones on US citizens without a trail.
         5. The Federal reserve, not Obama or Bush per say, caused the business cycle, but their policies made it worse.
         6. The Obama-Bush military imperial doctrine is the same, but one of the two has a Nobel peace prize in his back pocket. I do not support endless wars, I mean since I was a kid in the 1960s there were always young kids coming back in black bags for some reason no one is sure about. The money could be better spent and the lives lost can not even be mentioned.
         7. Romney is not my ideal, but generally more free market, which is good for someone like me, trying to work their way up, as I am not Warren Buffet or Bill Gates or George Clooney and can afford to have crazy political ideas. If you are not a millionaire, I would consider focusing on your efforts not government to the rescue. Romney will minimize the damage
         8. I addressed government health care in a post, read it, as my personal experiences with national medical care are not good and they might hurt you as there will be less quality care for all. It will all be watered down.
         9. Many of the macro world changes you see in economics are not a result or consequence of the political process in Washington. We can not stop the world. We can only make it easier for Americans by removing the shackles of the job creators. Government never creates wealth by the way, it only takes it and consumes it.

         Reply
         1. Deborah

            1- Obama giving to the rich form the poor? Nonsense. You prefer Romney- a man who says that he wants to cut taxes on the corporations and the weathy like him who can more than afford to pay their own tax!
            2- Wars, I agree. America should stop invading other people’s countries. It costs the American taxpayer, it kils Americans, and for every American killed, there are probably several natives killed as well.
            3- Obama’s law is a good idea. It means that 30 million uninsured people will be covered. Sure, it will cost the taxpayer, but so do a lot of things.In the longterm, the majority, and not the minority of Americans will benefit.

            Reply
            1. Mark Biernat

               1. I am not rich yet I paid a ton in taxes and I have a family to support. Not one penny of the Obama stimulus helped me. It did help my friends who work for the government and live a much better life than I do. Obama takes from the poor and gives to the rich. By ‘bailing out bankers and the housing market, my family can not afford a house. If he let the market adjust prices would be lower and the poor could afford to buy a house. Like in the 1940s, a switchboard operator could by a house in the USA because prices were low compared to income. Today professionals buy cheap condos that are $200,000. What is the market collapsed and price of a nice house was 30,000? I think my family would have a house to live in. But Obama taxed the heck out of my and I supported other families who have houses.
               He destroys markets and this makes it harder for the poor.
               2. Wars are a waste as is the whole industrial military complex. I live in an area where all the well are work for the government and military or some contractor related to that as it is the biggest employer in Jacksonville. That is sad and sick. We need defense but not the old WWII idea of tanks and submarine and millions of troops on the payroll counting boxes in some base. We need high-tech, not more guys on the payroll.
               3. I do not have health insurance, I just go to the doctor and pay. What is wrong with that? I will buy some just in case insurance from Blue Cross but it is cheap, I can get a policy for my whole family for a little over a hundred a month. But even if you do not have it, there are free clinics and discounts for the uninsured. Why does the government have to get involved? I am a little soft on health care though and do not mind if coverage is extended that much. But the main reason to be honest I object to it is I will have to pay for other people’s birth control and termination of life which is against my religion and I think that is horrible. I am sorry, but freedom of religion is more important than some socialist dream that will mess things up anyway.

            2. Marc

               Mark, I find your arguments incredulous. At times your responses are very well thought out and inspiring, at other times it appears that you are from another planet. Hence:

               1. It did help my friends who work for the government and live a much better life than I do [You are a very envious person, you are constantly writing about neighbors and friends that are better off than you]. If he let the market adjust prices would be lower and the poor could afford to buy a house [didn’t real estate values drop over 40% after the crash?]. But Obama taxed the heck out of my and I supported other families who have houses [Where in the world did you get the idea that Obama has taxed the hell out of you? Payroll taxes are actually lower now than when he took office].

               2. Wars are a waste as is the whole industrial military complex [Here you are right on the money, no arguments there].

               3. I do not have health insurance, I just go to the doctor and pay. What is wrong with that? I will buy some just in case insurance from Blue Cross but it is cheap, I can get a policy for my whole family for a little over a hundred a month [ You are so far off the mark here that it’s not funny. You said that Blue Cross would cost you a little over a hundred a month for the family (why am I paying over $2k a month?). You obviously haven’t priced it out because if you had you would find they won’t cover you because of your previously mentioned spinal problem. I also guess you haven’t been faced with a catastrophic illness in your family, otherwise you would have changed your tune real fast. By the way, your $65 doc-in-the box that you go to would not treat you for cancer, so get real and wake up to reality].

            3. Mark Biernat

               Thank you for understanding about how the US military spending is not synonymous with defense of the USA. And it does drain the economy.

               How am I envious about the fact that people in the public sector get paid more than the private if you include the benefits and total compensation. That is a fact. Same skills more pay. That is not envy that is a fact. There are a a lot of articles that discuss this if you compare job security and other factors. reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary – I am not a greedy person or I would not live an alternative lifestyle like I do. I think it is rude to assume something, you do not know me.

               I left my career easy six figures, for about ten years to live in Eastern Europe in a humble little life. Money is not my god.

               You can get like we just did a catostophic policy from somewhere like Blue Cross pretty cheap. I think they are 100 dollars a month for a family if you have a high deductible. We did buy one from abroad for $150 but no deductible. Call Blue Cross, depending on your state of health etc. Also you can get a group plan from your work. If you are low income you get coverage in most states I think for your kids.

               There are also clinics abroad. You can travel abroad. You buy your car, clothes and everything else abroad you can go to first rate countries cheap if you need to.

               You can negotiate rates. Everyone I know including me does that. You do not pay the full rate but a cash or non-insured rate.

               There are many ways around it but the best is call Blue Cross and say you want the highest deductible policy and see what they have.

               What is wrong with getting a high deductible for things like operations or cancer and day to day things like the flu or stitches pay cash?

               No one lives forever and we all grow old and die, but social medical care will replace innovative medical care.

               For example, like adult stem cells that cure things are not covered under most plans but handfuls of painkillers are.

               I believe the private sector pushes the frontier of medical care to a new level, but government rules will suppress innovation. Adult stem cells is an example.

               For example a new knee from a company like regenerx.com is a couple thousand dollars, yet government medical care would pay for the 18,000 dollar slice and dice operation.

      2. Brooklyn

         In my opinion, Bin Laden was responsible for Sept 11th you say?

         Its comforting to know that the percentage of sheep continues to increase.

         Reply
      3. Luom

         Koolnight- Obama did not kill bin laden he was not told of it prior to the operation. The man was out playing golf while this whole thing was being perpetrated. Do you know anything about the special operations? When he gave the details of the so-called killings no leadership in their right mind would give the details of the group who did it or so blatantly arrogant that to boast they gave “to kill” orders on another person. WOW- you’ve certainly been drinking up that koolaid the Lame stream media have been dishing out.

         dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2058229/Obama-playing-golf-20-minutes-Navy-SEAL-Osama-Bin-Laden-mission.html
         youtube.com/watch?v=JbGnAN7ps0w and http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=16375
         forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=214151.0;wap2
         mediaite.com/tv/chuck-pfarrer-white-house-accounts-made-seal-team-sixs-actions-look-sloppy-and-criminal/

         Reply
      4. Marc

         I couldn’t have said it better myself.

         The wingnuts here conveniently drop the facts only to write about the bad.

         Only time will tell how Obamacare will work out for the country. Keep in mind that in 1965 there were millions of people who decried Medicare. You may not be old enough to remember but back then most seniors didn’t have any kind of coverage to speak of and most went without care. The reason it costs the country so much now is that life expectancy is now 15 years more than when Medicare was enacted, so I guess that means it was a resounding success.

         On Obama and the economy. To this day, any economist worth their salt, whether they lean left or right, agree that the stimulus was necessary and dire things were about to happen. I’m glad they are at least objective and don’t play partisan games when it comes to their vocation. Theory is theory and one doesn’t change their tune because their party is not in the WH (although Arthur Laffer is an exception). Read what Dave Stockman has been writing to gain some insight to what I’ve said (although he’s been labeled a turncoat but the GOP for supporting Obama’s proposed tax policies).

         Reply
   5. Mary

      BObama will not be reelected, please God. He is a communist, and is leading this country down a socialist road that if it continues for four more years, it will be the end of our freedom, our sovereignty, our very country. wE don,t know why the media will not tell the American people the truth about this man . They tip toe around and say things like he is a good man just in over his head. Bullfeathers , he is leading us into socialism just like it was in Russia . He does not like capitalism, or the free market . He wants us to be a nanny state and give him all the power to destroy us. He wants to make us like Venezuela. We will have to save our selves if it’s not too late already. The media is a bunch of fools who don’t seem to understand that they will also lose their freedom along with their families.

      Reply
      1. Mark Biernat

         What can be said good about Obama? He is not a dictator and he was freely elected, I also think he has sincere intentions to improve society.

         The issue is he does not have any conception about why this country is great. He has no confidence to lead and should step down. He relies on advisors whispering in his ears fairy-tales about improving the world and economy through macro fine tuning of the economy and laws.

         I lived in Eastern Europe a good part of my life and I can tell you this type of thinking is a threat to the family, any chances at economic security, and involves questionable moral trade offs that I personally find a violation of my constitutional rights.

         The ideas behind America is if you maximized personal freedoms, and guard them from government, including economic freedom this is the best way to bring prosperity and happiness to all. It was an idea of the enlightenment. In contrast, Obama is a product of the programming of the 1970s media’s collective wisdom.

         Instead of leading and defending your personal liberties to have the life of your choosing he is punishing people by an experiment of social engineering. Barack is advised by eggheads in Ivory towers versed in Keynesians economics that are clueless about money and markets, despite their Ph.Ds and fancy titles.

         Every time a bank takes a large loss he calls for more government. What about letting the chips fall as they will. In a free society there will always be winners and losers. That is the way the game is. We all can not be winners all the time. And if someone loses or a company is under, so what? Let them fall, it is not the end of the world, a new more efficient organization will take its place. Instead, Obama has blown the bank with bailouts and rules and new laws that will make us all poor.

         If Obama wants to help America:

         • Let the markets work
         • Free money – that is no central bank
         • Decrease or eliminate the income tax (a penalty on productivity and does not account for the majority of US revenue)
         • Champion personal liberties and allow Americans to determine their own fates
         • Bring the troops home from around the world in one hundred plus countries and create a high-tech home defense military, and not one based on WWII ideas of foot soldiers in other countries, and creating a social system of military payouts.
         • No nanny state – Help the poor with more free market ideas, a transitional idea might be a negative income tax or encourage private charities with incentives.

         Obama a man with good intentions but should not be our President as he brings hardship to many. The path to hell and road to serfdom is sometimes paved with good intentions’, if the architect of change is a Keynesian.

         Reply
         1. Deborah

            You sound heartless here. There are millions of Americans out of work, on food stamps. This is the last thing they need to hear – that we cannot be winners all the time.

            Reply
            1. Mark Biernat

               The heartless accusation is commonly directed at non-socialist. I disagree with your premise.

               It is the socialists who are heartless, unknowingly. Let me explain. Both sides of the political spectrum want the same things. It is just that one side believed government can allocate resources more effectively, and the other side believes if you give people more freedom in economics this will exponentially make everyone better off.

               Simply compare the Old East Germany to the old West Germany. North Korea to South Korea.

               Now if you are talking about food stamps. No one is saying to rip the rug from under the hungry. There are better ways to cut government out of the market. Even the most radical libertarians like Milton Friedman argue that in a just society we should help the poor. However, perhaps something like a negative income tax might be more effcient or the promotion of private food banks. In my town there are many large food banks where the poor can get food. I do not see any starving Americans, only fat ones. Really, I moved back from Europe and many of the poor are not skinny like their Eastern Europeans poor counterparts but are over feed.

               This America is a rich country and if you are poor here in the USA, you are like super rich elsewhere. I know I lived elsewhere.

               Further, food stamps are generally run more at the state level although the Federal government helps. This is not an Obama thing, but a state service more which is a small fraction of the federal government.

               In my state many of the Poor get these food debit cards, but no one is saying take them away.

               What we are saying is create an environment so they will not need them because they have been empowered by a real free market job that gives them self-respect and dignity that we all want including me. The poor do not want handouts they want a job. And the private sector creates jobs. Obama hurts job creation. He does not know he does but he does, and has no bad intentions, but he does hurt job creation in a big way.

         2. Marc

            I find your no income tax comment interesting.

            While it’s very much true that government grows larger every year (heck, even W. grew it by 25% during his 8 years), how would you, Mr. Biernat, fund the nearly $1 trillion dollar a year defense budget? What about the FDA? Would you like to fly the friendly skies without an FAA air traffic controller watching other planes in your area?

            You can’t have it both ways, by saying that taxes should be abolished yet ignoring the fact that a lot of services provided by government are absolutely essential in today’s modern life.

            Is there government waste? No doubt, billions upon billions, but that’s just something we have to live with.

            Reply
      2. Luom

         You both are dead on as well as this article.

         Reply
      3. michele

         Once that baby comes all the people who were there forcing the mother to choose life over her own needs leave and then she ends up poor and raising a child on welfare, which you people get even more pissed about. If you are going to make the commitment in saving all aborted children please make the commitment to support them once they enter this messed up world. And don’t say adoption as there are not enough good families for every baby if they were to come to term.

         Reply
         1. Fish

            They’ve discovered the cause of that you know. She needed to think ahead of the consequences and keep her legs together. Why should I have to pay for that woman acting like an easy girl? I say, she made her bed. Now she must lie in it. (and keep her legs shut lest this happen again)

            All of you freeloaders want to do whatever you want at others expense. I’m all for helping out a person who is down but I don’t want to be forced to pay for some bum’s vulgar play time.

            Obama will lose like Jimmy Carter lost in a big way. Because Obama is worse than even Jimmy Carter was and that’s pretty bad. Jimmy is happy because now he’s only the second worst president ever.

            Reply
      4. JoSe

         If there is a God he would vote for himself, so stop praying to someone that may not even exist and get your lazy self out, and vote the ( BUM ) out. I am not an Atheist only someone that has some common sense.

         Reply
   6. Amanda Matthews

      Then everthing that comes out of it is wrong.

      I don’t like the guy but I’m not stupid enough to blame him for all the Chinese junk on the market. This has been going on for years and years and is due to manufacturing being shipped oversea for cheap labor.

      And Americans are such phoney creatures. The American public won’t pay the price for goods that would allow an American to support a family. They love those cheap Chinese junk prices that are brought to you courtesy of the Walton family.

      Reply
   7. HahaWHy

      First off 90% of all these “101 reasons” are baseless. If you think you know anything then the media has really brainwashed you. Lets for one sec forget about party lines and politics. Just use common sense if you have any at all.

      Lets look at 4 years of Obama vs 4 years of Bush. Do a little comparison:

      Economy collapsed under Bush even though everyone knew the housing market was garbage. His admin did nothing to prevent it. But let’s go ahead and blame Obama because, well we are idiots.

      Obama killed Osama, oh wait but we never found “Weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq…which is why the US was over there in the first place under Bush. It’s not “Obama’s War” – If you think so please take your head out of your ass. You can’t just pack up and leave. If you think that’s the case then you have no understanding of military tactics or politics.

      Bush against developing green energies. We are now just starting to become less dependent on foreign oil because of his stupid policy.

      Bush against healthcare for everyone, really? is this even a topic that you can honestly discuss? It should be a no brainer. This isnt Mexico. Every US Citizen should have access.

      If Obama gets elected in 2012 he will either kick out all the illegal aliens or let them stay. I am not so sure yet. It would be his second term so I hope he kicks them out and doesn’t give a crap about what their legal families say.

      Basically everyone needs to start thinking about the big picture. Forget Republicans vs Democrats. No one cares which one you are anymore. Get all the facts and make a decision regardless of the party. Oh yeah about the mountain of debt, I wonder who started it all, how about Ronald Reagan and his insane defense spending to end the cold war. Yes but go ahead blame Obama because he should have told Reagan not to do that, and he should have told Bush to keep an eye out on the econom, what else can I blame him for?

      Reply
      1. Mark Biernat

         Typical Obama supporter still clinging to Anti-Bush arguments to promote Obama. Sorry I had to put that jab in, but thanks for the comment you have some points.

         But lets put party lines aside and talk about this in response to your arguments”

         Bush drove up the debt, Obama pushed it from a hill to the largest mountain of debt in the world. I see little difference in the two men.

         I will vote for Romney as he will change the economy and he is pro-life.

         Economy collapsed under Bush – Well the economy collapsed because the Federal Reserve Bank push interest rates to 1% after 9/11 so we all could go shopping again. A monetary tsunami was created. Speculation created by wildly misaligned money markets sent shock waves to the real section. This is usually what happens. Monetary disequilibrium causes real sector boom and bust cycles.

         Bush Obama doctrine – I see no shift in policy between Bush and Obama. American Presidents moving US troops around of foreign soil without a declaration of war. We have troops in over 100 countries arround the world. Obama invaded Lybia basically not officially. I stand opposed to 19th century British Empire building and moving young Americans like chess pieces around foreigner countries and spending money on the industrial military complex, not defending out shores.

