Has Obama administration really been a disaster? [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

Dresta

10-02-2016, 08:19 AM

The answer is yes, because all his bullshit about hope and change was just that: bullshit. He's also probably been the most overtly partisan President ever, so much so, that he's led to the anti-Obama backlash, which is Trump. Presidents are meant to be the Head of State, and be as unpartisan as possible; Obama, for all his talk about building bridges and bringing people together, is a born divider, and has been, his entire career, as lawyer, community organiser, and politician. Now republicans want their own chance to gloat and goad, like Dems and Obama have been doing the past 8 years, and the result is Trump. There is something sadistic about Obama's smugness and the gloating of his partisans, who seem to care more about causing pain to their "enemies" than actually doing anything worthwhile. This is perhaps encapsulated by Hilary Clinton's recent claim that the enemies she was most proud of having was "Republicans"--here is someone running for President who considers a large minority of the country to be her enemy. No person with such a view should ever be head of state; could you imagine the British Queen saying such a thing?

Head of State is supposed to be representative of the WHOLE nation and a figurehead; now it is merely a battleground for childishly partisan political squabbling.

Nanners

10-02-2016, 08:53 AM

i would say so, but not for the same reasons that trump ususally lists.

surveillance has skyrocketed under obama, literally everything you do on an electronic device is being recorded by one or more govt entities. obamacare has made healthcare much more accessable to the poor, but it also made it MUCH more expensive for the middle class. his economic policies of quantitative easing and supressing interest rates is going to come back to bite us in the ass. our drone wars have killed thousands of innocent civilians, he hasnt done jack shit for the environment, our overseas torture prisons like guantanamo are still open... i definitely wouldnt say his presidency has been a "success"

Dresta

10-02-2016, 09:02 AM

Micku

10-02-2016, 05:21 PM

Trump always says this and if Hillary's elected i feel we can expect more of the same. But is that a fair claim? Has his tenure been a disaster? In what way?

That varies between person to person. What person A may consider to be an accomplishment, person B may not consider it. Some ppl exaggerated on some issues while others don't take some issues as serious enough. You have to do your own research and see what affects you and what you consider to be good or not.

It'll take longer than paragraph to dissect it on polices. It's complicated.

A few of his main accomplishments in his administration are (in no order):
1. Economic stimulus in attempt to slow down the Great Recession and stimulate jobs and may reduce electricity use by 4% or more by 2030
2. Health care reform aka Obamacare
3. Clean Power Plan reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
4. Ended the Iraqi war and increase troops in Afghanistan
5. Under his administration Osama Bin Laden was killed
6. Signed new Start treaty to reduce long range weapons between the USA and Russia
7. Contributed to Iran nuclear deal

Some bills we will see in full effect later. And some have some pros and cons. He continued and increased the spying or the effects patriot act. Passed CISA. When he left Iraqi, it gave birth to ISIS. You could go into details of what he could've done or what he could have not done to prevent it.

Obamacare increased the amount of ppl in the USA that are insured, but some companies have to left employees go and adjust some hours due to it. The deficit has been decreased since he took office, around 71% or something? It's less than Bush when he left currently if I'm not mistaken. The debt grew about 7-8 trillion since he took office, so 18 trillion currently. If you do a GDP and debt ratio, I think it's slightly over 100%. This means that the our debt is equal to our economic production. However, how significant you want to take debt is up to you and some research. Debt with US isn't like personal debt regular peasant folks, lol.

The unemployment dropped to under 5% for the first time since 2007. From the census bureau of 2015 the real medium income increased by 5.2, which is the largest growth ever recorded by the bureau. poverty fell by 1.2 percent, which is the steepest decline since 1968. There are still about 43 million in poverty. So, the middle class income improved a bit.

In terms of foreign policy and his approval rating, well here are the recorded ones:
https://static1.businessinsider.com/image/558afc1869bedde82e57802a-840-637/screen%20shot%202015-06-24%20at%202.49.39%20pm.png

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/06/U.S.-and-China-fav-WEB-version.png

compared to Bush tho:

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/legacy/263-3.gif

Overall, it seems that we are in better standing than we were in 2008 imo. There are some new problems tho and hopefully they will be handle with the next president and congress. The Obama administration has done some good and some bad for me. I wonder how he will be remembered in the future? Perhaps good depending on which performance of the candidates we have now.

I did not cover all of the issues. There are failed promises and compromises. Like he didn't get rid of all the tax loopholes or money in politics. Couldn't bring democrats and GOP together. Didn't end the war in Afghanistan in 2014. Didn't close Guantanamo bay. You have to do your own research on what he failed to do on the things that he promised and things that you personally disagree or agreed with.

Here is an overview:
http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/l/2/Barack-Obama

This is fun:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

You can check out how we're doing in various economic stuff here:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator

And this is all just a start and you can find more sites that could contribute to your views and conclusion on how America is doing. You should always have more than one source and listen to everybody out there. Some ppl can be extreme and say he is the best president eva or the worst president eva. Listen to them all, they have their reasons, research things yourself, and come up with your own conclusion.

