What has Obama done for you?

[Jocabia]

He has increased the debt by $1.13 trillion. As a bonus, the U.S. debt-to-GDP has passed 100%. Good for my kids and grandkids.

He has demonized those who actually invest and provide capital for small business.

He has demonized two industries that I work in. Healthcare and Finance.

He has demonized anyone who wants to tackle economic issues, entitlement stability, or joblessness as social darwinists.

He has taken over a car company for the benefit of his Union pals and then closed down a production plant in my area which has destroyed the local economy.

He has increased the unemployment rate of my country but, fortunately, he has figured out a way to adjust the numbers without really employing anyone.

All in all it is exactly what I expected from Obama before he got elected. On a positive note, I did win a large sum of money from people who thought he wouldn't get elected.

So when the car companies credit that action with the fact they are still here, does that not get taken into account when you claim he destroyed your local economy? Was your production plant going to continue to exist while those companies didn't?

As for demonizing those who provide for small businesses, I have to say as a small business owner, I fail to see it. Obama's time has a been a boon for my business. The worst time for our business was when Obama was transitioning into office (the height of the credit crunch) when we couldn't get any money at all. This seems to be a fairly consistent view of the small business owners I know or who have appeared on television, but if you've got some evidence that money is less available now than it was 3 years ago, I'd love to see it.

[Katganistan]

Oh, I see you have confused sending troops by UN request with actually starting a war.

Nah, looks like "sending troops" isn't "war" when it's your guy ordering the bombing. Both the fighting in Afghanistan and Libya were authorized by the UNSC. (Technically, of course, UNSC resolution 1973 specifically didn't authorize troops.)

Or you do mean the key difference is that we asked the French and the British to take the lead on the UNSC resolution on Libya, so it wouldn't look like a US war? OK, have your fig leaf. But the point remains that the US was not obligated to send forces by the resolution on Libya, but was permitted to and chose to... for perfectly good reasons, which I support. But "Obama didn't start another war" is simply not factual.

Yahuh. United Nations Security Council, not United States, thanks.

[Coffee Cakes]

I addressed that a few posts ago while admitting I was wrong about it.

I see that. Well, you actually claimed: "it does indeed prove me at least half wrong".

Which isn't entirely accurate, is it? No - your source quite explicitly shows the claim "Obama has racked up more debt than every other POTUS combined" to be untrue. The 'debt' that was 'racked up' was largely 'racked up' either during the preceding terms, or caused by them. As illustrated in the source I provided.

Still, I do admit I was wrong on it.
Can I at least get that?

[Salandriagado]

Nothing.... then again what can I say, I'm a sixteen year old teen, what affect would any of this have on me, at least at the moment.... unless I'm missing something here. >.>"

Erm, funded charter schools, issued grants to offset the mess that was No Child Left Behind, made the first $4000 of your future college education (probably) free, boosted Pell Grants and the like, increased funding for STEM subjects, plus almost everything mentioned above will have an affect on you via your parents.

[Jocabia]

Nothing.... then again what can I say, I'm a sixteen year old teen, what affect would any of this have on me, at least at the moment.... unless I'm missing something here. >.>"

his increasing pell grants might affect your college plans. if you are interested in a medical career the ACA might have benefits for you.

Also, if you end up going the military route, he's increased access to college for veterans as well. I got a letter about it within the first year he was in office.

[Katganistan]

I see that. Well, you actually claimed: "it does indeed prove me at least half wrong".

Which isn't entirely accurate, is it? No - your source quite explicitly shows the claim "Obama has racked up more debt than every other POTUS combined" to be untrue. The 'debt' that was 'racked up' was largely 'racked up' either during the preceding terms, or caused by them. As illustrated in the source I provided.

Still, I do admit I was wrong on it.
Can I at least get that?

Be patient, Coffee Cakes. It's likely some of the folks answering you hadn't got up to the post where you got more info and admitted you weren't entirely correct. (Which is not to say you're entirely wrong either.)

[Jocabia]

I see that. Well, you actually claimed: "it does indeed prove me at least half wrong".

Which isn't entirely accurate, is it? No - your source quite explicitly shows the claim "Obama has racked up more debt than every other POTUS combined" to be untrue. The 'debt' that was 'racked up' was largely 'racked up' either during the preceding terms, or caused by them. As illustrated in the source I provided.