         Young kids should be kids not in the army and 25 years old is a kid. So many vets have a hard time assimilating back in the economy and life because it is disruptive to be in the army during the formative emotional years. Combat is traumatic. I appreciate their service but they should be reserved for defending the USA directly, not foreign wars. The army will tell you, that it makes you a better person, but I see good kids comming back and they are left behind in the work place. Many have closed head injuries from taking shell hits to the helment and they do not even know it. They come back spaced out. They have trouble focusing and have to live with this. I would not want to send anyone I care about to the other side of the world.

         A good president would not engage Americas troops like a 19th century King. It was Bush who started this but Obama is marginally better. Pump the money into homeland security and the US police, more people die on our streets. The industruial Miliatry complex has help bankrupt the country and made us weak in the long term.

         Green Energies – I like Green Energies – not an issue, and I think Romney would promote this more than Obama with a cut in the corporate tax rate so there is not money in the retained earnings bucket for companies to funnel to R&D. entrepreneurship not government leads innovation.

         Health Care- ‘Every citizen should have access’ means more fraud waste and less innovation. My neighbors on ‘disability’ pumping iron at the gym everyday. My other neighbor high on pain killers while she is not smoking and boozing. I have health issues, and in pain but I choose to take care of myself the best I can. I do not want to go through the regular way of pain killers etc. I do yoga and try to be skinny and take natural things. If I need to go to the doctor there are walk in clinics that are 65 dollars a visit as well as free clinics. I hope private innovation will continue to develop things like Adult stem cells which will cure my spinal problem than the joke of treatments they have not like drugs and operations. It is innovation that cures people from the profit motive not massive government blankets. However, I really feel for people in pain and I do not wish it on anyone and I do not think there are cures for everything. So I do not have the answers.

         I mainly have moral issues as I think life is sacred and I have to fund this anti-life stance? It is against my religion.

         But also, I lived in Eastern Europe and socialism may give you the warm fuzzies that everything will be safe and alright, but spend some time in a socialist country and compare the difference, I can see you in a Russian Hospital, yeah right, they were taking my blood with a razor blade cut to the figure and put the drops under a slide I had to carry up to the third floor. But it was social.

         If health care was not regulated it would be cheaper for all, but there is so much darn fraud connected to government. I think it is a hard question on how to ration health.

         But in fairness, I do like the idea of providing help for the poor but this could be done with a negative income tax not social medical care. Not efficient.

         Agreed it is not about Democrats vs GOP as both parties have issues, but I prefer to side with the party that stands for individuals liberties and the ideal of America than Social common good which is a European way.

         Reply
      2. Jay Holland

         The states that are Democrats are failing badly, welfare and food aid is increasing to buy votes, farther increasing debt, the boarders are over flowing, Again the cost of supporting these people is another bottom less pit on the tax payers. Again Obama’s buying the minority vote at the cost of the country’s tax payers and jobs.

         I believe the hunt for Osama was well underway long before Obama. He’s true side came through. “you didn’t build that” speech. He supports the uneducated, uniformed, ignorant, dependant, lazy and yes, the liberals that live in fantasy land. Because thats all he can hope to vote for him. Idiots like himself.

         No Bush wasnt one of our best. But Obama makes Carter look like a winner. This country is falling like Rome for the very same reasons . Those that are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it.

         Reply
   8. HahaWHy

      We get Chinese goods because corporations like WalMart sell $5 toasters, and guess what, You buy them.

      So please don’t complain and say Obama sells out to China. You sell out to China every time you buy something from there.

      Buy American only. Oh and don’t complain when you have to pay $30 for a toaster either, or else you are just part of the problem.

      Cant have your cake and eat it too.

      Reply
      1. Mark Biernat

         Yeah China makes cheap things and they will soon beat us in high tech unless we can keep out edge with private innovation. This is done in the free market not socialism which crowds out private investment. That is why Obama sold the US out to the Chinese.

         Reply
   9. Clark

      If you think anything is going to change (to help the tax payer) you better think again. Business will go on in Washington and benefits the poitical party that wins. Not us.

      Reply
      1. Mark Biernat

         This thinking leads nowhere. If that is the case why get out of your bed in the morning since we will all eventually be pulled into the gravitational pull of a black hole. I think though political discourse and voter revolution things do change, like the Reagan Revolution for example.
         Why many people make their fortunes in the USA still through hard honest work. I do not get any benefits from Washington yet I have a nice life in the USA. Why are you so bitter.

         Reply
   10. Concerned Christian

       All African American Christians do not vote for President Obama.
       He does not love God or support the principles of the Bible.
       In the book of Romans it says that Gay marriage is sin.
       Read chapters one and two. Judgement comes our country because of this too.

       It is not a black thing. It is a Christian thing. It is a Jesus thing. I am not voting for Romney. I just want to vote for Jesus.

       vote for Jesus to be exalted. Obama does not care how God feels about unrighteousness he cares more for votes.

       Reply
       1. Susan Barber

          The best vote for one who loves God is a vote for Romney,he has given his time, energy, and certainly dollars to his Christian beliefs and he will get America back to being a Chistian nation. And not voting is a vote for the Liberals

          Reply
   11. Susan Barber

       It seems equal imports and exports would be an obvious way of American recovery.

       Reply
   12. Michael Epling

       How can so many people be delude? A lot of work to prove nothing. Obama will win easy.

       Reply
       1. Mark Biernat

          So explain to me how anyone with a brain would vote for Obama after he blew all the money for many generations we had, and unemployment is up. Keynesian economics does not work. Explain to me why anyone would vote for Obama given his failed economics policy?

          Reply
2. Greg

   You said “Unemployment after 4 years of Keynesian economics is still over 7%. If Americans are out of work so will be the President.”

   Its over 9%

   Reply
   1. Mark Biernat

      I just want to understate the problem to illustrate the point. But if Unemployment is still 9% in November of 2012. It will b real trouble for the Obama camp. Greg, this is really like the 1970s all over again, remember those days? It is not a foofy recession of the 80s or 90s, this is a structural shift in the way things are being done. Obama’s state of the Union address was not bad. He acknowledged this, that the world has changed radically.
      My only point on contention is how to bring the USA back to the point of growth again, in the best way for the greatest number of people. I believe in getting governments house in order in terms of spending and debt is a start, this will lower the burden of government (crowding out effect, taxes, etc) and markets will adjust.

      Reply
      1. Camille

         This will create jobs if American goods can be made for the same price of imports the factories will hum again and investment will be made in US. The tariffs can be used to pay off China and pay for the WMD war that didn’t have WMD.

         Reply
         1. Mark Biernat

            It is almost like 1984 in that the message given to the American people is we must continue preventative wars ad infinitum. Destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands of people to protect Americans.

            I am an American. I was attacked abroad because I was an American and I did not feel I got too much help, I had to really push the embassy to get any traction and they were more like cover their own butt mode. I suffer to this day from it.

            I think Washington protects its own people, not US citizens. I think Washington sells fear to the American people to perpetuate the endless wars since I can remember.

            Our youth are mislead in thinking serving the USA is about carrying a gun at the taxpayers expense and be a part of an undeclared war. When they return home, they have trouble finding a job as military skills translate poorly in the private sector real world work. ‘Out of work veterans’ are almost an axiom. How do you translate artillaryman or sniper into GAAP, SEC reporting, Sarbanes Oxley specialist?

            And the money they offer you for college is not worth returning without a limb or a 20 year headache from a closed head injury from a blast. I have even see women combat vets who should be having children and driving their kids to camp and doing mommey things, come back in black bags.

            You want to serve your country, help sick children or create jobs at home with your intellect and find cures for disease. This will save more American lives.

            Many countries do not take such an aggressive foreign policy and are safe.

            WWII was a declared war. Iraq etc is not.

            A better idea to serve the USA is to help sick children or the old, to invent something or help poor sections of America. Read about the US Constitution and why the founding father’s wanted wars to be declared not ‘police actions’ by a President. Be a fireman or police office or the red cross.

            WMD there were none.

            If this sounds unpatriotic than explain to me why when I was attacked I got lackluster support.

            Direct taxation, debt, and the Federal reserve gives Washington the ability to wage endless ‘preventative wars’.

            I stopped believing in Santa about the same time I stopped believing the USA makes the world safe around the world.

            About economics, I prefer no income tax, and massive budget cuts including the military. Also the CIA which wages secret wars like in Pakistan should be cut or eliminated. NSA and other organizations have overlap with many CIA functions. But it is almost unpatriotic to say the CIA should be replaced. The CIA budget expands forever, with no one questioning it as not to seem unpatriotic.

            I am a patriot and I do question it.

            The government can now take out American citizens without trial or verdict, like the drone that tried to zap an American citizen in Syria. It missed but killed many innocent people. Oh but those are not real people anyway,Collateral damage, they are just somewhere out there, yeah right. They are as real as you and me and had dreams and families.

            I am a patriot and yet, I do not think hiding behind lies like in the Pentagon papers or some of the things that went on in Iraq is American at all.

            Tariffs are good only if they are not protective.

            If we eliminated the income tax we would still have half our revenue coming from excise, corporate taxes and other forms of taxes. It would bring us to the 1990s level of revenue.

            The USA had virtually no direct taxation before 1913 and we prospered.

            We could have some tariffs but we do not want to start a trade war as soon a TV would cost 3000 dollars not 300 dollars as would everything else. States could even levy tariffs against each other.

            Spain in the 18th century declined with protective policies while England grew strong with free trade.

            With free trade everyone wins. A better economic plan is to free markets so people can build a better mouse trap and innovate, than reshuffle the tax system.

            Eliminate the need for a large tax system.

            Although I do think direct taxes are not the way to go.

            Reply
   2. Steve

      The fact that he stated that he was going to be transparent is very laughable, he has been everything but. Mr. Obama hides his school records that will show he came to America as a foreign student. Harvard could confirm this, instead, he is trying to hide the truth and keep the records sealed forever, and with his crooked judges that should be in jail for selling out America, this may be accomplished, for now. Mr. Oboma hopes that he can lie to the American people and they will vote him back in. As plane as the nose on your face,he is undoubtedly Kenyan. Mr. Oboma has stated in a book that he supposedly wrote, when it comes to being on sides, I will always side with Muslims, boy oh boy, it sure shows.

      Reply
3. Greg

   I remember the 70’s. This one is worse. Back in 70’s people owned houses, live reasonably close to work. This a rat race to the bottom. Growth is buzz word. Every possible material possession people could wish for they have. The road to enlightenment has been squandered. How much money sits in private equity waiting for tax policy to favor those already sitting on hoards of cash? Its an ugly situation no matter how you want to spin it. The financial chaos is going world wide. Just as we were reassured 2 years ago it was all contained, we will hear that broken record played over and over again. Not much good to report!

   Reply
   1. Mark Biernat

      This is a point I debate in my mind often. Was it better back then or did it just seem better economically. We certainly had less gadgets and the average house size was smaller. However, I think you are right, there were more one family bread winner homes with a good life provided.
      However, that has a lot to do with the fact that post WWII the world lay in ruins except for the USA.
      We enjoyed competition free markets. Now we have India and China and Europe to compete with. Everyone wants to drive a car in the world and have the American way of life.
      The best way for America to stay on top is not with flowery political words but reducing the burden of government. This means balance the budget, pay off the debt, eliminate the Federal reserve, reduce taxes to a minimum.
      If we did these things the roads in the USA would be paved with gold.
      The idea here is the USA has a competitive advantage in terms of technology, education, capital, natural resources, efficient markets, creativity and capitalist spirit. When you allow these things to flourish the USA will be on top.
      I am not a Keynesian and although I am not anti-Obama at all, I do not think he understand job creation comes from the private sector not through a stoke of a pen from government.

      Reply
      1. Adam

         “reduce taxes to a minimum.”

         Mark why do Corporation pay taxes in the first place ?

         Don’t we want them most of the time to use 100% of there capital to create jobs?

         We always Hear from the left that Corporation should pay there fair shares. What kind of reasoning is this ? When a Corporation pays taxes the money goes to the government and his going to somehow be reinvested or be spent in a way to create real productive and permanent jobs?

         Are Corporate taxes not a citizens tax in disguise since at the end of the day its a cost and will some how be past on to the consumers that will pay more and spend less.

         To a very large extent the Government redistributes what is as taken out of the system with the exception that it waste and malinvest a large percentage of it.

         It needs to repair the poverty it has created and what it as destroys or not allowed to exist it’s a vicious circle.

         Its almost unreal to stimulate an economy with money coming or borrowed from the same economy.It’s like having a blood transfusion to your right arm coming from your left arm.

         In reality a very small percentage of a free population would need Government help if any.
         Compassion and socialism are not the same thing.

         Reply
         1. Mark Biernat

            The US function very well for the first 140 years with virtually no direct taxation. This is perhaps the strongest argument against taxes. Initially in 1913 the idea was taxation focused on the wealthy, but this spread. As soon as it starts it is very hard to roll it back and spreads to all classes then expands to companies and small businesses and the self-employed.
            So when you hear someone say, lets tax the rich, I guess I would ask why?
            When you hear someone say lets tax business, explain that you are stopping job creation. Private enterprises are the only real job creation machine there is.
            Your metaphor of taking blood from your left arm to give it to your right arm, minus a little siphoned off is a good metaphor.

            Reply
         2. Susan

            If Corporations are to pay taxes, then why doesn’t the United States of America pay taxes? This puzzles me since the USA is the largest Corporation in the world. I guess it’s because the USA has been bankrupt since 1933. Do people realize this?

            Reply
      2. Steve

         The problem is simple, it just needs to be done. We need to vote for an American that is not trying to break the system by spending so much money, you bankrupt the Country. How can a community leader that never had a job, fix anything except his agenda, and it is clear, he is out to destroy America.

         Reply
         1. Mark Biernat

            Thanks for the vote of confidence. Obama whatever his motives are, basically does not understand economics. I think he is being schooled right now at the expense of the world economy. He has learned that Keynesian economics is more textbook than reality, but still somehow, he does not have the guts to jettison those misguided views and lead the country with guts. I prefer a guy like Ron Paul who does understand the idea of money and markets.

            Even if we sunk deeper at the initial phase of the crisis through a policy of non-intervention it would have been better than a long-term slow growth path that does not generate real innovation.

            Reply
   2. Marc

      Greg, you obviously DON’T remember the 70’s. If you did you would remember that interest rates on mortgages were above 20% and the housing market was at its worst point since the depression (up to that time).

      If you remember the 70’s, you would have remembered the unemployment rate between 1975 and 1980 averaged well over 7% and in 1975 it was (according to Bureau of Labor Statistics)8.5%.

      If you remember the 70’s you would have remembered standing inline to fill up your car.

      If you remember the 70’s you would have remembered stagflation.

      If you remember the 70’s you would have remembered out of control inflation.

      I remember these events vividly and we are nowhere near those conditions. Nowhere.

      Reply
4. WEzea

   Some of your 101 reasons are restated and repetitive. However clearly it does not take 101 resons it only takes a few main reasons; (1) unemployment, (2) health care; (3)excessive government spending and our deficiet, a (4) president who appears to be removed (physically and emotionlally) from the issues that impact real Americans who really contribute to the bottom line of this country, (5) no change as promised in his campaign that would benefit Americans in any way and (6) a military that continues to be in volved in undeclared wars, no relief from Afghanistand and the rebuilding of Iraq.
   And as a side note, Ford motor company is still kicking, and maybe the Obama administration could really learn something from that company.

   Reply
   1. Mark Biernat

      Thanks for your comment but if anything I held back many reasons why Obama will not get reelected. You could even summarize it further, 1) He does not understand economics, not even a little, hence, he destroyed the US economy for 30 years with debt 2) He does not respect the constitution, for example, undeclared wars.
      Economics and the US constitution are pretty good reasons why Obama is not qualified to be President of the USA in 2012.

      Reply
      1. Marco

         George W. Bush? Not President Obama?

         Reply
         1. Mark Biernat

            No this is about Obama. George Bush was not a libertarian and did not help the economics of the people of the USA. Iraq was out of control and this did damage to USA’s credibility. He was not a great President. And then the Republicans ran a Neo-Con War Monger like John McCain, further did not help anyone so Americans choose Obama with hopes of peace and fiscal sanity, remembering how Bill Clinton did run a surplus.

            Well that did not happen. Obama is too afraid to be his own man and listens to the generals for foreign policy. He blew up the budget based on Keynesian economics which does not work and never did. Anything Bush did is dwarfed by the damage Obama did to the US and world economy.

            I am not 100% against Obama, I think he had good intentions but I do not think highly of him. For example, during his inauguration he was cutting Bush down. What a poor show of class and taste. You do not cut a man (sitting next to you) who served the USA during very hard times just to make yourself look like a savior. That was for the election not for the transition of power. It would have been better to say nothing. This disappointed me, and is telling about Obama’s character in general. And yes the rest is history. He did not have the sense to lead to country to peace or bring sanity to the budget or protect personal liberties and rights of the citizens.

            Reply
      2. Susan

         And I certainly hope you are correct, Love your posts.