With all the good and bad said, Obama probably is one of the best charismatic and hip presidents we had. I mean, this is cool. Got a little bit of that Black Mamba vibe:

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7qDEq2bMbcbPRQ2c/giphy.gif

DonDadda59

10-02-2016, 05:27 PM

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7qDEq2bMbcbPRQ2c/giphy.gif

http://img.pandawhale.com/89754-SHEEIT-gif-Clay-Davis-The-Wire-R90q.gif

I can't believe there are actually people out there who think America was great during the Bush years and wants to turn us into that again.

Boggles the mind.

UK2K

10-02-2016, 05:30 PM

Trump always says this and if Hillary's elected i feel we can expect more of the same. But is that a fair claim? Has his tenure been a disaster? In what way?
To be fair, Clinton has said the same thing to a lesser degree numerous times as well.

Then she'll turn around and talk about how awesome it is.

Depends on the point she trying to make.

9erempiree

10-02-2016, 05:30 PM

I say he is a huge failure. His promise of Hope and Change never occurred. Instead we got totally opposite of what he was promising.

He is also one of the biggest dividers of any President in history and lets not forget he said he wanted to fundamentally change America. His words.

We have the biggest racial tension in the last 50 years because of his stance as President. He encourages the divide.

You are only as good as the worst thing that happened. These racial tensions is what he will be known for.

He gives good speeches and its sad he won't use that ability to stop all the violence and riots we are having. It's starting to become the norm now.

That ransom money was bad too.

His legacy will be Trump and the Obama stans can't stand it.:lol

Once Trump is in office...we will forget that Obama was ever President because Trump is going to rip everything Obama has passed in half. He said this is what he's going to do in his first 100 days. It's as if Obama never existed.

falc39

10-02-2016, 05:48 PM

I would say failure.

Libya disaster, he and Hillary have there hands all over this and it blew up in their face. I would say it is the biggest foreign policy mistake since the invasion of Iraq. They continue to make similar screw ups.

Despite being a talented speech giver and overall charismatic guy, I would have never expected racial tensions to boil over and get worse like it has over his presidency. Very arrogant, smug, and condescending. It shows when a lot of his comments actually make situations worse (Brexit).

Economics. People say he's doing well. But when you're goal is anything but complete collapse (people still actually have the bar that low), it's actually not really much of an achievement :confusedshrug:

Appalling record on government transparency while at the same time supporting ways to further degrade our basic constitutional rights (like privacy).

DOJ complete and utter failure. You had people like Eric Holder running it for some time and the current people completely botched the Hillary e-mail issue by granting everyone immunity.

Patrick Chewing

10-02-2016, 05:55 PM

How are race relations right now in this country?? Oh shit, they suck.

Obama = Master of Disaster

Micku

10-02-2016, 05:59 PM

How are race relations right now in this country?? Oh shit, they suck.

Obama = Master of Disaster

https://media.giphy.com/media/12O2XuGsIx1OvK/giphy.gif

G-train

10-02-2016, 06:18 PM

He's so bad DONALD TRUMP might win.
Enough said.

dude77

10-02-2016, 06:44 PM

lol yes this is partially why dems are terrified of trump winning .. it'll be a big fat confirmation that obama is a steaming pile of dog shit and will leave a nice, smelly stain on his legacy .. it'll be a total rejection of his last 8 yrs as president .. can't fkn wait

Lakers Legend#32

10-03-2016, 12:27 AM

Republicans hate Obama because FOX News tells them to.

Patrick Chewing

10-03-2016, 12:32 AM

Republicans hate Obama because FOX News tells them to.

This makes no sense. Republicans hate Obama because he's Far, Far Left. He's a Socialist and it goes against everything Conservatives stand for and represent.

This guy literally told a plumber to his face that he should make a little less to help out those that don't make as much. What's the point of being an independent contractor if the government is just going to snatch more money out of you??

poido123

10-03-2016, 12:35 AM

He's so bad DONALD TRUMP might win.
Enough said.

That's a good point.

People want change from the bullshit

bladefd

10-03-2016, 02:47 AM

How are race relations right now in this country?? Oh shit, they suck.

Obama = Master of Disaster

We going to look at 1 issue and define a president?

I can play that game too. How is the economy in this country from the shambles Bush and the Republicans like it in? Oh yes, waaaaaay better.

Obama

1987_Lakers

10-03-2016, 03:08 AM

bladefd

10-03-2016, 03:17 AM

This makes no sense. Republicans hate Obama because he's Far, Far Left. He's a Socialist and it goes against everything Conservatives stand for and represent.

Lets talk about these hypocrites who we call conservatives.
-Conservatives don't give a damn about conserving the environment
-Conservatives have no issue with humans polluting the environment for energy and want to continue things as they are.. in fact, many want to drill more and do more coal mining. They complain when someone mentions expanding clean green renewable energy like solar power
-they talk big about jesus and christianity, yet are against everything Jesus fought for including treating everyone like how you want to be treated and being against people of different faiths different from them and even are constantly bitching and moaning about LGBT community. Goes against everything jesus believed
-they bit <h and moan every time someone poor gets access to food stamp or charity or something. They often may bit <h about the poor and minorities altogether
-the biggest gun gungho folks are conservatives, crying nonstop about guns. Completely un-Christlike
-they complain when Healthcare access expands to more people around the nation, yet have no issues with massive corporations and wall street and other scumbags not paying taxes and screwing rest of us in the name of greed. Why are conservatives defending the biggest scumbag greedy tax-evading corporations?