Still, I do admit I was wrong on it.
Can I at least get that?

You're right, we're not being fair. We agree you were wrong. Better?

[Stedicules]

he keeps the nation safe for me and my family.

[Coffee Cakes]

Still, I do admit I was wrong on it.
Can I at least get that?

Be patient, Coffee Cakes. It's likely some of the folks answering you hadn't got up to the post where you got more info and admitted you weren't entirely correct. (Which is not to say you're entirely wrong either.)

I'm trying, honest.

Still, I do admit I was wrong on it.
Can I at least get that?

You're right, we're not being fair. We agree you were wrong. Better?

It sounds better.

[Grave_n_idle]

I see that. Well, you actually claimed: "it does indeed prove me at least half wrong".

Which isn't entirely accurate, is it? No - your source quite explicitly shows the claim "Obama has racked up more debt than every other POTUS combined" to be untrue. The 'debt' that was 'racked up' was largely 'racked up' either during the preceding terms, or caused by them. As illustrated in the source I provided.

Still, I do admit I was wrong on it.
Can I at least get that?

Sure. I'll not deny you've edged towards it, although you did rather hedge at first.

But you admit you're wrong, and I applaud that.

[Coffee Cakes]

Still, I do admit I was wrong on it.
Can I at least get that?

Sure. I'll not deny you've edged towards it, although you did rather hedge at first.

But you admit you're wrong, and I applaud that.

Well, what else am I to do?
Fudge some figures?
Actually, I'm reading some of the other sources noted in here.
I must say, it's at least educational for me, if nothing else.
I do want to make a good decision in November.

[Hittanryan]

Sure. I'll not deny you've edged towards it, although you did rather hedge at first.

But you admit you're wrong, and I applaud that.

Well, what else am I to do?
Fudge some figures?
Actually, I'm reading some of the other sources noted in here.
I must say, it's at least educational for me, if nothing else.
I do want to make a good decision in November.

And we want you do to the same...as long as it's not for Romney

[Deus Malum]

Extended the coverage provided by my parents' healthcare plans to cover me til the end of this year, so that I didn't have to break the bank on health insurance on my meager, Master's Student salary. The nice thing being that now that I've transitioned into the PhD program I'll be able to cover myself, right around the time I won't be covered by my parents anymore.

The payroll tax cut has been a big help as well.

[Coffee Cakes]

Well, what else am I to do?
Fudge some figures?
Actually, I'm reading some of the other sources noted in here.
I must say, it's at least educational for me, if nothing else.
I do want to make a good decision in November.

And we want you do to the same...as long as it's not for Romney

I voted against Mitt in the primary. He sucked as governor here.
He has a lot to do to get my vote.

[Deus Malum]

Oh, and Cash for Clunkers, which led to the family getting a new car much cheaper by trading in our junky old van.

[Socialdemokraterne]

No -- but the Republicans will harp on it as if he controls the oil companies foreeeeeeeverrrrrr!

nah, no way stopping offshore drilling would have any effect on prices at the pump. but no more blood for oil, amirite?

Liberals gonna lib

God forbid you actually buy a fuel-efficient vehicle to diminish the personal cost of that pricy oil, amirite? Oh, wait. You can. And God forbid that the President make any sort of effort to encourage people to do just that, amirite? Oh, wait. He did. And God forbid that American automakers take any lessons from the fact that Toyota outdid their fuel standards (and thus sold more cars as a consequence of the President's initiative) and start raising their own fuel standards to...you know...actually be able to compete with foreign automakers when gas prices go through the roof, amirite? Oh, wait. They are. Partly by force, but they are.

But you've got the solution, don't you? Let's knock all that stuff off and just work on making oil and natural gas cheaper! Screw efficient vehicles! Screw competing with foreign automakers' standards! It's all about the oil, baby!

[Grave_n_idle]

Sure. I'll not deny you've edged towards it, although you did rather hedge at first.

But you admit you're wrong, and I applaud that.

Well, what else am I to do?
Fudge some figures?
Actually, I'm reading some of the other sources noted in here.
I must say, it's at least educational for me, if nothing else.
I do want to make a good decision in November.