         Reply
         1. Mark Biernat

            Why would you not be optimistic? I think the media paints a picture that does not reflect what will happen. You have to consider things like the swing states and voter turnout and the economy at the time of the election. People at the end will vote Romney as he stands for morals and ideals as well as sound economics.

            Reply
5. Chris A.

   Not surprised that Obama won’t make this election. I honestly was a little hopeful that he’d be a great president, but once I learned he was starting on Health Care and not our failing economy, I lost all hope. He has barely done anything useful at all for the nation. He may have passed Healthcare and be respected as the first African American President, but that’s useless for when we need a true leader during our troubles. I would love to now see an Epic Rap Battle of History by nicepeter of Obama vs “Teddy” Roosevelt and his big stick of power.

   Reply
   1. Mark Biernat

      You make an important point. That is many people were hopeful. Even myself, although I was not a Obama supporter I was not against him. Rather,I had a more wait and see if his actions matched his words.
      What he has done is betrayed so many people who put their hope in him to be a stong leader and champion.

      He focused on the wrong issues. He focused on health care because Hilary was there. He was too weak on his reduction of US militarism because he was afraid to go against the grey haired generals about the US role in the world and how it fits into the constitutional understand of the US military.

      He took advice from academic advisors on the economy and economics who live in ivory towers build in the 1970s. But he himself has no business or economic understanding personally.

      I wish I could advise him as I know what needs to be done to snap the economy out of the crisis and recession.

      He being a young President was afraid to be his own man. Rather a polished figure-head who is afraid to go against his advisors for fear of messing things up.
      NewsFlash if you want to be a leader you have to lead.
      The result people who put their hope and trust in him are disillusioned. And the US needed a great leader at this point in time.
      As an American, regardless of my political party I am disappointed. Although I was not for all his ideas, I did have hope in him to be a leader.
      That is the bottom line why I think Obama will not be re-elected in 2012.

      Reply
   2. Steve

      Yes, all people in America have insurance except 8% of the people and if you get rid of the people who are not supposed to be here it would realistically would be 3%. So, we want to change the American people’s health care system for 3%. This system would actually break any country that would use it, but you have to be smart enough to see it in the first place. And we have so many people on entitlements that it is a joke. You have to make people responsible, no one respects what is given to them compared to earning it yourself.

      Reply
      1. Sandi

         I’m sick of hearing about entitlement from people that have no idea of what they are talking about Social security, Medicare are not an entitlement, if this is what you are referring to. Americans have paid; paid, all their working years into FICA, sometimes more than taxes; if you work you are still paying. It was promised that it would always be put aside; not used for other Government issues. If you worked for others, it was automatically taken out of the paycheck.

         The American government stole it from it’s own people, to pay for other problems that they faced. Now people call it an entitlement. It’s our money, individually based on what we earned our entire working years, like an insurance. Now it’s became like a Ponzi Scheme, with threats that it may be taken away. What will The American’s do, especially the sick poor?

         As for people that were not citizens, but became, are also entitled, they pay FICA also. Obamacare made matters worse. With all the Medicare Plans BCD,etc. Once you go on these plans, which are run by Insurance companies’s, Social security starts taking money out of your Social security check. His Plans are being paid for by the Individual; Medicare itself doesn’t have to pay. Our government is not giving anyone anything, especially since Obama. I am trying to tell you that this hurtful word entitlement is a lie.

         Never heard it until Obama came into our lives. Why doesn’t he close up all these useless offices all over the Country; put all Fed Offices in one location, like Taxes, social security, Medicare, etc. How much money could be saved; they will all be on one page; not tell the public different information about the same question.

         Wake up, Obama spends too much; not on this country, only on him; his Croney’s, I believe he was a big, big mistake, but was well endorsed by who knows, with lots of money. I never heard of him before he ran for office. Now the question is “Who was or who is he? Waking up too late. Thank you.

         Reply
         1. Mark Biernat

            You have a point that Social security is something that we pay into, but people who work for the government also say they are entitled to pension and benefits and earned it. In fact many government transfer of wealth can be justified, that they earned it. Not all but a lot.

            It would be simpler if the government was not in the business of reallocation of wealth, even if it is from the present you to the future you.

            Why not just give people the option to take their social security benefits and self fund their retirements. Or just end Social security all together. If people are not surviving or homeless this can be handled in a negative income tax. Government should not be in the cradle to the grave business.

            Reply
            1. Sandi

               Dear Mark, I replied to you, But it was lost just before I was ready to send it. But please leave out the matter of Social security. Hope you never need it.

            2. Mark Biernat

               I get so frustrated when I write a beautiful comment and I lose it though some fault of my own. I am sorry that happened. Sometimes I can recover the the comment by using the back button.

               About social scecurity. If the government would give me my hard earned money now, I would buy a house. I earned it and worked for it and why should they keep it from me? It is very unhfair.

               Do they know how to spend my hard earned money better than I do?

               I think there are more effective ways to help the poor and elderly than draining the productive energy from the wealth creators. If we lived in a land without social security or income taxes in the USA the roads would be paved with gold and the poor here would be like the super rich in other countries.

               In fact, I have traveled the world and lived a good part of my life in other countries and the poor in the USA are pretty much like the super rich.

               Like the woman down my street with a 1/2 million in cash in the bank and a 300,000 dollar house paid off, and on full disability and social security and she is 52 and out gardening every day. How is that fair when I work my butt off to support my family?

            3. Sandi

               I haven’t got the faintest idea what you are talking about. You sound like you are a little mixed up. Unless the Citizen is wealthy, there is no way the average Citizen can fully exist on social security.

               Are you aware that there are people out there in their 70’s plus, either still working; can only earn a certain amount because they get Social security, the amount is so small, especially when the economy is in this position.

               What about the middle class or poor? There are only two categories today, rich or poor, the poor are suffering today & not for social security they would have no food & would be living on the street. Not being able to find work or too ill. The wealthy also get social security, they paid FICA also & are entitled to get their money back for what was the richest country in the world. They also get a limited amount from what they paid in for years. The Gov’t who squander money is to blame for our huge debt. I agree with you on one point. The pensions they get for the rest of their lives when they leave their jobs. The Presidents that had to borrow from China, the upkeep of too many offices for the same.

            4. Mark Biernat

               You are really into class division, categorizing people by class. Lets start with this, What if your definition of ‘poor and suffering’, specifically for one person, what income?

            5. David Rafael

               My mom did. It’s called not taking debt into your sixties. It’s called saving money. It’s called being frugal (do you really need a new Volt at 65?). Social Security was never meant to provide a lavish lifestyle, it is a safety net.

            6. Mark Biernat

               After my neighbor crying poverty when she lives in a 1,400 square foot house and drives a 2008 Toyota, I think Americans have very high expectations about lifestyle and project a lot of anger and blaime on others. I think that is a nice life. Social security is only a safety net and saving and working is the nest egg.

               I would rather the government get our of the social security business all together and give us back out money.

            7. Mark Biernat

               Government just wants to make money off of you, the less them better, Obama is for more, it is that simple.

            8. Marc

               You sure do have a lot of retired neighbors Mark. Do you live in Sun City?

         2. Marc

            I think you were grossly misinformed Sandi when FICA was taken out of your very first check. Nowhere was there an account with your name on in which the funds were deposited with each paycheck. The program has always been pay as you go for the current beneficiaries.

            You use the word Ponzi, which by definition it probably true, but again, it was setup as pay as you go.

            You mention Medicare parts A-D and money taken out of social security payments. Well duh, nobody said it was 100% free. But then again, my dad has $100 taken from his check each month which is a far cry from the $2,100 I pay to cover my family through an individual policy each month (or every 4 weeks or every 30 days). And for what it’s worth, Medicare parts AB is not administered through private insurance. It is only if you join a Medicare Advantage plan, please get your facts straight before commenting.

            Regarding your comment on consolidating federal offices. That’s such a idiotic comment that I won’t even respond.

            Lastly, your comment on Obama presiding over enormous government spending, this is a myth according to the OMB. Here is an interesting (no partisan) link to an article conveying the truth, that government spending grew at a paltry 1.4% since 2010. The largest increase, in case you are interested, was by during Reagan at 8.7%, followed by GW Bush at 8.1%.

            http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

            While I swing both ways (politically), and don’t necessarily support Obama, I am all about fairness and what this guy has had to endure in regards to attacks and mis-truth’s is simply incredible. He’s a socialist, he’s a communist, he’s a Muslim, he paled around with Rev Wright, he’s anti-American, he’s a Kenyan, he’s anti-business, he’s anti-capitalist, he’s going to confiscate our guns, he’s going to be soft on military force, the lies are never ending. In 15 years we are all going to look back (dems and repubs) and say to ourselves, “geez, none of that was even remotely true how in the world did it gain so much traction?” just as we said in 1995 that Clinton was a tax and spend liberal, which clearly was not the case looking at it so many years later.

            Reply
6. Eric Gerber

   Lately I got the answer to the huge amount of the funds Obama Campaign received in 2008.
   Most of those funds came from foreign countries and were camouflaged to be legal here in the United States .
   This fact has been commented in different foreign medias,for me in 2008 Obama was mostly financed by foreigners.
   It simply amount to treason.

   I just hope that te Republican party is aware of that fact and tells the truth to the American People .

   Reply
   1. Mark Biernat

      That is an interesting theory, where did you read this? If it is true it is not something that should be allowed.
      Why? If you are a student of History you know about Poland. It had the first constitution in Europe and was a democracy. In the 17th century, foreign powers influenced the election with donations and power. Foreign and domestic policy was not in the best interest of their own country but always thinking of the world around them. The country eventually ceased to exist after foreigner powers partitioned Poland three different times.

      I think the stage is set for a long-run decline for the USA as it is focused on other countries rather than its own citizens. It is not inevitable but the stage is set. This has not been helped by Obama as he is a bad emperor.

      Reply
7. elaine

   I am 64 years old and have never heard a senator call the President a liar out loud while Congress was in session. I knew then that they knew a lot more than what was being told. They have no respect for him. I did not vote for him mainly because I could see thru his charm and charisma and was very leery of him.

   “He promised all these wonderful things”, a lot of things that I knew were impossible.

   I truly believe he hates America and wants to destroy it. If you read his book, “Dreams of my Father”, you will see the colonialism (the west-America) ideals was something his Father Hated. His Father hated America and England. Dont you remember the bust that was given to America by England, he made white house staff put it away. Also, he is the only President to ever put his feet up on the desk designated for President in the oval office.

   This desk is from a 1700 ship and was a gift to a former President from England? That is his way of showing what he thinks of their gift. The desk is beautiful. It was built from a ship in England from wood that was a 1700 ship. To see his feet up on it is a disgrace. Look at his first trip to England, how he insulted the Queen. Now we are closer to the 2012 election, so when he goes to England this time, he goes all out and treats the Queen and family with respect. Did you notice that they were not invited to William and Kate’s wedding.

   People were making comments, he never goes to church, well what do you know, he goes to church one time, with the cameras there for all to see. He is an atheist. He was invited to 911 memorial last year, did not go. Well here comes 2012 election and there he is at this 911 memorial, He invited Bush and Clinton to shore him up. They knew he was using them and they both turned down the invitation. He changes who he is, to fit the need. But, I believe we all know just how evil this man really is. Of all things to have a President who hates america, How scary is that?

   Reply
8. Adam

   I don’t think Obama is a bad men. I doubt very much that he is an atheist but if so, so what there is there not a separation of state and religion in the US. Was Jefferson a religious men ?

   In addition or to complement your 101 reasons

   I think that the real negative point about Obama other than being an opportunistic political animal is that he naively surrounded him self with academics with little if any practical experience, You know,the kind of overeducated idiots and intransigent leftist ideologues.

   Perhaps its time to educate new students to learn to vote for something other than a person’s charisma. Unfortunately this is not going to happen any time soon.

   People that think that the government is “us” because they vote for its leaders are more often than not living in the Twilight Zone.

   Some one said “it isn’t necessary for a politician to fool all the people all of the time but a majority on Election Day is enough.”
   .

   Reply
   1. Mark Biernat

      About Obama, you hit the nail on the head. That is, he is an opportunistic political animal. Why do people see him other than this? He is a well scripted and rehearsed actor. Perhaps this is why so much of the Hollywood crowd got roped in, to his ideology of change. It is a bit of a cult of personality. Charisma, smooth talking smiles. I do not know if people can wake up from this and vote against him. Will students and the young be able to look objectively at the ideas behind the smiles.
      Nothing wrong with personality, but the fundamental reason he is a weak president is this ideas are based on Keynesian economics.

      Th idea that government can take a top down approach to economics has never worked. It did not work in the 1930 with the new deal, it did not work in Eastern Europe with socialism, it does not work in Cuba or North Korea or anywhere nor anything. Top down economics does not work.

      A few exceptions are some social countries like Sweden that have a high standard of living but this is not because of socialism but despite it. It was capitalism working in the country that made them rich.

      Further, it was because they were not destroyed during WWII and was able to sell strategic metals to the Germans and profit greatly, they used the capital to expand production of home industries while the rest of Europe lay in ruin in the post war years.

      Therefore, like the Swiss they had an advantage from the start, but the Swedish economy is faltering now. Further, contrary to the myth they are the great example of socialism success, it was the capitalist elements that build up the country from Saab to Ikea, this is what made them well off.

      Some people say look at China. Well similarly China is doing well to the degree they are embracing capitalism. They are developing a middle class even.

      So I got off topic a but, government lead economics never ever works in reality.

      Obama may be a smart and well-intentioned man, but he is a foolish man and the academic university advisors he has surrounded himself with gave him a sense that despite his youth, he would be OK. He thought get good advisors and he will be OK. Nice theory. I used when I was in management professionally. I would sit on top of the process and the specialist would help me.

      What went wrong? He picked smart men with foolish ideology. Ideas like Keynesian and socialism.

      The question is the USA destroyed or can it come back from this?

      All of Eastern Europe and post socialist countries admire and look to the USA as a beacon of hope and personal liberty. I hope the USA in the next 18 months can radically reverse the damage Obama has done.

      About Obama and faith:
      I do like the idea of separation of church and state. Further, I think many of the founding fathers were Deists in the enlightenment understanding of the word, also Unitarian. I do not know if any were not specifically believers? It is a good question.

      However, I have softened my view and think you can live a good human
      life even without a belief in God. My way is, Faith + humanism (more
      enlightenment libertarianism and a fundamental trust in life).

      So whether Obama believes or not is one issue, but his actions and ideas which he acts on is another.

      Reply
      1. Katya

         As a non-American I can second the idea that the world does look to the USA. That is, no matter what is wrong in our particular country at least there is the USA. We may have corruption but the USA is a model.

         If the USA starts to move in a direction that we are moving away from, than world perception will and is changing. I do not know if I am making any sense?

         Reply
      2. Marco

         “Some people say look at China. Well similarly China is doing well to the degree they are embracing capitalism. They are developing a middle class even.

         So I got off topic a but, government lead economics never ever works in reality.”

         China’s economy is government directed. That is, the Chinese communist party’s leaders determine the direction of the economy. And, Chinese local and regional bureaucrats are corrupt.

         Try reading The Economist before writing drivel.

         Reply
         1. Mark Biernat

            Do not kid yourself. If you or I want to do business in China, we can do it on the Internet. We can basically order anything we want from entrepreneurs and capitalists. China is a very capitalist country and the leaders and party members just skim off the top and create barriers for up and coming entrepreneurs unless you pay them.. The socialist and communists slow the development and distribution of wealth to the middle class.
            China is a mixed economy a little capitalist and a little controlled. But it is not Soviet style central planning. It is government supported capitalism with corruption and distortions in the market.

            Also the Economists has been wrong about many things. I remember when they called for the end of the Swiss Franc and brace yourself for a sharp decline a couple of years ago. Look at the Swiss Franc today.
            Read Paul Krugman from the New York times. Very respected, but very ignorant so publicity and an understanding of economics do not go hand in hand.
            Explain to me in simple terms how a controlled economy is better than a free economy, where people get to choose what they demand and supply?

            Reply
9. Adam

   “reasons” = one should read “reasons” + one

   Reply
10. Adam

    “Why do people see him other than this?”

    Mark.

    I think that we tend to make a mistake in judging and believing that because a person received an very good education that he or she is now fully prepared and capable of functioning above average in society.

    My point is this: To “know” is very different than to be able to think and be rational. I sense that we to often judge people only for what they know. Of course I am not saying that knowledge is not important that would not make any sense. What I am saying is that our brains are and needs to be something more than a warehouse of knowledges.

    The brain needs to learn to think and not to be programed to trust every thing it ears.

    Did what Obama promised made any sense? No but it was much closer to the irrational and fantasy world of the Hollywood crowd that you have mentioned and that supported him.

    “Is the USA destroyed or can it come back from this?”

    It can come back and I feel that most people still believe in the original idea of America. “Egalitarian as to opportunity only ” but we need leaders that also believe in it. It’s time to stop talking about changes and revert to what worked “FREEDOM”. Intelligent people don’t tend to fix what works.

    A real normal honorable and honest men only needs one promise and that is the opportunity to live, produce, (he will make is own mistakes and learn from them) in freedom and to have a form of Government that protect that freedom. This from of libertarian Government is what prevent us from existing instead of living. We are not tools or automated ants.

    The phony promises by pretentious opportunist are sold to a Mal-Educated population. Most of the problems that Government are promising to solve have been created by Government in the first place. Its as if our leaders are the enemy of freedom.

    Its not Capitalism or the people of USA that are destroying there country its the politicians and as you say there “top down approach to economics”

    Being bankrupt is sold as a problem that can be fixed. Its not a problem its an act of irresponsibility and to think Obama and is magicians are trying to fix it by issuing even more credit.

    The bigger the Government the more the incentive to rob its subjects. We have now created an new economic model I call it “inverted motivation”.

    Instead of thinking about how we can improve our lives by being more efficient and productive its now more and more on how much money people can we get from our Government. Weather its the welfare sate and there multi-generational welfare dependence or the gigantic corporate welfare and there lobbyist in the parasites Capital of “Washington, DC.” “The printing press capital”
    We have reach a level where often several investors don’t even invest there money rationally but do it in order to save taxes.

    “The founding fathers were Deists” and they where also very smart and predicted that if not careful the US would end up the way it is now. They feared the kind of democracy we have now.
    Originally the Federal Government was not as important as the individual States.The Federal Government was careful not to lose one of its State members as they absolutely and legally could secede. Lincoln the centralist changes all that but that is for a another day.

    Reply
11. Reality Check

    Obama will not win in 2012.- The only reason he won in 2008, is because a great number of people voted for him, for the wrong reasons.

    1.- They got caught up in the “idealism” of it all. Yes it would be “so cool” to elect the first African American President. – It was the “cool” thing to do. (Even though I personlly didn’t agree with his wacky policies, I think it is wonderful that we have come this far, and an African American can not only run for the highest office, but win it. -And I was/am very happy for the African Americans and Minority folks) – So-Obviously most of the black population voted for him. They didn’t pay much mind to what he was actually “Saying” in those pretty speeches he made. And they didn’t bother to really look at what he was planning –

    2. -People wanted to Punish the Republicans – But that was dumb and irrespnsible.

    3.- Most of the mainstream Media is Far Left. – They campaigned for him (Ethical and fair journalism out the window-But Hey, they got their guy in -Thing is – alot of blacks are not pleased. Spending is just insane, and the country is in far worse shape now.- Not to mention, his “socialist” policies are not “flying” (Thank God). – People are regretting it now. – Enough that I believe he won’t be re-elected this time.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       I remember Hala Gorani from CNN was giddy with what can only be described as restrained jubilation when Obama won the election. The media is partial because the people who study journalism have a poor understanding of money and markets. However, money and markets the average citizen the most when they do not have a job.
       I am reminded of when Argentina elected a president who was a totally pretty boy. She destroyed the economy. special things like skin color or looks are poor reasons to vote for the leader of the free world.
       McCain was a Neo con who said we should stay in Iraq for 100 years if we have to. I do not think that helped.

       Reply
    2. Adam

       Good point Reality Check ”

       It is wonderful that we have come this far, and an African American can not only run for the highest office, but win it.”

       I sense however that the democratic party takes the African American vote to much for granted. The so called great society of Lindon Johnson is now collapsing and more and more African American are starting to see the light. They are tire of corruption from there leaders and the dependency culture as got to stop.

       America is about equal “opportunity” not buying vote with dependency.

       Reply
       1. Mark Biernat

          Yes to the above, but also consider African Americans are like 12% of the USA population. So although their vote is important, I think it was the vote of non-African Americans who wanted to make themselves feel good, by voting not on an understanding of the issues, but rather out of emotion. They got caught up in the hysteria.

          The irony is the black guys I know are all conservative or libertarian. If you understand libertarian or enlightenment thinking, it believes in the equality of people more than the democratic party which does nothing for the true liberation of people economically or socially.

          Maybe that is just my circle of friends, but I think you are right when you say that more and more African Americans are tired of the Democratic party selling them a line.

          Reply
    3. Brooklyn

       Yea, a lot of people I know flat-out said “Personally I don’t give a darn what Obama says or does, he is black, I am black, therefore he gets my vote, period!.”

       Sadly, much of the same people & now their children who are old enough to vote now STILL feel the same way & have passed this on to their children. They really don’t follow politics, most are sheep, if that.Politics is “boring” to them.

       Whites that I know a good majority said the same thing except it was more so along the lines of ‘That would be epic to have a black president.Obama it is. It’s about time’.

       And yes, it is about time, well, was about time, in the event that person, black male or black female is the right person to be in office (according to my views). They knew exactly what they were doing when Obama got put ‘in place’. Basically I don’t give a about race or gender.

       A lot are just basically blind or ignorant to anything.Anytime I have pointed out thing about any ‘President’ but Obama in particular they would make excuses or say ‘I don’t care, it doesn’t affect me’. Sad, but true. It’s almost maddening to hear someone, anyone, say that.

       I’ll keep my comments to myself in regards to the puppet and puppeteers.

       Reply
12. Camille

    The number one reason President Obama will be re-elected is there are only morons running against him. Right now he is a far better choice. Unless the other parties come up with someone who has a brain and some actual solutions we are better off with Obama. If you watched any of the debates you know exactly what I am talking about. I am sick and tired of Americans blaming President Obama for bad government decisions being made since the beginning of the Reagan administration. The damage is done folks and it will run its course regardless who is running the government. You have a bunch of overpaid prima donnas in congress right now that are manipulating the stock market with budget threats get rid of them they make the laws not our president.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       Have you never heard of Ron Paul? He calls for the elimination of the income tax, the Federal Reserve, balanced budget amendment and stopping foreign wars and assassinations today. He is a defender of liberty and rights of humans.

       Obama did not stop foreign wars, in fact expanded them. He expanded the industrial military complex, drove our future generations into debt which might not be able to be repaid, wants more taxes, less liberty and continues to lay waste on American competitiveness which will make the USA decline further in real and relative terms.

       Let me know what problems you have with a guy like Ron Paul or his economic understand of the world or his defense of liberty and life of US citizens?

       People might say, oh he can not win, what is the point. That is why I changed my party to Libertarian. At this point in my life I would rather do what I think is right for myself and the country, working within the system, then vote or support someone just because they are ahead in the polls.

       It is called having the courage of your convictions and being American.

       Reply
       1. Brooklyn

          And for that reason right there (ellimination of the fed reserve). They will never allow that to happen, ever.

          Reply
          1. Mark Biernat

             I would not say never. No one can predict the future. However, why it is not crystal clear these boom and bust cycles are caused by monetary disequilibrium, in most cases, which happen because the central bank or any organization from above can not macro manage the economy of the entire USA by turn dials and pressing buttons and pulling levers on the money supply like the great Wizard of OZ behind the curtain.

             Money is a commodity which functions like others which work under the laws of supply and demand and when you distort this then you have disequilibrium and non price rationing.

             Reply
13. Hersh

    Sir, you wrote a lot, but doesn’t count a lot. You have written too many points, but most of them based on one point, and you could have listed your 101 reason in three reasons. Also, I believe you yourself don’t believe in what you are saying.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       Each point will mean something different to someone else, that is why important to list them out, there are many more reasons. But we are all different and one point might be good for one person and another for another. Some people freedom in the economy matters, to others his foreign policy. What three points would you water it down to?
       Also Obama’s chance of being reelected is questionable at best. I am not thrilled with the GOP choice of Newt, but if it was another candidate or Ron Paul of course this would be much better. However, we have some time before the election and unless the economy improves why vote for someone who does not know how to fix it?

       Reply
14. Mark Biernat

    I think it will be President Mitt Romney. There is a not a large difference in policy between Romney and Obama. They are not Ron Paul, someone who would bring real change. But Romney will appeal to both the socially minded (Romney care) and the fiscally conservative and people who think social views and the environment are important.

    I think he will appeal to the fiscal conservatives, socially conservative has some neo-con tendencies so would get their vote anyway and he has an environmental side.

    So besides cutting a few billion off the budget more than Obama, he is not much different. But at this point, he is a better choice than Obama as he tends to be more free market. This is how America will see it.

    In a Obama vs Romney election in 2012, I can not think of too many good reasons to vote for Obama over Romney.

    Reply
15. barbiegirl, ny

    The one reason Obama could very well be re-elected: Illegal aliens! This disgrace doesn’t play by the rules, folks. So while all 101 reasons why Obama won’t be elected makes sense, you’re not counting on half of Mexico at the polls this November. Obama has even set up a hotline for these poor “victims” here: exposeobama.com/2011/12/30/obamas-christmas-present-to-illegals-247-hotline-to-help-aliens-get-out-of-jail/ –This at the behest of La Raza, who, no doubt, gave Obama an ultimatum. Why do you think Eric Holder is crying racism regarding states that require proof of citizenship before voting? It’s ruining the most likely way Obama would get re-elected. While I’m not at all happy with what’s running in the Republican party, whoever winds up being the candidate is getting my vote. A second Obama term marks the end of this country.

    Reply
16. Malinse

    I love this post. I personally think #42 is the clincher. Contrast Obama with Reagan in working with Congress. Reagan, at the end of his first term, was like a hand and glove with the Dems. Moynihan and Reagan were like two peas in a pod, much as I disapproved with Reagan’s compromising, it was what he believed the American government should be. Obama on the other hand must have something really good on Boehner, he can just about do anything he wants to push his un-American agenda, and Boehner just takes it. Obama pushes, prods, and brow-beats the Republicans into submission, He and the Soros’ and socialist machine must have a lot of dirt on the Repubs. to get away with this stuff. Politics is a dirty business, just ask Rove.

    Reply
    1. Jim

       I can see you are a Ron Paul fan, even though he has a couple of good idea’s he is a loon to most of us. His foriegn policy idea’s are way out there, saying Iran has the right to nukes. Nevertheless my point is it’s the economy stupid 1st, the small arms treaty to take away our 2nd Amendment 2nd, obummercare 3rd, Federal debt 4th. Those are the main reasons people better wake the hell up. Then the NDAA falls in there, unspeified detention of American citizens indefinatley. Obama is not stupid, he just isn’t smart, he knows exactly what he is doing. Every decision he has made is designed to undermine the Constitution, Capitalism and our freedoms. And I haven’t even touched on the gun running to the drug cartels. America has been the hope for the world, when they are down we have been there to pick them up, yes that has meant militarily sometimes but we are the strength that keeps tyrants in check. Now we have a tyrant at our helm.

       Reply
       1. Mark Biernat

          First the way you start your comment is a little emotion base, by using terms like ‘loon’ or ‘joke’ or ‘way out there’ or ‘stupid’, instead of being more objective and factual.

          Ron Paul’s ideas are pretty solid, such as free money or a least make the Federal Reserve bank less dangerous. I mean they did start the business cycles in pretty much ever crisis from the Great Depression to the present. The Income tax is a burden not a blessing on the American people. The wars over the last ten years and before were a waste, those resources could have been applied to something great in R&D for example.

          Even though, Dr, Paul will not get elected in 2012 but I hope more Americans will yield to the logic of this ideas. Just pick up some works of the Austrian economists ( and yes I did study those writers in their original books). Brilliant minds.

          I do not think Obama is trying to intentionally usurp power from the American people as part of a master plan. however, I do think the Bush-Obama doctrine is questionable and unconstitutional. I do think the detention of US citizens is wrong. I think the American election is a battlefield over state socialism and the common good or maximizing the greater good by protecting the freedom of the individual.

          I lived in Eastern Europe too long to believe in the fairy-tale of the state as the protector of the common good.

          Reply
17. Paul Byrd

    I think many of you are forgetting one very important thing. About 50% of Republicans are still moderates, and the conservative values seen in this article are not representitive of the more moderate middle. (BTW – I am Republican, just in case anyone really cares) I suspect that if the Republican party goes conservative (Santorum), and I believe it will, Obama will win. It won’t be by a great margin, but he will win. A good deal of the middle ground moderate Republicans don’t associate themselves with hard core conservative values. They will either vote Obama (very quietly of course), or they won’t vote at all. Either way, this gives Obama an advantage. So, I wouldn’t write him off just yet. The economy is improving somewhat, and he only needs about 2 more percentage points to really put the squeeze on the Republican challenger. I fear a wild swing to the right will doom us to four more years of this highly progressive president.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       Santorum is a threat to a GOP victory in 2012 because he is painted as a conservative, whereas Romney as a moderate. The election is determined by not the right or the left but the center. However, even if Santorum is the nominee, I would not say Obama will win. This is because:

       I do not think Obama has the answers. In fact I know he does not. Not for the economy (New deal II = Raw deal for those not in the public sector, if we recover it will be in spite of his policies), not for foreign policy (continuing the Bush-Obama doctrine) and not for monetary policy (long live the boom bust cycle). His administration has been a complete failure.

       I sometimes in my movements of weakness think his social medical coverage is not that bad. On an abstract level it is actually a good thing, as despite the statistics, a lot of people I know do not have medical coverage or something with a deductible so high it is not worth mentioning. Further, if we stopped the overseas wars and just had homeland security and American soil defense, we could afford all this and more. It does work at some level in Europe, but not to the end.

       However, I know this would be adding fuel to the fire and would be another unending stream of debt and credit the USA would be strapped with, if human nature concerning ‘free’ is correct.

       Dislike me if you will, but I am pro-life and can not support the idea that I am funding Obama’s vision of treating pregnancy under preventive care. That is, I have to pay for other people’s contraception or termination of life. Children are not a disease in my view. That alone will not allow me to vote for Obama.

       Obama is leading the USA to a path that is not congruent with many people’s views in the USA and moral beliefs. They might not voice this aloud because they are afraid of being shouted down.

       In the end, maybe it is not the economics as much as the silent army of devout people who see Obama leading America down a dark path.

       I am not in any way shape or form a fundamentalist, just the opposite. In fact pretty liberal in my beliefs about morality, I think most would brand me as borderline heretic or at least progressive thinker to the max. I am anti supernaturalist, cynic, skeptic, I like organizations like the Skeptical inquirer and debunkers like the Amazing Randi, but also love theology of Hans Kung or writing of Martin Gardner. So it I am pretty far left on the belief’s spectrum.

       However:

       Obama is anti religious. Romney made this point and the Whitehouse can cry, but it is true if you look at things like the mandate to insurers and other issues.

       I can not go along with the Obama’s secular humanism and disrespect for the constitituion regarding the first amendment. I think in the voting many people will see it this way too.

       Therefore, I am sticking to my position that Obama is unelectable in 2012. I would rather say ‘you will see’, than ‘I told you so’.

       Reply
18. Roger

    I would rather my dog run the country.

    Reply
19. Col

    I wish I could believe this. I’m not counting on it being true. I pray that Obama does not win. If he does, we are doomed. We will be living in hell with the devil.

    Reply
20. Rosemarie

    Obama said the Islamic prayer call was the sweetest sound in the world to him, and perfunctorily bowed to Saudi royalty, a bow that came from habit: automatic, perfect and mechanical.

    His fake “stimulus” spending spree.

    Obama endlessly used the expression, “I will not rest,” to characterize his own vigorous intentions, but proceeded to take vacations and golf expeditions galore.

    In lecturing us about blowing our money, The Great Obama displayed breathtaking gall. Given that he is blowing trillions of our money, not his, and burying us in debt as no president in history, silence on the subject would seem more reasonable.

    Obama is the radical who deceitfully pretended to us that he was a moderate, transparent, and unifying candidate.

    Obama is destroying our military.

    Obama seeks to dictate in every facet of life, not by making laws, but through unaccountable agencies. This is what Ayn Rand has warned us against, the dark ages of The Bureaucrat.

    English is Obama’s second language, and his mother and grandparents and their friends were communists.

    Unions helped Obama force through ObamaCare against the will of the people, and then Obama gave waivers for ObamaCare to the unions and to his other donors.

    G.E. paid zero taxes, less than Romney, because Obama arranged it.

    Obama appointments like Eric Holder and Rahm Emanuel, who are thugs and bullies.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       It is pretty upsetting that Obama gave our future growth to people he chose. I am working hard every day of my life and with some physical challenges and have a family and he just goes out and reinforced the ‘haves’ with more power and money. He gave infusions of cash to Wall Street, he helped the housing market with team Bernanke bail out the housing market instead of letting prices adjust to a level. He boasted the Public sector with a Byzantium expansion of government.

       Basically all the people I know with stable jobs are in the public sector, the military or in some way connected with government. They get pensions and health benefits and take it easy. I am high skilled and educated and pretty smart and I work my butt off and I do not get any of that. Obama made some people’s lives in the USA very comfortable at the expense of the hard-working and people making money the old fashion way with creativity and hard work.

       Washington DC is like the capital of Panem (Hunger games). It is decadent and all of Northern Virgina is paved in the tax dollars and borrowed money of government transferring wealth from the working to the lazy.

       Reply
21. schwinn

    One more broken promise so that makes it 102 reasons, the medical grass clubs were not to be raided any more, and now they are still raiding them.

    Reply
22. Dennis Teel

    Another poster touched on this above, but there was no response. I’m very concerned about the Hispanic vote this time. Isn’t it extremely possible that Obama will serve a second term due to only the Hispanic vote? Considering how many Hispanics there is living in the USA wouldn’t it likely be ‘by a landslide’ if the majority of Latinos vote for Obama? And who’s to say that many of these votes wouldn’t be illegal?