I'd certainly rather you didn't fudge figures. If you make claims that can be addressed, that's good. If you make false claims just to 'score points', I'd say that would be bad.

I would like to think everyone is planning to make a good decision in November, but I certainly don't think that's true. I think a lot of people are going to make ideological choices or choices based on bad (mis-)information. So, again, I applaud your position.

At least, perhaps, you have one or two misconceptions corrected a little. In which case, something good has already come of it.

[Grave_n_idle]

Well, what else am I to do?
Fudge some figures?
Actually, I'm reading some of the other sources noted in here.
I must say, it's at least educational for me, if nothing else.
I do want to make a good decision in November.

And we want you do to the same...as long as it's not for Romney

If Romney is the best candidate, and has the best policies, I hope he wins.

...

I'm not yet convinced that he's come close to satisfying either of those criteria, though.

[Jocabia]

Well, what else am I to do?
Fudge some figures?
Actually, I'm reading some of the other sources noted in here.
I must say, it's at least educational for me, if nothing else.
I do want to make a good decision in November.

I'd certainly rather you didn't fudge figures. If you make claims that can be addressed, that's good. If you make false claims just to 'score points', I'd say that would be bad.

I would like to think everyone is planning to make a good decision in November, but I certainly don't think that's true. I think a lot of people are going to make ideological choices or choices based on bad (mis-)information. So, again, I applaud your position.

At least, perhaps, you have one or two misconceptions corrected a little. In which case, something good has already come of it.

Seconded. Too often people post these things because they like their football team and they want them to win.

Me? I want the team to win that plays the best. In this case, playing the best means doing what is best for the country. And, frankly, with the attack on women and gays made by the GOP, it's pretty clear who is best for the rest of the country, even if we put everything else aside.

Once you include things like the complete lack of infrastructure under the GOP, the complete lack of investment in new technologies, the complete lack of care for those who are in poverty, and the hawkishness, you've got a formula for a party that is genuinely bad for the American economy, for American soldiers, and for the vast, vast majority of Americans.

While CC may not agree with all that, at least he's trying to figure out what their positions are, what they've accomplished, and what the best path forward is. Disagreeing on direction is something Americans can and should do. Disagreeing on facts is not something that can or should be done, it's not a basis for a healthy discussion, and for 8 years+ it's been required to defend the vast majority of GOP positions.

[Salandriagado]

And we want you do to the same...as long as it's not for Romney

If Romney is the best candidate, and has the best policies, I hope he wins.

...

I'm not yet convinced that he's come close to satisfying either of those criteria, though.

To be honest, Romney's policies change so often, they must have gone through being the best at some point, even if it was only momentarily.

[Jocabia]

And we want you do to the same...as long as it's not for Romney

If Romney is the best candidate, and has the best policies, I hope he wins.

...

I'm not yet convinced that he's come close to satisfying either of those criteria, though.

I'll defend Romney on some things. He was governor of the state that ranks first in almost every way we measure states. He was actually bipartisan while he was governor and he promised to be progressive when he was elected and he was. If the man who ran MA becomes President, he'll likely do some good, a lot of good even.

The other advantage is that the Republicans will not have to force him to fail, as it won't be a ding against their team if he wins. That means he might actually get some bipartisan support for policies that ultimately would not differ much from Obama's. While he may be ideologically more conservative than Obama, he may in practice be more progressive, mostly due to increased support from the other camp.

Where I worry is that he's so casual about just making it up as he goes along. When he became someone progressive to win in MA, he did what he said he would do. If he does what he says in this election, he'll be a disaster. So, as a lot of people have pointed out, his performance as President will depend on which Romney shows up.

[Salandriagado]

If Romney is the best candidate, and has the best policies, I hope he wins.

...

I'm not yet convinced that he's come close to satisfying either of those criteria, though.

I'll defend Romney on some things. He was governor of the state that ranks first in almost every way we measure states. He was actually bipartisan while he was governor and he promised to be progressive when he was elected and he was. If the man who ran MA becomes President, he'll likely do some good, a lot of good even.

The other advantage is that the Republicans will not have to force him to fail, as it won't be a ding against their team if he wins. That means he might actually get some bipartisan support for policies that ultimately would not differ much from Obama's. While he may be ideologically more conservative than Obama, he may in practice be more progressive, mostly due to increased support from the other camp.