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       I do not know which way the Hispanic vote will go. But I live in Florida. The Spanish people who got to my church are not for the anti-life policies of Obama. I know many people who will not say this out loud but they are one issue voters, that is life is sacred and this is the most important issue. Hispanics are Catholic. The church is really at odds with Obama over his life issue.

       I find it distasteful when people mix politics and religion but religion can and does affect politics. Even my vote. But I have my own personal ethic guided by my ideals and this includes life and me not wanting my tax dollars to fund things that Obama’s policies advocate.

       So if the Hispanics population votes with their heart and ideals rather than being bought by some promise of a government give away it could be a landslide against Obama.

       Reply
23. harvey karisma

    Basically, Obama simply is not up to the job. Not only are his policies wrong headed, the man himself simply does not have the background to be a chief executive. He has no more idean than the man in the moon how to run a complicated organization. In addition, the people he picked as advisors and surrogates are for the most part without experience in running organizations. So how could he be expected to succeed. Bill Clinton at least had the common sense to read the tea leaves and change positions because of popular demand as demonstrated in the midterm election of 1994. Obama seems to be such an idealogue that he is incapable of doing this.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       Obama is an idea not a leader. It was a nice idea to give him the Peace prize but he did not deserve it when people who sacrificed their lives or are in prison for being a freedom and human rights fighter. The idea was nice but he continued the Bush-Obama doctrine.

       It was a nice idea that Obama would stimutate the economy with Keynsian economics to be FDR II. But the New Deal did not work in the 1930s and did not work today. I can tell you he has no idea about economics. He is not a leader that has clear insights into the causes of the business cycle (such as the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy).

       I could go on forever, but he is not a leader just an idea put forth by people who really wanted to see change in the USA but got more of the same or worse.

       I wish I could teach him a little about economics.

       Reply
       1. f. carter

          If not Obama then who? Romney is running against the president that guy couldn’t lead a mule to water.

          Look here the whole world is in a turmoil when it comes to the economy and you want a person of flesh and blood to give you Reagan? That guy also left us a big deficit. Paul Ron is right this country is a warring country, and as long we can print money we will have small wars until we run out of the green stuff. Just like the Russian did in Afghanistan, remember the Germans had to financial help the Russians to leave Germany in 1989?

          Just think if we had elected that little bull-dog McCain, by now it would be bread and water old man.

          Reply
          1. Mark Biernat

             Obama Vs. Romney I will vote Romney. Obama Vs. Paul Vs. Romney I will vote for Paul. Obama is last choice.

             What war are you talking about? The wars that Obama has waged in Iran and Afghanistan and Libya and Syria and various other countries? I do give him credit for pulling out of these money sink holes. But I do not see Obama’s foreigner policy much different from Bush. It will be known in history as the Bush-Obama doctrine. Obama is a warrior president not a man of peace.

             Romney is more hawkish but at least he will try to free the domestic situation from the shackles of excess government.

             Reply
24. Pilot

    Your reason 70 states republicans learned not to elect someone like McCain. but they found a clown name Romney witch proves all of your reasons fail and makes Obama an automatic winner.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       Why is Romney a clown? Be specific and if possible focus on economics as that is the main issue at hand in the election of 2012.

       Reply
    2. pj

       Pilot: a clown name Romney witch proves all of your,

       That would be a clown ‘named’ and ‘which’ proves, Romney isn’t a witch.

       But the real clown is sitting in the White House! He has made America a laughing stock. He has turned the presidency into a circus. He is merely there for the power and the perks, he hasn’t worked, has no intention of working, and admitted he is lazy. So that tells it all. Power and perks. That’s all he cares about.

       Wait until your clown gets another 4 years. It will not be funny.

       Reply
25. tadonet

    Most of the arguments are sensible especially matters of money and jobs. However, there are 2 main issues to consider. 1. Obama is not an omnipotent creature, he heavily relies on technocrats to get things running. 2. Conservatives are also responsible for much of the running of this government following recent takeovers. So, avoid extremism and also acknowledge the logs inside your own eyes.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       I have no idea what you are talking about? Please explain more. ‘Tolerance’ like ‘change’, or ‘yes we can’ are nice sounding words but be more specific, please.

       Obama should be the leader and since the office of the President in our nation was set up as a strong office, unlike European governments, he does have the responsibility and ownership of his actions. However, he is not a dictator like I wrote in my last comment and nor is he to blame for all the woes of our country or economy. However, I guarantee you that I would not run the country into a path of long-term economic malaise.

       The USA needs someone with a vision that understands money and markets, the constitution and has the charisma to choose the right technocrats as his or her right arm. In the 300 plus million people in the USA there is someone better than Obama.

       Reply
       1. Fredric Dennis Williams

          Mark Biernat says “since the office of the President in our nation was set up as a strong office, unlike European governments . . . ” arguing that Obama should do more. Most Americans don’t trouble themselves to read the Constitution. If they did, they would learn that the president of the US has very, very limited powers.

          For the 200+ years since the country was formed, the effort to make the president a king has continued. But, to honor the oath of office, an honorable president would not make war (the job of Congress), would not establish tax policy (the job of Congress), would ask the Senate before making any foreign policy decisions, and would focus on the one job the Constitution makes critical: executing the will of the Congress.

          To pick a very good example of our dishonorable politicians holding this office, we have laws regarding immigration. No president has felt it important to enforce these laws. We have millions of people in the country illegally — and borders that is crossed by hundreds of thousands intending to stay illegally. Presidents do not seek to return these illegals to their homelands — but the law and Constitution would require that.

          Personally, I have many foreign friends and have known many fine illegal immigrants. But as President, it would be my duty to send people back home — until the Congress decides otherwise. Obama makes no effort to do what the law requires. He is lawless and dishonorable — and it appears that he hopes this will win him the illegal votes of illegal aliens, since efforts to require citizenship and photo IDs are being blocked everywhere.

          Criminals at the top assure a very unhealthy world.

          Reply
          1. Fredric Dennis Williams

             Sorry “borders are crossed” — most Americans think that virtually all illegal aliens sneak across the border from Mexico, but about half come in legally as tourists or with visas and don’t leave — and about half are not Mexicans.

             Reply
             1. Mark Biernat

                Correct, people just visit the USA and do not leave. Good point.

                On an unrelated issue but a rant of mine, What is crazy and a pet peeve of mine is a country like Poland who is a strong US ally in the Middle East and the world, still does not have open visas like the rest of the EU. Only when they discovered natural gas in Poland did Obama vist and mention the issue of maybe giving Polish citizens visa free travel like the rest of the EU. Poles where like whatever. Poles are EU members and can work in the UK and be closer to home, and make more money. The USA is OK to make money but it is not the 1980s or 1990s. If I go back to Poland I can get a job in a week, in the USA, it is a bit harder.

                My point is the immigration policy of the USA is a mess. And I think the illegal immigrants mess it up for the law-abiding good people who want to immigrant from other countries it is very unfair. They steal the rights from others with their illegal actions.

          2. Mark Biernat

             The office of the President has a lot more power legally in the USA than in Europe. In Europe the President is an honorific title. I am a dual US and Polish citizen, if you can honestly tell me that the Polish President or most other European Presidents have power like ours in the constitution let me know. The power in the parlement system is with the Prime minster or what is our speaker of the house.

             Explain to me how the US constitution is more limiting in power to the President than a European government?

             I agree that congress should have more power and the president in the USA has taken some of this power questionable like in the Iraq and Vietnam and Korean wars etc. However, the US President is set up to have more power generally than in the European systems.

             Reply
             1. Fredric Dennis Williams

                Here is what the US Constitution states are the duties and powers of the US President — read carefully to see just how limited and specific they are:

                1:  The President shall be Commander in Chief …

                2:  He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties…

                3:  The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies …
                Section 3

                (edited because to reduce duplicate content on the site, but can be read here house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html)

             2. Mark Biernat

                The US constitution says a lot more than that.

                First, he (or She) is elected by indirect representation not popular vote with the electorial college.

                Second, the power of veto is no trivial matter. Every bill hangs on this, unless there is real consensus in congress and this is rare as we are a split two-party system.

                house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html

                You are referring to Article 2. What about Article 1?

                Look at:
                Section 7 Clause 2 and 3 which deals with the creation of laws and veto. This is the a basis of Presidential power. To create a law or not by signing it or not. Without the President signing it the congress has to have a large majority to over ride a presidential veto. So when law makers design laws they do so with the President in mind, because what is the point?

                He is the legislative facilitator, the leader.

                This one idea of Veto gives huge power to the President. 2/3 majority with complex laws in both houses are basically very hard. So the president is a mini King, even if elected. Poland had elected kings and a legislative house that restricted him. But the power was in the executive branch. Should it be? I do not think so. There are many critics that say, the President has amassed even more power than envisioned by the founding fathers. I tend to agree. The endless wars is an example.

                I think the Congress should have more power than we do not get the cult of the President who the country looks to blame for everything or give credit to.

                What about the power to nominate Judges? This is huge. I think a Obama re-election would also hurt the USA just on that point alone.

             3. Fredric Dennis Williams

                I do understand your desire to prove the president has power, and certainly more than the largely honorary position of president in some countries, but the veto is a negative power. He cannot make the laws, he can only prevent the enactment of laws which he feels are not desirable. And this, too, is severely limited by the practice of the Congress to put together complex spending bills that include many things he wants and a few he does not want. He can disable the government with a veto, but is unlikely to do so.

                As for the power to appoint judges, it is not his. He must have the consent of the Senate, so he must not choose anyone that will be rejected by the Senate. Once chosen, they are not in his control.

                My point is not to diminish the actual power of the president, but only to point out the legitimate power, that which is specified in the US Constitution which he must swear to uphold. Mr. Obama, like his predecessors, does many things not authorized and fails to do many things that are required to enforce the laws passed by Congress.

             4. Mark Biernat

                America is great for many reasons, but it is not necessarily because the way Washington exist today.

                You are preaching to the Choir about limiting the President’s power. I grew up watching the Vietnam war on TV and my father was drafted during the Koran conflict and then there was countless US engagements after that to the present day. All called ‘police actions’ not wars. I think these were Presidential actions even if with funding from Congress, however, there was no act of war declared. They were more Presidents moving US troops on foreign soil like chess pieces and kings of old for preventitve wars.

                I could go on how the President and the Federal Reserve have too much power. There are books written on this subjects by respected political theorist and economists and constitutionalists.

                However, I am just saying now, as it stands the President of the USA is not only a bit of a cult leader where the world looks to him as the reason for the success or failure of the nation.

                I guess we disagree on one major point. I think veto power seems like nothing special, but it is everything in terms of power. Basically nothing can get done unless the president OKs it. It is like congress is the kids and the office of the President is the parents. The kids give ideas and try to influence but the Parents can override the ideas or initiate new ones to give to the kids to decide on.

                I also like the parliamentary system which lends itself to something more than a two-party system.

                Many people say the USA is great because we just are, our great democracy and ideas adn all. But every nation on earth thinks they are special. Ask the Japansese or the Chinese or the French. We all think we are great.

                I think we are great.

                But a lot of it also has to do with the geography of the country, that we did not have to be destroyed by European wars and powers crunched up against each other (look at Poland the first Democracy in Europe had Russian and Germany on either side) and we have manifest destiny of open land from shore to shore with only Native Americans with less military power stand in our way. We have endless natural resources (almost).

                I also think free market ideas helped. But I do think think on average we are the richest country of have the highest standard of living any more. Some people are rich and some people are poor here but most are paying the bills and work pretty darn hard to do that. I still would rather live in the USA than those rich European countries and I do have a duel citizenship and I could.

                It is not just the system of government the founding fathers gave us (they gave us slavery too so they were not perfect). If we were to improve on things, like change the way Washington does business, like limit the office of the President a bit or do away with the Federal reserve it could improve things.

                I agree with you go back to the ideals of the enlightenment.

                But many Americans naively think American is great because of the system of government we have now is the best in the world. That thinking has helped us slide a little in terms of competitiveness. Now that we are in a global economy, we need more self-reflection on why we are great and how we can be improved.

                I do think going back to the idea of the founding fathers, which were enlightenment ideas and free market ideas and representitive ideas is a good path. I think congress can be bad too, but with more people in the conversation in congress, there is saftey in numbers.

                What about grid lock? This is the default of the government when things do not work? But the good thing is when there is a grid lock that is not always a bad thing. When government does nothing (ecept collect pay checks) that is good. Less government is a better government, unless the current status quo is over whelming power of government.

                I think the best government is a small representive government with weak power. I think a lot of government can be done at the state and local level. I do not think we need this new Rome called Washington to rule over the fate of the country the way it does.

             5. Fredric Dennis Williams

                Is it measured by its size? population? military power? wealth?

                What is the measure of a human being’s greatness? His size? number of children? strength? money?

                To me, the greatest person is the one who constantly seeks to improve, sets an illustrious example, and helps others to improve.

                To me, the greatest nation can be identified by its history of constant improvement, by the outstanding example it sets as an ideal place to live, and by its efforts to assist other nations to improve themselves.

                By this measure, America has improved over its 200+ years, but has faltered in recent decades. It needs to improve again — and part of that improvement depends on a clear understanding of what is needed for America to become a better place for all its people.

                I see no sign that either Romney or Obama has a vision of a better country. I see no sign that either has the intelligence or leadership ability to achieve such a vision, even if they were to discover it.

             6. Mark Biernat

                Computer model for the USA relative to other countries
                Interesting conversation. Many times games can reflect reality more than arm-chair political philosophers or professional economists.
                Consider the greatness of a country in the framework of a computer game, my favorite civilization. If you do not know it, you will not relate to it, but if you do, it will hit home.
                I have been playing the computer game Civilization for years. It marks the progress of a country, and the victory conditions based on:

                1. Cultural achievements and completion of the Utopia project
                2. Economics
                3. Happiness of the people
                4. Expansiveness and general world domination
                5. Science and future technologies
                6. Diplomatic victory – that is how well the world community likes you

                If you look at the USA from the above criteria it would be a hard argument to say that the USA is a not a great society. I think the unhappiness comes from the sliding relative economic position in the world. But science and innovation and culture including the form of government etc, the USA is second to none.

                I think the USA has achieved world dominance but it is starting to slide relative to other civilizations, that is India with a demographic wave people do not see and China which we all talk about. In absolute terms these civilizations have not achieved economic or military dominance on par with us yet. Culturally they might be richer but economically it will be years before they will surpass us.

                We are not that far gone if you consider the whole picture. But you are right a civilization has to change its government and the way it is governed to be great. In the game civilization the cultures which use landed elite and kings were effective early on when the world was different but this model does not work in the modern world. If a government goes for more autocratic or social the civilization in the game progresses slower and it loses its edge.

                The game is just a silly game and I think it is a stretch to extrapolate but the game is well-developed and thought out over many million hours of play testing. So it is as good of a conceptual framework as any.

                I tend to play civilizations that maximize freedom and economic liberties.

                The USA would be wise to do the same. Again I go back to the ideals of the enlightenment and rationalism, that people are innately good and left to their own actions generally will follow enlightened self-interest analogous to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This in term will lead to a greater happiness for the people in aggregate and a greater civilization.

                Back to reality of the USA
                I have no idea where the USA is going. I do not like the more same old same old, I have seen in my lifetime. I think the golden age of America was before the Federal Reserve and before the income tax, at least in relative terms.

                But again, I am a duel EU and US citizen and I am living here. I just love the USA. It is a fun place and the people are innovative and open-minded and have many qualities you do not see as much in other countries but I am partial of course.

                I think I will vote either for Romney or Libertarian in October as the risk of another Obama Presidency is too great a risk. He literally does not know what he is doing with economics. I want to write a post about this, that is a skeptics guide to Obama or how to refute a Obama supporter.

26. Bobbie W

    The only exception I take with your post is that I personally, would not have said, “Poor Barack Obama”. He knew exactly what he was going to try to do when he ran for election. His mentor, Frank Marshall Davis hated America just like Obama does. I am of the full belief that Obama purposely did everything he did and did not do. Have we ever had a President that looked directly at the Congress in the SOTU and said, “I am the president”? And, he did that more than once. He’s also made it perfectly clear that he does not like white people. He has “shoved IT in our faces” for almost four years, and I honestly believe We The People have had enghouh. Basically, I think he is down right lazy and not exactly the smartest cookie in the package. Thanks for a really good post.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       Obama has a lot of faults. He is incompetent, has a weak brain for economics and a lot of fear as a leader to go against his foreign policy advisors.

       I would back that up by saying he does not understand markets and money and how they work as manifest by the failure his Keynesian economic polices and interventionist monetary fine tuning to look at the long-term. Further, he took the Nobel prize for peace but continued the Bush-Obama doctrine. However, as bad as a President he is, he I believe does not hate America and wants to do well for the American people. He mostly needs a lesson in economics. I want to be a pro-golfer but does not mean I should be.

       Reply
27. pj

    Because his Obamabot cult followers do not care what he does. They still slobber all over him. They do not care that he IS corrupt; they do not care that he HAS destroyed the Constitution and burned down this Nation; they do not care about his agenda or policies; they are too ignorant to understand any of it. All they care about is: he is black, so they’re going to vote for him again.

    And that’s not MY opinion. I’ve talked to numerous BLACKS who voted for Obama to see if they will STILL vote for him AGAIN after all the damage he has done to our blessed Nation. Their answer? without hesitation? is yes.

    Why? because they have NO CLUE what he has done. They were not interested. They elected him because he is black, and had no interest after that. And here we go with another election. They are no more interested in politics now than they were the first time around, but they’ll still vote for him.

    Anyone, regardless of race, color, or creed who votes for this Destroyer-in-Chief AGAIN, knowing all we know, is IGNORANT!

    Reply
28. Ron McCune

    President Obama is a great president and how he saved America from a Republican caused Depression and is pulling america out of this Republican caused Recession. Romney and the Republicans only want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich and give the rich other tax cuts. If you are not super rich then the Republicans are using you to enrich themselves.

    Reply
29. David Rafael

    “Health care is not fixed. Not his fault. The Republicans only allow a watered down version to get ,through.”

    I disagree with this statement, totally. The Republicans had almost no say in the Healthcare Bill with the controlling Democrats practically suspending parliamentary rules and the democratic process. This has resulted in a bill that isn’t sustainable, nor is it Constitutional.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       Being Catholic and with the moral absurdity of me being force to work and pay for something that goes against my religion, like other people’s contraceptives and life termination services, is pretty unconstitutional for me. It is very unfair and not what I consider living in a free society and a good republic. The issue of constitutionality of health care, the way it is structured now will make me not consider Obama.

       When the government gets its full hand in health care we will pay for some fancy $3,000 wheelchair, but not the preventative medical care to prevent a person from getting into the wheelchair.

       I think if society wants to maximize the common good, it should not do it from above but empower indviduals more with the way the constitutional writers envsioned.

       I think people do not see it this way but the culure war going on now is “greater common good” maximized via government or enlighted self interest.

       On the other hand, I would prefer to cut the WWII structured industrial military complex (battleships, carriers, tanks and two million men on the payroll) which is greater than 1 trillion dollars a year, than half the social programs on the cutting block. I mean our military will make us unsafe as the spending will weaken technological and economic advance and put us in debt. Better is to have a smaller military and stronger economy and technology will advance faster and give us a greater power edge. So I will disagree with health care on moral and constitutional reasons as well as I believe it does not empower the individual to have more responsibility over their health.

       But after living in Europe, I can understand Obama’s thinking. I mean many countries like Germany and Poland and Sweden and Japan have small militaries but everyone gets a University education and medical care at the basic level if you do not pay private. It is a trade-off. Guns or butter.

       American are so pumped up about the military like it is somehow connected to patriotism, apple pie and red headed freckled boys waving the American flag with the smell of fresh cut lawns in the summer. It is not.

       To me patriotism is about being true to the constitution and the ideals of this country. To be loyal to the protection of government, all governments that take away indvidual liberties of common people at the expense of promoting the ‘common good’. And though I can understand the thinking of the left and Obama, I disagree and am firmly opposed to it as it will a road that leads to serfdom.

       Reply
30. P.R

    It’s sad that Obama will most likely not be re-elected. In my opinion, what most people failed to understand was that he inherited a USA that was in its worst state in centuries and was continuing on a downward slide. I’m sure he did NOT want to bail out anyone or increase borrowing, but there were some stop-gaps that just had to be made. People don’t understand that arresting the slide is the first thing that needed to be done and he has pretty much been doing only that so far. And then fixing the core issues can hardly be achieved in 4 years time. The amount of damage done by Bush’s administration isn’t something that Obama (or anyone else) could accomplish even in 8 years, let alone 4. In a way, it’s better that Obama is not going to be re-elected. Let Romney come in and we’ll see how well he fares. Maybe then people will see just how much damage Bush had inflicted on the USA.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       Ironically I see the Bush-Obama doctrine extended and reinforced with Barack.

       If I was the President, I would have let the markets work. It would have taken guts but it is an ideological stance. I could give a darn about bakers or car makers. Really. What I do care about is protecting the US Constitution and defending the individual liberties of our citizens. If those economic dinosaurs fall through recklessness or sloth, more efficient job creating entities would have replaced them and we would not be stuck in a long-term slow growth poverty mentality we will now have to the next twenty years or until the next wave of entrepreneurial or technological innovation transforms things.

       I thought Barack was rude and arrogant by blaming Bush at the inauguration four years ago and to those continued accusations by his supports are at this juncture lame. He made things 100 times worse. To blame is lame.

       Further Europe followed him into this road to serfdom. For example, they will give Spain what 150 billion Euro this year, to the banks. Why not just give each Spanish household 80,000 Euro instead, at least they would know how to save and invest it more wisely? It is crazy the ideas that come from governments and Barack has the burden of responsiblity.

       I am not sad to see him go at all. He destroyed the future of the next generation of children unless something changes fast.

       Reply
    2. Bobbie W

       It would behoove you to do your homework. Blaming Bush is a sad and pathetic excuse. Sure, he had his problems as they all do. But, clearly he did NOT want to bring about the ruin of America like Obama does. Try to remember that in Bush’s last two years, he was faced with a Democratic House & Senate. That was not his doing. It was ours. I would take 100 Bushs’ to 1 Obama. Study your economics.

       • Obama’s socialist economics have never worked anywhere. Study your history (which does repeat itself). Obama always blames as you seem to like to do. When Bush was wrong, at least he was man enough to admit it.
       • Obama is a cold-hearted American hater, although not entirely responsible for this debt we face now, Has indeed raised it higher than any other president in history.

       Just take a look at some pictures of Bush with the Military and Obama with the Military. That alone should tell you everything you need to know. If you can’t see “obvious”, then you certainly suffer from ODS – Obama Derangement Syndrome. You cannot be helped.

       Reply
31. peter campbell

    Obama just put America more in debt, we are as weak as we have ever been, the sad thing is there will never be another black president because everyone will always look back, he had a chance to not only prove himself but prove his race, and lost big. I did not vote for him , and I never will, he has wasted four years in America and put us another fifty years behind, it will not be an easy task to undo everything he has done, on top of that, America is more likely to be attacked by other countries because of the sudden change in president, he broke every promise he made during elections last time, that is why he will not make it this time.

    Reply
32. King Geophrey

    OK, Maybe not really Martial law, but if Obama is rejected there is could be some case where his extreme ideas are pushed more to the extreme. Since second term presidents are not up for re-election, they do not have to worry as much about public opinion and can act on their real agendas more fervently.

    Reply
33. j bustos

    Hispanic,and proud to serve in all the interest,of the us as a 5th generation Legal born person with all the rights of voting obeying the laws of the Us and previously a democrat will be voting as a republican.we need to take back our country

    Reply
34. Brittany

    The reason people do not support Obama for re-election is mostly they have a problem with his race.

    Barack Obama is a great man and has the idea of moving the US to a more social European model of economics. There is nothing wrong with that. It is progressive and modern. People have social care in Europe and nice pensions and long vacations.

    What is wrong with letting rich pay for the middle class? The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, it is time that government does something to stop this. It is time someone brave like Obama took a stand against these capitalists.

    I think people in the USA who do not support such humanistic advances do so because they do not like the man, not the idea of humanistic European Socialism in the USA.

    Reply
    1. Camille Huntley

       You need to move to that wonderful European country that you think is so great, and take Obama with you.

       Reply
35. Mark Biernat

    I think race is not the issue, it is ideological. He is a European Socialist and you admit it. I do not think the USA should be following the EU in terms of economic policy.
    Social programs are great, but they drag the whole economy down until collapse.
    I mean for a social policy:, I will give everyone, $10,000 dollars in the USA cash a year and a new car and a new house, if they need it as a social policy, and pay for your groceries for a year. It sounds nice, and would get votes, but it no way to run an economy.

    The Soviets tried social engineering.

    I think you outline case and point why it is important not to vote for Obama. The man’s ideas are dangerous for the long-term economic health the economy, despite the warm fuzzies they give people.

    Just think why the Soviets took power and what happened. It all sounds good but it taking from the hard-working and giving to others to buy votes and power.

    The government gets bigger and bigger and then the tax base can not support the debt and spending and then no one is happy. Please do not vote for Obama.

    Reply
36. Mike B

    Why not re-elect Obama, the last Bush had 2 terms and he was for lack of a better word a `clown`. The whole world laughed at him and you for voting him in a second time. Now you have a good president but he is not getting the backing of the people or other politicians. So he his unable to make the drasitic changes that your country needs.

    Get a grip on America.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       Why is he good? What in your mind makes Obama good, please explain yourself. He transferred private recklessness of excess debt from the private sector to the public sector, and crowded out job creation. When you crowd out job creation in my mind that is hurting not helping the economy. If you would like to talk specifics please do.

       Reply
37. linda s

    I am a Black American and was a Democrat for 30 years. I changed to an Independent 8 months ago because I saw Obama was a fraud.

    He does not like America and he has not done a thing for blacks but use them for their votes. Sorry to say my black people Obama is a con artist. He came to mainland America when he was a young adult and grew up mostly in Indonesia and Hawaii.

    I really don’t believe he likes this country. He has only cared about the illegals and the gays. He is not so interested in real Americans. He is a passive aggressive I feel. Black people do not vote for him – he plans to take this country down the drain. It is sad but it is true. Obama acts like he is an illegal alien and has more caring for them not AmericanS. He is a strange person and can fool you if you do not really look at the facts.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       I feel similar. Although he sounds nice in words and speech I do not see how he concretely helps the nation. I also think is conflicted psychologically on issues of his conception of liberty vs the common good or more basic issues like faith and what it means to be an American.

       Liberals felt he betrayed their cause and see different ideological views.

       I personally switched to the Libertarian party as I have had issues with the Democrats and Republicans both. That does not mean I will vote Libertarian in the upcoming election, but would rather not being a card holding member of one of the two big parties that got us into this mess.

       I think Obama assumes he will get the African American vote in the USA. I would not assume anything because being American is more important than being Black, White or Republican, Democrat. If we have another four years of Obama it could hurt the USA economy for the next twnety years or more. I want a future in the USA and not have to go abroad to find more opportunity.

       Reply
    2. Don

       Considering Obama was a Democratic senator and helped create this “mess” hello. If I remember correctly, wasn’t the house and senate seats held by a majority of Democrats? I seem to recall Bush and his financial advisors warning of the housing market and the potential crash, uhm 17 times, and yet the Democrats out voted him.

       The day the Democrats took over was NOT January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

       The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

       For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this:
       January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
       The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
       The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
       The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

       George Bush’s Economic policies set a record of 52 straight months of job creation.

       Remember that day,
       January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
       The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

       Banking and financial services
       Thank you DemocratsS (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment. To this crisis by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 Trillion Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasoes!

       (BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a “Chicken Little Philosophy” (and the sky did fall!)
       And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? Obama
       And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
       Obama and the Democrat Congress, especially Barney.

       So when someone tries to blame Bush.

       Remember January 3rd, 2007, The Day the Democrats took over.

       Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.
       Budgets do not come from the White House.. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
       Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

       In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

       For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.

       And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
       If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

       If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
       In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is “I inherited a deficit that I voted for,
       and then I voted to expandoppositioncit four-fold since January 20th 2009.

       The opposition stated 0bama has not been able to “get past the silly gop obstructionists who would rather see the country crash than help the recovery” – But they forget, that the President and democratic party enjoyed a majority in both the House and Senate until Jan 2011. The Obama Administration had two years to advance an economic agenda. It didn’t.

       Another Obama green energy company goes bankrupt – 6 and counting… Obama’s energy policy is bankrupting America. http://thehill.com/blogs/?e2-wire/e2-wire/?206777-doe-backed-battery-company-files-for-bankruptcy

       Obama-backed electric car battery maker Ener1 files for bankruptcy
       thehill.com
       An Indianapolis-based energy storage company that received a $118 million stimulus-law grant from the Energy Department filed for bankruptcy Thursday. The company, Ener1, said Thursday it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in New York.

       It was senator 0bama and the democrats at the time who crashed the housing market allowing banks to give low interest lones to people with bad credit.

       Considering Obummer was a democratic senator and HELPED CREAT this “mess” HELLO!!!!!!!!! If I remember correctly…..wasn’t the house and senate seats held by a majority of dems? I seem to recall Bush and his financial advisors warning of the housing market and the potential crash…….uhm 17 times, and yet the dems out voted him…..

       The day the Democrats took over was NOT January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

       The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

       For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this:
       January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
       The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
       The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
       The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
       George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

       Remember that day in political economic history
       January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
       The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
       Banking and financial services.

       Thank you democrats (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment, to this crisis by (among many other things) dumping 5-6 Trillion dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Fiasoes.
       (BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a “Chicken Little Philosophy” (and the sky did fall!)
       And who took the third highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? Obama.
       And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
       Obama, and the Democrat Congress, especially Barney.

       So when someone tries to blame Bush.
       Remember when the Democrats took over Washington.

       Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.
       Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
       Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

       In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

       For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.

       And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
       If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

       If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
       In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is “I inherited a deficit that I voted for,
       and then I voted to expandoppositioncit four-fold since January 20th 2009.

       The opposition stated Obama has not been able to “get past the silly gop obstructionists who would rather see the country crash than help the recovery” – But they forget, that the President and democratic party enjoyed a majority in both the House and Senate until Jan 2011. The Obama Administration had two years to advance an economic agenda. It didn’t.

       Reply
       1. Mark Biernat

          Brilliant, Clinton took credit for something he fought against, and that is fiscal control. He also rode the wave of the speculative Internet bubble created by the Federal Reserve Bank (as always). The man was lucky. If he was an absolute monarch then he deserves credit but he was not. You have to look at an administration in the context of Congress and the president as well as exogenous influences.

          Reply
38. Fredric Dennis Williams

    While there are many fine reasons why Obama should not be president of the US, using a collection of specific facts to determine who will win an election is silly. One could easily show that Kerry should have defeated Bush, who failed to protect the US on 9-11, lied about Iraq and got us into two wars, skipped his duties in the national guard, etc. One could easily show that Senator McCain, with decades of experience in DC, should have defeated the newbie Obama, with no record of any merit.

    The first question I would ask of those making predictions is — have you correctly predicted previous elections? In 1988, I wrote a nationally syndicated newspaper article explaining why Bush defeated Dukakis — it was sent to the printer three weeks before the election. In 1992, I bet that Clinton would defeat Bush. In 2000, I warned partners that Bush would win the election against Gore. In 2004, that Bush would beat Kerry. In 2008, that Obama would win.

    A strong candidate could beat Obama, in part because of the reasons given here. Romney is not a strong candidate. He is not the brightest tool in the shed — when he is not boring, he is embarrassing himself. His bags of money will weigh him down — although Obama is rich and a big spender, most people will see Romney as a greedy, arrogant financier — the very sort of people who, they think, caused the current economic mess. Obama is better looking, a better speaker, and, as president of the US, he has many rabbits he can pull out of his hat.

    So, look at the polls — and look at the betting. The polls say Obama by 3% or so, the betting is 2-1 for Obama.

    I’d like to see a change. I thought Obama would win in 2008 and that even though he was totally unqualified, he was preferable to McCain, who graduated at the bottom of his class at Annapolis. I didn’t vote for either.

    As things stand today, I won’t vote for Obama or Romney. They are both unsuited to the job — both likely to make the same mistakes — enriching their friends at the expense of the country, working for more government, and unable to find a way out of the Second Great Depression.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       Point well taken, if Obama wins, if he does, win it will not be on his merit. That guy blew up the debt and destroyed US competitiveness for years. He has the country believing Government is the solution for economic cycles and compeititveness loss. It is not.
       However, if enough people yeild to the logica and facts of reality it will change elections. I think the last several elections were easy to predict. This election I would not be so sure about your +3% poll margin and wager. The election, is many months away and the job numbers are horrible and facts do influence emotions.

       Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

       Reply
39. beauley

    Let us just study the man and his honesty in simply keeping campaign promises.
    Obama quoted 06-24-12:
    “We answer to the American people”
    Didn’t President Obama promise the American people to label all our foods containing GMOs before his election 2008? Has he broken his promise? Can we trust Obama to keep any promises he makes in this campaign?
    Over 90% Of Americans were then and still are against GMOS.
    fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2011/oct/3/obama_promises_to_label_gmos/
    The big question is: Why did Obama lie to the American people so grossly just to get elected?
    There has been nothing done on this promise. Not even a mention of any action unless this is being kept secret.
    Will Obama do it again in the upcoming 2012 election?

    Reply
40. jj

    It is truely sad when an American President runs across the world to appologize for wars the United States took part in. Thank God my father was dead when he appologized for WWII. I have never been in war and I don’t like it, however, many of our own have been and many of their friends died for our freedoms, yet, our left brothers don’t see it that way. In fact, I see bumper stickers that say ‘Stop the senseless killings of war’, and next to it ‘Pro-Choice’, make up your mind, to die or not. ‘Hypocrites’.