Where I worry is that he's so casual about just making it up as he goes along. When he became someone progressive to win in MA, he did what he said he would do. If he does what he says in this election, he'll be a disaster. So, as a lot of people have pointed out, his performance as President will depend on which Romney shows up.

I doubt it, to be honest. In the course of the primaries he's gone so far to the right he's unlikely to be able to get back again without completely alienating everybody.

[Farnhamia]

If Romney is the best candidate, and has the best policies, I hope he wins.

...

I'm not yet convinced that he's come close to satisfying either of those criteria, though.

I'll defend Romney on some things. He was governor of the state that ranks first in almost every way we measure states. He was actually bipartisan while he was governor and he promised to be progressive when he was elected and he was. If the man who ran MA becomes President, he'll likely do some good, a lot of good even.

The other advantage is that the Republicans will not have to force him to fail, as it won't be a ding against their team if he wins. That means he might actually get some bipartisan support for policies that ultimately would not differ much from Obama's. While he may be ideologically more conservative than Obama, he may in practice be more progressive, mostly due to increased support from the other camp.

Where I worry is that he's so casual about just making it up as he goes along. When he became someone progressive to win in MA, he did what he said he would do. If he does what he says in this election, he'll be a disaster. So, as a lot of people have pointed out, his performance as President will depend on which Romney shows up.

He was progressive when he was Governor of Massachusetts? That's not what he says now. He says he was "severely conservative" when he was governor. You're right, he does make it up as he goes along, saying whatever he thinks (or his people tell him) the audience wants to hear.

[Laerod]

I'll defend Romney on some things. He was governor of the state that ranks first in almost every way we measure states. He was actually bipartisan while he was governor and he promised to be progressive when he was elected and he was. If the man who ran MA becomes President, he'll likely do some good, a lot of good even.

The other advantage is that the Republicans will not have to force him to fail, as it won't be a ding against their team if he wins. That means he might actually get some bipartisan support for policies that ultimately would not differ much from Obama's. While he may be ideologically more conservative than Obama, he may in practice be more progressive, mostly due to increased support from the other camp.

Where I worry is that he's so casual about just making it up as he goes along. When he became someone progressive to win in MA, he did what he said he would do. If he does what he says in this election, he'll be a disaster. So, as a lot of people have pointed out, his performance as President will depend on which Romney shows up.

He was progressive when he was Governor of Massachusetts? That's not what he says now. He says he was "severely conservative" when he was governor. You're right, he does make it up as he goes along, saying whatever he thinks (or his people tell him) the audience wants to hear.

It's funny just how accurate that etch-a-sketch comment is.

[Jocabia]

I'll defend Romney on some things. He was governor of the state that ranks first in almost every way we measure states. He was actually bipartisan while he was governor and he promised to be progressive when he was elected and he was. If the man who ran MA becomes President, he'll likely do some good, a lot of good even.

The other advantage is that the Republicans will not have to force him to fail, as it won't be a ding against their team if he wins. That means he might actually get some bipartisan support for policies that ultimately would not differ much from Obama's. While he may be ideologically more conservative than Obama, he may in practice be more progressive, mostly due to increased support from the other camp.

Where I worry is that he's so casual about just making it up as he goes along. When he became someone progressive to win in MA, he did what he said he would do. If he does what he says in this election, he'll be a disaster. So, as a lot of people have pointed out, his performance as President will depend on which Romney shows up.

I doubt it, to be honest. In the course of the primaries he's gone so far to the right he's unlikely to be able to get back again without completely alienating everybody.

He doesn't have to do it for the election. It will have to do with what he does after the election that will matter.

Remember, he can be very, very centrist when he is in office, because there will not be another primary. A centrist position, if he were elected, would all but guarantee him the election in 2016. Running to the right was required in the primaries. It will never be required of him again. Because if he doesn't get elected this time, his career will likely be unrecoverable as a politician. He's flopped around too much. His only hope is to win this election and then present himself while President as someone who can unite both sides and do what is best for this country. And, frankly, I don't think that is beyond his ability. My concern isn't with what he CAN do, but what he WILL do. He hasn't always shown himself to be all that politically savvy.