    Reply
41. Casey

    Obama will win. I dislkike it but there’s no stopping him.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       Why are you so sure he will win because of current polls? The election is far away and a lot will happen between then and now. The most important thing is people need to realize that Obama is really destroying the country for many generations to come. He inflated the debt to dizzying highs and supports the landed elite and not the poor. He hangs the carrot on the stick of tax cuts of a few hundred dollars for the middle class which is nothing compared to if the economy was alive and rocking again and everyone would make 10,000 of dollars more.

       He is ant-life which in my mind he is not a good person. He is bad morally just based on that. I was watching his anti-life commercials in Florida last night and it is sick.

       I have decided I will vote for Romney, not Gary Johnson based on the life issue. If the Republicans can be more libertarian than this is a more realistic course, than drawing votes away from the political storm and battle ahead.

       I think it would be wise if Romney does choose Condoleezza Rice as she is in my observation very trustworthy and more capable than Biden.

       Too many factors to count Obama is a the guaranteed winner. I think the biggest is he as a man is not a moral person and I hope people will see this.

       Reply
42. Vera , Chuck, and Dave

    For a realistic view of the Obamas re-election chances, check out the bookies sites, who, unlike most pundits, put their money where their mouth is.

    Average odds:

    Obama 1/2
    Romney 7/4

    If you remain convinced of Obama’s imminent demise, liquidate all your assets , and put a bet on.

    Apart from having the press you want, you will be almost 3 times as wealthy.

    Any takers?

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       Odds change and favorites lose a lot. Further, it is not legal to wager on the election and I do not recommend it.

       ‘Never tell me the odd’ – Hans Solo

       These are nothing more than polls. A bet is placed by the number on one side or the other and this is always changing. Do not vote or base your future on polls. The book maker wins because he is like a stockbroker and takes a commission but he does not care which side goes up or down, it is the commission that makes him win.

       Just because there is an analyst that says a stock will go up or that supply and demand are in disequilibrium at open means nothing three months from now.

       Reply
43. vera chuck and Dave

    Didn’t know that betting on political contests was illegal? Not where I live.

    Anyway if bookies got the odds wrong consistently they would be out of business.
    they take a cold impersonal view

    Its amusing that those predicting Obama demise seldom have the guts to wager something on it, but after all, talk is cheap.

    if I was sure I would bet, I’m not sure, and either odds offered do not represent enough value to take a risk. I like, you or anyone else do not have any special insight. I at least do not claim I have.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       It is not legal to bet on political elections in the USA. You might be engaged in not legal off shore contests or something but I do not want to discuss not legal actions in the USA in any way shape or form. OK? Further, if you comment again please do not leave it in chat style, that is leave full punctuation including appropriate capitalization.

       But about your comment on how book makers make money, think of them more like a stockbroker taking a commission. They do not care. They keep everything in equilibrium by the supply and demand of a game. They are a pricing point and odds shift like the wind. Their money is make on the commission, while their job is to keep things even.

       However, underdogs win all the time. In fact it is an adage almost if you want to be a successful player, do not go for long shots or sure things. And there is no such thing as a sure thing.
       So why not stick to gentlemen’s bets which exchanges no money or profit and not illegal activity?

       This is about the fate of our nation and the next generation not someone’s idea to satisfy another adrenaline rush.

       Political ideology is an interesting topic why make it base?

       Why does when someone who is having fun on a Saturday morning have to bring out the drinks? Why can it not be intersting and thrilling in itself without ‘enchancements’.

       Why not just leave politics for citizens who care and the ‘games’ for the great economy of Vegas (a classic example of over speculation by the ‘experts’ on speculation).

       Vegas is a town which is run by people who were wrong and the unemployment and housing market there tells the story.

       Further it is kind of messed up to go for a team because you think they will win or lose, be for them for what they stand for. I mean if the odds shifted would you too? Stand by your beliefs and team in good weather and bad.

       And remember, the Opera aint over until the fat lady sings. Ask Dewey when he defeated Harry S. Truman and Dewey was president right?

       Reply
44. Bruce Vandiver

    I wanted to like Obama. I hoped he would be all he promised. Today I am disillusioned and cynical. We’ve waited almost 4 years for Obama to prove he is the man we thought we elected, the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize who would set things right.

    Well, I’ll give Obama another 2 months to convince me his promises were genuine and my support was not betrayed by a poser. Frankly I don’t expect much, but I’ve waited this long, I might as well give him the rest of the rope.

    Okeee… find a comfortable armchair. I’ve got 4 years worth of points and gripes to cover. It should prove to be worth the read.

    Why as a Democrat Obama is not working
    As a Democrat, I look at the future and see Obama running for re-election. Regarding the president’s re-election campaign, I’m not excited; nor am I particularly happy. Sometimes I wonder what happened to the man who promised Democrats he would make sweeping changes to address problems and steer America in a new direction away from the failed policies of the past.

    I look at America and see Guantanamo still open. I see America involved in more wars than president Bush started. I remember a candidate who promised to close Guantanamo and end the wars. I see vacant buildings and storefronts on the Main Streets of America and remember that conservative economic policies and lax regulation of our banking and investment sectors helped contribute to the economic downfall of 2008.

    Tax cuts on Obama for the record
    I remember strident conservative arguments that tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs for Americans. Over the 8 years of Bush’s presidency, those “tax-cut jobs” never materialized and millions of good-paying US manufacturing jobs were lost as Wall Street invested it‘s wealth in cheap foreign manufacturing. I think about Obama and I wonder why he has allowed the Bush tax cuts to remain in effect.

    In hindsight, I realize that Obama has not pursued the promises he made to progressive democrats with any discernible degree of enthusiasm, and I wonder why that is.

    Obama and his record on foriegn wars and the Nobel Peace Prize
    I look at the world and see wide-spread social and political unrest spreading across many states of the mid east. This unrest has spawned conflict that President Obama has openly encouraged and in some cases directly supported with funding and military operations. Obama took advantage of America’s desire to end it’s involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but has effectively doubled the number of wars we are involved in. The governments of several mid east countries, including Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya have collapsed and been replaced, while Obama continues to act against the governments of Syria and Iran.

    Obama claims his decision to use direct military force in Libya was intended to protect civilians. That tired old argument helped get us into the Vietnam War. You would think if Obama was going to lie, he could be more creative than that. Obviously he couldn’t re-use Bush’s dishonest claim about WMD (in Iraq), since Libya agreed to give those up a decade ago.

    Regarding those “civilians” Obama spoke of protecting, I remember TV video footage from Libya of men driving pickup trucks with giant machine guns mounted in the back. I remember seeing men brandishing AK-47s and RPGs. Such men would have been deemed battlefield combatants and mercenaries if they were fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan, but since they were fighting Gaddafi in Libya, they are “civilians”. This is intellectually dishonest. It angers me to think President Obama believes the public can be fooled and manipulated so easily.

    Americans have no idea how much involvement the CIA may have had in these countries, although the developments seem unlikely to have come about by pure coincidence, and more likely to be the result of careful planning and coordination. Like Iraq, none of these countries have attacked us. Remember when Bush said “Saddam must go, he must leave Iraq”? Obama said the same thing about Gaddafi in Libya. It was a Freudian slip. Now he’s saying the same thing about Assad in Syria. It’s unbelievable. Does he think we are blind, or just stupid?

    Regarding Libya, Obama has argued that the war powers act does not apply to him because we were not involved in “hostilities” as the legal term was intended to be used. The bottom line is Obama involved the US military in operations that were killing people in a foreign country that did not attack us, and he did so without the constitutional approval of Congress. In addition to this, Obama presides over a CIA drone program that targets and bombs groups deemed unfriendly in Pakistan and Yemen. Each of these individual acts tie together like a row of dominos leading ultimately to military action against Iran. Taken together, this strategic agenda seems to follow Dick Cheney’s plan for the mid east more closely than it reflects the will of the democratic base that elected Obama.

    Is this what his Nobel Peace Prize was for? War and mass murder for OIL and for Israel? I’m sure of one thing: We didn’t vote for this.

    Again, we dit not vote for this

    Obama is not progressive
    Many progressives have asked themselves where the change went. This man who rode a popular wave of change to the White House has applied that mantra of change almost entirely to Arab countries in the middle east, while little to nothing substantial has happened at home. Obama promised he would force a resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, but after 2 years he has not even gotten Israel to honor the obligations of it’s previous peace agreements.

    Israel and Washington
    In particular, the Road Map Agreement signed under GW Bush requires Israel to Stop all Settlement construction activity. This was Israel’s obligation under Phase 1 of the Road Map. Phase 2 would commence direct negotiations between the two parties for core issues and final status.

    Obama’s insistence that the Palestinians go to direct negotiations with Israel without a complete stop of Settlement construction CONTRAVENES the Road Map Agreement that he pledged to honor and uphold when he was sworn into office. Worse, Obama used his veto in the UN Security Council to protect Israel’s Settlement construction from a resolution that might have stopped it so that legitimate peace negotiations could proceed as per Road Map stipulations.

    Lastly, Obama has used the US leadership position in the Quartet to cripple it and prevent advancement of the agenda for peace it was formed to pursue.

    More evidence that Obama isn’t a democrat: He said he would end the war in Iraq. He didn’t, although he had 2 years to do so. Finally the government of Iraq threw us out when the “Status of forces” agreement expired, and now Obama wants to claim credit for ending the war. He didn’t end that war, it literally expired. Guantanamo is still open. Obama promised to close it. We all know that Obama promised to end the Bush tax cuts, but they are still in effect almost 4 years after Obama took office on a promise to end those tax cuts.

    Barack and national policy
    Obama also slow-walked DADT (don’t ask, don’t tell) for more than 2 years. He appealed a court verdict on a civil case brought by the Log Cabin Republicans that over-turned DADT as unconstitutional, warning of “significant and immediate harms on the government” if enforcement of DADT were ended.

    And Obamacare you say? What about the health care reform legislation? Obama removed the public option from that bill. The rest is a recycled Republican plan originally proposed by a group of 20 republicans, including Orrin Hatch, Charles Grassley, Robert Bennett, and Christopher Bond.

    More than anything else, political arguments related to Obamacare have been used as a distraction to divert our attention from what Obama is doing in the mid east, his failure to close Guantanamo, and his failure to investigate allegations that POWs and war detainees were tortured.

    Obama seems to operate on the premise that Democrats have no choice but to re-elect him because the other guys, the Republicans, are worse. Well. I’ve got to tell you I’m not ready to re-elect Obama without a careful analysis of what he promised to do and what he has actually accomplished for the party that sent him. From my perspective, that analysis does not produce a favorable result.

    We voted for a man who would end the wars, close Guantanamo, investigate allegations of torture, repair the economy, create jobs, reign in the un-regulated and immoral behavior of Wall Street, protect the middle class from job losses and mortgage foreclosures, and adjust our income tax system to better address the incomes of the wealthy that completely outstrip the current tax table brackets.

    We got none of that.

    Economics of bailouts
    After generously bailing out the banks, Goldman Sachs and Wall Street, and big corporations including General Motors and AIG, and after extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, Obama has done almost nothing for working class Americans who can’t find jobs and are losing their homes to foreclosure. In fact, if you look at the net results of the first 2 years of Obama’s administration, what you actually see looks a whole lot like George W. Bush’s third term.

    Obama’s political tactics
    Let’s be honest: We need an aggressive leader in the White House for the political war that is consuming this nation. We need someone who knows how to take the fight to the opposition, someone who is willing to fight fire with fire. We DO NOT need a Compromiser in Chief, and frankly we are sick of Obama’s polite exasperation when it comes to the tactics of conservatives who oppose our interests.

    Instead of leading, Obama has consistently offered to compromise by taking the middle ground. Unfortunately, the political “middle ground” is utterly worthless as a descriptive term because conservatives have taken the middle ground and moved it several miles to the right. The middle ground is no longer in the center of the political spectrum. Obama has done nothing to take that middle ground and move it back to the place it used to be. Thus when he compromises, they move the middle further to the right, he compromises again, they move it again.

    When that happens, we lose.

    Aside from that, the lack of presidential words of leadership from Obama on issues like the right-wing attacks against Acorn, Planned Parenthood, women’s reproductive rights, worker’s rights, public radio, union rights and collective bargaining, and new voter-ID laws that oppress or prevent hundreds of thousands of legitimate minority votes are unforgivable. Obama has sat quietly as Republican governors in several states attempted to destroy some of the most prominent political organizing arms of progressive democrats.

    Are you up for a sports analogy?

    Regarding the economy, employment, banks, and Wall Street, Obama has operated like the ineffective coach of an arrogant football team that does not like him or his policies. This football team has become accustomed to making their own rules and serving their own corrupt interests, including fixing and betting on games for profit. They have no intention of allowing the coach to end their little party. To be rid of the coach and his progressive policies, once and for all, the team has chosen to intentionally lose until the coach gets fired.

    Think about that for a moment. What can the coach do? How far is he willing to go to assert the authority of his office and regain control of the situation?

    In order to overcome this situation and be effective, the coach needs to walk out onto the field and shoot a couple of those players. Right there, under the lights, in front of the crowd. An example needs to be made of real consequences for disrespect of the coach and his position of authority. Otherwise, these “football players“, who are over-paid, arrogant, self-centered, and in many cases corrupt, will forget that they play to defend their home field, their school, and the honor of the men who came before them, and they will continue to place greed and personal profit ahead of fidelity and patriotism.

    In my example above the football team is a metaphor for Wall Street and the corporate establishment. I’m sure some would ask me just how this “football team” has chosen to lose. Easy answer. Failing to produce American jobs while allowing more and more American worker’s homes to fall into foreclosure puts pressure on the middle class, who the “team” hopes will ultimately fire the coach. That’s Obama. These groups, including the US Chamber Of Commerce and dozens of corporate-funded PACs, have gone out of their way and spent millions of dollars to destroy Obama and the reforms that a majority of American voters supported.

    We can not allow that.

    We need a real leader
    For all of this, Barak Obama, the man we elected to lead us, has sat quietly, never raising his voice, never shouting, never using visual aids, charts, or graphs, never pounding the podium, never behaving as an angry leader. Working class Americans are angry. Many are calling for blood to run in the streets. And Obama? You’d think he was up there getting a political enema. So why isn’t he as angry as the democrats who sent him? Is he secretly working for the other side? Was he sent to betray us and gently compromise away all of our hopes and dreams? At this point, that’s almost the only thing that makes sense out of what he has done.

    It seems to me that Obama’s real agenda for the 2008 election was to eliminate Hillary Clinton in the primary, get elected by hitting the “demographic sweet-spot” as a black democrat who was opposed to the wars, then accomplish little to nothing for democrats, compromise at every opportunity with Republicans, complete Dick Cheney’s unfinished agenda of regime change for every Arab state in the mid east, prevent any investigation of torture of POWs and war detainees, and basically run out the clock on all the hopes and dreams of Democrats and working class citizens who voted for him.

    He is either an ineffective leader who should resign, or he is a poser, an imposter, a fake copy of Martin Luther King who betrayed his own party by secretly working for republican interests to advance a conservative agenda. He is systematically destroying the democratic party from the inside. If he won’t resign, he should be impeached by his own party. At least then we would get to see republicans who claim to despise Obama vote to keep him in office.

    The sad thing is Republicans win if Obama gets reelected, and they win if he isn’t reelected. Right now they are getting practically everything they could have asked for from a third term of the Bush administration. The Bush tax cuts are still in effect. Guantanamo is still open. Allegations of torture were never investigated. The war in Iraq ran its full term. Worse, Obama just signed an agreement committing the USA to roughly 12 more years in Afghanistan.

    Washington supports illegal foreign policy in the Middle East and involvement in foreign wars
    Finally, Obama has done more to protect Israel’s illegal Settlement construction than George Bush ever did. Bush insisted in the Road Map agreement that Israel must stop all Settlement construction before negotiations begin for final status and core issues. Israel never honored that obligation. Obama has called on the Palestinians to renew negotiations even though Israel has refused to stop Settlement construction. That contravenes the Road Map agreement.

    Obama was supposed to enforce the Road Map agreement. Instead, he has used his veto in the UN Security Council to protect illegal Settlement construction from a resolution that might have stopped it so that legitimate negotiations could proceed as per Road Map stipulations. This is an outrage for progressive democrats, but if you’re a republican, what’s not to like?

    Does anyone wonder why Donald Trump trots out the birther story whenever Obama’s poll numbers show support from his base is low? This is how Obama manipulates his base to shore up support from a group whose interests he has largely dismissed and betrayed. Can’t let those lying birthers win, suckah.

    The same goes for a complete lack of Republican campaign advertisements calling out Obama for failing to uphold his campaign promise to end US involvement in foreign conflicts. The evidence is on video tape. Obama was very clear as a candidate. He said he would bring change, that he would end US involvement in wars and foreign conflicts. He even won a Nobel Peace Prize for this promise. We assumed that meant in his first 100 days. Failing that, then surely in his first 2 years, right? Well, here we are 4 years later, with secret wars in Pakistan, Yemen, and Syria. Obama also ordered direct US military involvement in Libya to topple Gaddafi, and he just signed an agreement to keep US forces in Afghanistan for another 12 years.

    Worst of all, Obama has demonstrated a desire to support regime change in Iran. This includes an implicit threat (“all options are on the table”) to attack Iran over the issue of Uranium enrichment. So what happened to ending US involvement in foreign conflicts? Republicans have a giant opportunity to rub this lie in his face, but they have passed. Ask yourself why they would do that. The answer is they don’t want to draw attention to Obama’s ongoing work to complete Bush and Cheney’s unfinished agenda of regime change for every Arab state in the mid east.

    Instead we get political theatre on Obamacare, class warfare, and tax cuts for the wealthy. It’s like the establishment is saying ~“Hey, no, no, don’t look at that, look over here: Let’s argue about health care and taxes! Let’s question Obama’s citizenship and investigate his fake birth certificate!” Folks, we are being played for suckers.

    Allow me to tell you what keeps me up at night. I wonder if you ever paused to consider the possibility even the most remote possibility that some part of what I allege might actually be true?

    Let’s evaluate whether it is possible that such a thing could actually happen, that a “Manchurian candidate” could be foisted on the electorate in the current state of our system of government. For instance, is there anything that prevents one party from running their own people as sleeper candidates on the ticket of another party? No. In fact, recent news reports confirm that Republicans have gotten several “double agent” candidates on the ballot as democrats in the recall election of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, and there’s no reason to think this is a unique case.

    Republicans like to talk about voter fraud to justify their “photo-ID” laws passed recently in many republican-controlled states. They claim these laws will prevent a problem that is pervasive in our political system, that one voter could pose as another to fraudulently cast more than one vote to help a candidate get elected. Oddly the statistics do not back up their concerns. In Georgia, there has not been a single conviction on a charge of voter fraud in the last 14 years, yet republicans claim this fraud is so significant it could affect the result of our elections.

    Let’s analyze that assertion about the election and how it is won

    According to the 2010 census, Georgia has a population of 9,687,653, of which approximately 6,907,296 are of voting age. According to the state of Georgia, 5,804,812 of these people are registered to vote. Of those, let’s assume 47 percent actually participate in an election by voting. That percentage would be 2,728,261 voters. Given that number, to affect the total vote count by just one half of a percent, the number of fraudulent votes cast in a single state-wide election would have to be 13,641.

    Of course, elections can be lots closer than that. In the 2000 election, after the US Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount, George W. Bush won the state by 537 votes. Still, 537 votes is a mighty big number if you live in a state where there hasn’t been a single conviction of voter fraud in the last 14 years.

    Of course, voter ID laws do have an effect on elections. Everyone knows they tend to reduce the number of legitimate ballots cast from demographic groups that are likely to vote democratic like minorities, the poor, and the elderly. This is what the law actually does, but Republicans insist it makes elections more secure. On the other hand, it is apparently not a crime for republicans to fraudulently place one of their own operatives on the democratic ballot to pose as a Democrat during a primary election.

    There was a case in South Carolina in which Alvin Greene, the surprise winner of the democratic primary for senate, refused a request by state party leaders to withdraw from the race after court records were revealed which indicate he was arrested for allegedly showing obscene photos to a college student. More telling, Greene, a 32-year-old unemployed veteran, couldn’t explain where he got the money ($10,400) required to file with the state and qualify himself to be on the ballot.

    State Democratic party officials said as far as they knew he had done no campaigning, had not attended any local democratic events, had not responded to invitations to local stump meetings, and they had no idea how he won. Greene later told Fox News he had no staffers and ran the campaign entirely on his own.

    Questioning from reporters indicated Greene was ill-prepared regarding experience and knowledge of issues. Greene was completely unaware of the biggest political issue of the day, new federal legislation frequently referred to by it’s acronym “TARP“ the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as the Wall Street bail out.

    Not coincidentally, Greene’s competition for that senate seat was republican Jim DeMint. Most pundits decided Greene was paid by conservative political agents to run and was elected in the open democratic primary with crossover votes. The consensus was republicans feared some democrats might be swept into office that year on Obama’s “coat-tails”, particularly in states with large percentages of black constituents likely to vote democratic. South Carolina would be one of these cases, and if a qualified candidate were nominated on the democratic ballot, DeMint could lose his seat. The solution was to eliminate the possibility that a qualified democratic candidate might be nominated by electing a sleeper candidate with crossover votes in the open primary.

    So clearly this kind of thing happens with some regularity, even though it should never happen. And it could very well have happened in the democratic primary for the top political office of the United States. Remember that Alvin Greene had no prior political experience. Likewise, Obama’s prior federal experience (2 years in the US Senate) was uncharacteristically short for any legitimate candidate to the office.

    Once that primary hurdle was cleared, the rest would be easy. The political winds and public disenchantment with the wars were making it more likely that a republican candidate would lose, so the alternative would win. All that was necessary was to *be* that alternative.

    This was already accomplished in the primary, when the following series of events gave Obama a sufficient number of delegates to capture the democratic nomination.

    (A) Significant numbers of crossover votes helped Obama win the democratic ballot in open primary states, and

    (B) caucus states unexpectedly went for Obama when polls indicated Clinton was leading, and

    (C) political sabotage resulted in the primaries of Michigan and Florida being “nullified”, which affected voter turnout as well as ultimately allowing the two states to realize only half their normal number of delegate votes at the democratic convention. This damaged Obama’s rival Hillary Clinton. And

    (D) a deluge of unexpected switched votes from super-delegates who switched from Clinton to Obama at the very last-minute.

    Here’s more background regarding the political sabotage alleged in (C) above:
    In August 2006, the Democratic National Committee adopted a proposal by its Rules and Bylaws Committee that only four states – Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina – would be permitted to hold primaries or caucuses before Super Tuesday, February 5, 2008.

    In the Spring of 2007, the Florida Legislature (controlled by Republicans in both chambers), passed House Bill 537 which moved the date of the state’s Republican and Democratic primaries to January 29, a week before the earliest permitted date of either party. The Florida Democratic Party tried to amend the legislation and make the date February 5; however, the Republican-controlled legislature refused. Thus the Florida republican party, in control of both the state senate and house, intentionally moved the date of the Florida primary election so that it was too early to be counted in the democratic primary. They knew that Obama’s competition Hillary Clinton would win Florida, therefore they fixed things so that the Florida vote was nullified.

    And what of Michigan? The Michigan Legislature passed a similar bill to move the date of the state’s presidential primaries to January 15. Just as in Florida, the move-up bill originated in a Republican-controlled State Senate and passed by a 21-17 straight party-line vote with every Democrat casting a “no” vote. Again, Obama’s competition Hillary Clinton was projected to win the Michigan primary, and in fact she did. This vote was also nullified.

    This is solid evidence that republicans wanted Obama to win and engaged in unethical political actions to sabotage his competition in at least two states. In hindsight, we now have a better understanding of why they did this.

    So is there any legal recourse for constituents if a candidate, once elected, breaks practically every promise he made to them, and in fact does in practice the exact opposite of what he promised to do? Well… there’s impeachment, but that would require a majority in the Congress to vote for impeachment, and after trial, a majority comprising at least two thirds of the Senate (67 votes) must vote to convict.

    In Congress, Republicans have enough seats to block any vote for impeachment, and in the Senate they would not vote for a conviction. There are several reasons for this. The first reason is a universal political truth that if party “A” has a problem that hinders it’s popularity, party “B” is not likely to help party “A” rid itself of that problem. Thus if Obama is hurting the long-term health of the democratic party, republicans are not going to help democrats remove Obama from office. The second reason relies on my personal conviction that Obama is directly aiding republicans in their implementation of a conservative agenda. If Obama is their “man on the inside“, they can’t help democrats throw him out while he remains pivotal to their larger agenda. Maybe after that, but not during.

    So impeachment is out as an option. What does that leave? Nothing. Sorry, you’re screwed. At least until he comes up for reelection. So when that happens… are you then going to swallow his hollow argument that no matter how disappointed and betrayed you may feel, you certainly don’t want those other guys the Republicans- to have the White House? -Are you going to fall for that fear-based argument?

    Consider how far to the right the Republican party has had to steer itself in order to keep some daylight between themselves and Obama. That alone should tell you something. Obama has become so conservative in practice that republicans have had to redefine themselves with insane positions on the crazy fringe of the right so that voters can differentiate between the two sides. We didn’t vote for that.

    We didn’t vote to waste our biggest chance in years to make the changes Obama talked about when he was a candidate. Sadly, that is what has happened. As a leader, Obama has presided over the biggest disappointment this party has ever seen in terms of what could have been and what actually is. In fact, I’m convinced he is secretly working for republicans to complete the unfinished agenda of the last administration. For example, Obama has done more to topple the governments of Arab states in the region surrounding Israel than he has done to help middle class American families facing foreclosure and loss of their homes. We didn’t vote for that either.

    Do we have to repeat history with the 2012 Presidental election
    Lets get to the bottom of these questions in order to determine if we elected a Democrat, or just a lying Republican poser who fooled us into throwing away our future. Change? These days that’s a bitter word to me, a cruel joke. It describes more what was done to us than what was done for us.

    Obama has intentionally lied to the American public. For me that one thing is unforgivable, regardless of whatever the alternative may be. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against Obama because he’s black or because some idiot questioned his nationality. Far from it. I’m against Obama because I think he’s red. Obama has kept more of George Bush’s campaign promises than he has kept of his own. I didn’t vote for that, and I sure as Hell won’t vote for it a second time.

    To paraphrase an infamous Buddhism, fool me once, shame on you, We won’t get fooled again.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       Thank you for your comment. Democrats should realizes that Obama did betray the liberal ideal. Some people argue it was not his fault. But in my mind the the Obama-Bush military doctrine is no different from British 19th century empire building, foreign wars and influence instead of building the USA.

       I think Romney and Obama are actually similar on the environment, as well as foreign policy. Economically they both want to stimulate jobs.

       Obama in the old fashion way of Keynesian Economics and Romney with the idea that the free market creates jobs. That is where Democrats Americans and Republican Americans. I know both sides despise each other but both sides have a common goal of a more just and richer society.

       But foreign policy and spending on the industrial military complex is not much different.

       Excess spending is only marginally different. Ron Paul has point this out. Neither side will pay down the debt.

       However, I am a Libertarian a strange for of liberal. I believe society’s common good is maximized when individuals have choice in their lives and Washington’s role is to defend the rights of its citizens.

       For me the one point that makes the vote for me to vote for Romney and not Obama is the life issue. My personal views are quintessential enlightenment scientific rational, with a believe in God. And I believe taking a life, including the unborn is the ultimate stripping of rights. It is so wrong to take life of the unborn. I do not see how anyone can support this.

       I may have issues with the way the candidates tackle job creation, but come on, life is sacred and that alone is enough to cancel out the small difference in economics.

       So I am disappointed to that a man like Obama who puts himself out there as a liberal idealist could support a contrary life position. He supports war and supports anti-life stances. I have no idea why Catholic Hsipanic voters or other tradional Democrats do not call him out on this issue. I believe in things like the environment, help for the poor, no foreign wars and life. But the last one is the important one and any liberal with true ideals need to see this. So Obama does not get my vote.

       Reply
       1. Bruce Vandiver

          First, the recent economic collapse and recession is by design. The Establishment understands that to ward off public unrest and political protest (like the protest that stopped the Vietnam War), it must keep the populace in a state of economic desperation so that it has no time or interest in protesting the current state of affairs. This precludes any significant protest that could stop the establishment from accomplishing it’s agenda. That agenda includes regime change for every Arab state in the mid east, probably for the purpose of securing access to energy resources for exploitation.

          Therefore neither Romney nor Obama will be able to improve the economy until the Establishment decides to allow it to improve. That is, unless the president decides to get rid of a couple of the people who are leaders of the Establishment.

          Perhaps society’s common good *is* maximized when individuals have more choice in their lives and Washington’s role is to defend the rights of its citizens. That said, nothing Obama has done in Libya or Syria has anything to do with defending the rights of US citizens. More likely defending the interests of the state of Israel and corporations like Exxon.

          And regarding the concept of “individuals having more choice in their lives”, does that not apply to a woman’s reproductive decisions? I do value life, but I don’t think life is sacred. If it were sacred, the pro-life lobby would be screaming about the half million people Bush and Cheney killed in Iraq, and the on-going violence that CAN be directly attributed to their initial decision to invade. Here the pro-life lobby are strangely silent. Why?

          Oddly, the pro-life issue never seems to apply to casualties of a war waged by choice rather than necessity. Instead, the pro-life issue has been used primarily to divide the American public for political advantage.

          Even today we get regular news updates on the number of Syrian deaths and casualties related to the political unrest in Syria, but we hear nothing about the number of Afghani deaths in Afghanistan, a country that we still occupy. There’s a reason for that. It is simply manipulation of data for propaganda purposes. We hear only what the Establishment wants us to hear.

          Reply
45. Reuben Goldstein

    Most poll numbers show Obama leading. If you check real clear politics, you will see. Obama is leading because people actually believe the “spin” he put on things. Even Harry Reid gets away with an obvious lie on the floor of the Senate. From the returns that we can see, it is obvious Romney paid taxes in the last couple of years and probably has in the years before. Yet people believe Harry because they think the rich “always” pay no taxes. The remainder of your reasons are all valid but people just don’t see it because the main stream media just won’t report the news without their “spin” i.e. we added jobs isn’t that great! They fail to report that those numbers come from employers. The actual employment rate comes from asking households. The U6 rate is 15%.We are in a hidden depression because food stamps and government cards cover the bread lines we experienced in the 30s.
    The candidate of the GOP isn’t exactly Mr. Conservative but if conservatives stay home, the movement toward the change really needed won’t happen. If you like Obamacare, if you want small business to have more impediments to creating jobs, if you want to impede the things the people really want, vote for Obama. There are fewer jobs now then when he took office. The average household is poorer now. If you are stupid enough to believe Obama has created a single job or made your household richer, by all means vote Democratic. If you are wise enough to see things have gotten worse,you vote for change even if you don’t like Romney. Get out and vote!

    Reply
46. Anthony Belvedere

    I could expound, but my comment title pretty much sums it up.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       It is a sad thing if you base your reality and predictions on public opinion polls that are marginally leaning one way at the present time. Elections are a marathon and not a sprint. There are also electorial votes to consider in swing states.
       But the main thing is do you support Obama and if you do why on earth? If anyone could articulate a good argument why Obama is their leader now and for the future I am all ears. But Keynesian economics is destroying this countries future. But I am waiting to hear from a good argument why to vote for Obama.
       Let me know if anyone has one.

       Reply
47. Pam B.

    They try to say we are taking the following out of context.

    Michelle Obama said for the first time as an adult she was proud to ba an American. Excuse me, but I think we had a lot to be proud of such as freedom of speech which allowed her to say that.

    Obama said, “If you’ve got a business,you didn’t build that. I’m sorry, My daddy built a business without a loan or Government assistance. He built it on Hard work and reputation!

    If I remember correctly President Obama strongly backed the muslim mosque planned near Ground Zero. But what do you expect from a Muslim?

    Is he lawsuit happy? Hey we can forgive the Lawsuit here in Arizona. BUT, Obummer finally signed his defeat. His Lawsuit against Ohio regarding extended early voting for servicemen and women is disgusting. We can never thank our Military enough for all they do and for Obama to do this, He finally earned the title of pig.

    Reply
48. ShaneTheMane

    Why am I the only person alive who has disdain for his very obvious speech impediment?

    Of course he’s not even qualified to be Class President, and he hates Whites and free societies, but why does no one else pick up on his speech impediment?

    If a person is going to hold office, I think they should not have a speech impediment. Haven’t you noticed all the sibilance and whistling when he speaks? And what nerve for people to say he’s such a good speaker. Not with that impediment, he isn’t.

    Well, he’s not as bad as Barney Fwank, but still, disgusting to listen to. I always immediately change the station when he speaks.

    May sound trivial, but it really bugs me that no one else mentions this.

    OVomit in 2012, not.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       I think a speech impediment has little to do with his election bid, it is what a man says not how he says it that counts.

       On that note I think he lacks the brains to lead the country out of this economic crisis, rather he has depended on his economic advisors who are Keynesians and they lead him astray. We have what 16 Trillion dollars and debt and higher unemployment?

       Let the markets work and people – and I mean individuals not government people will lead us out of this hole and on the road to recovery.

       Reply
49. Dannyboy

    Obama is not an idiot that is “in over his head”. He is a Marxist with the goal of “fundamentally” changing this nation. He knows exactly what he is doing, destroying the greatest nation on earth to remake it into a tyrannical dictatorship.

    And most of Congress is working with him.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       Obama talks incorrectly that Romney believes in trickle down economics. This is untrue. Further, Obama is the author of ‘trickle down economics, how much more top down can you get than government redistribution of wealth. I lived in Eastern Europe. I can tell you whenever the government gets a hold of money, they trickle down after they take their cut. Look at how Northern Virginia is for example.

       Obama a socialist and he speaks this way when he uses class envy language of ‘rich’ and ‘them’ to pay for others. Envy is a negative primitive emotion he uses for manipulation to turn the USA to a socialist country.

       Reply
50. Marc

    I know this is an old site, but it appears Obama is going to win, possibly in a landslide.

    Is everybody taking the same stance?

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       With a Romney Ryan team I think the USA would return to greatness. With an Obama Biden combination we are headed for long term decline, slow growth and debt. People will wake up.

       Reply