Shall I go on? Jesus Christ must be turning in his grave.

DukeDelonte13

10-03-2016, 08:16 AM

No. Anybody with any shred of common sense can tell you that.

Obama will be remembered as a good president, but there will always be basement dwellers and senile senior citizens who think otherwise.

9erempiree

10-03-2016, 08:22 AM

I honestly think he will be remembered for all the protests, looting and riots. If a guy like Bush can get away with Katrina then surely Obama could have gotten away with a few police shootings but instead he did the 'son' speech.

With all this supposed 'great at giving speeches' talent...he could have used that talent to diffuse many situations.

Lets not forget he acted like a slave by bowing to every foreign leader and dictator.

He wanted to fundamentally change America and I think he accomplished this and now Hillary will finish us off.

They have half the country believing in this 'white privilege' narrative.

MMM

10-03-2016, 08:36 AM

people are definitely underestimating the mess he inherited, for example, his weakest area is ISIS but it probably wouldn't even have existed if Bush doesn't needlessly go into Iraq. Also don't forget all the tent cities that were popping up in 08/09 and just how rough it actually was for quite a bit of Americans. In my lifetime i would rank him 2nd but that isn't necessarily saying much.

Dresta

10-03-2016, 09:35 AM

Lets talk about these hypocrites who we call conservatives.
-Conservatives don't give a damn about conserving the environment
-Conservatives have no issue with humans polluting the environment for energy and want to continue things as they are.. in fact, many want to drill more and do more coal mining. They complain when someone mentions expanding clean green renewable energy like solar power
-they talk big about jesus and christianity, yet are against everything Jesus fought for including treating everyone like how you want to be treated and being against people of different faiths different from them and even are constantly bitching and moaning about LGBT community. Goes against everything jesus believed
-they bit <h and moan every time someone poor gets access to food stamp or charity or something. They often may bit <h about the poor and minorities altogether
-the biggest gun gungho folks are conservatives, crying nonstop about guns. Completely un-Christlike
-they complain when Healthcare access expands to more people around the nation, yet have no issues with massive corporations and wall street and other scumbags not paying taxes and screwing rest of us in the name of greed. Why are conservatives defending the biggest scumbag greedy tax-evading corporations?

Shall I go on? Jesus Christ must be turning in his grave.
You couldn't type up a bigger list of bullshit if you tried: congratulations. What do you know about Christianity anyway? Based on this pile of garbage, I would assume very little.

people are definitely underestimating the mess he inherited, for example, his weakest area is ISIS but it probably wouldn't even have existed if Bush doesn't needlessly go into Iraq. Also don't forget all the tent cities that were popping up in 08/09 and just how rough it actually was for quite a bit of Americans. In my lifetime i would rank him 2nd but that isn't necessarily saying much.
Would be a fair point if he didn't continue the Bush policy as destabilising foreign governments and not bothering to think about the consequences; nor if he hadn't escalated some very dangerous and law-flouting policies like conducting drone strikes wherever the hell he pleases. Has really set the precedent for a country like China to start conducting drone strikes of their own, and there will be little we can say about it when it happens.

Anyone who hates Bush while propping up Obama is being a hypocrite.

edit: anyone who can't see through Obama's racial pot-stirring is being wilfully blind. The man actually said any black person who voted against what he wants would be personally insulting him; there could not be a better example of the perversity of identity politics, its harmful emphasis on racial differences and racial identity, and thus the disenfranchisement of the individual and their personal conscience.

D-Wade316

10-03-2016, 09:37 AM

Alot of people underestimate how disastrous this country was in 2008/2009.

Obama will go down as a good president 20 years from now, he will be looked at as the "Ronald Reagan" of the democrats.

- Economy is better
- We have better relations with other countries minus Russia

That alone makes him 100x better than Bush Jr. was.
Lawl no. Reagan's legacy has been a disaster for the middle class. Only the rich have ever benefited from his policies. And Obama > Clinton. I honestly think Obama ranks very highly in the all-time list.

NumberSix

10-03-2016, 10:47 AM

If you're pro-ISIS, the Obama administration has been terrific. If you're like me and you hate terrorism, Obama has been a disaster.

UK2K

10-03-2016, 10:52 AM

Not really, unless you are a tax payer.

For everyone else, the answer is no.

~primetime~

10-03-2016, 10:57 AM

I think he's been great, very underrated. The economy has -slowly- done better just about every year he was in office.

In my life time I'd rank him #2 behind Bill Clinton.

1. Bill
2. Obama
3. Reagan
4. Bush Sr
5. Bush Jr

Derka

10-03-2016, 12:01 PM

west_tip

10-03-2016, 12:39 PM

A vast improvement on the disastrous tenure of W but a little underwhelming all told. Albeit he was hamstrung by the insanely polarized and partisan society that we live in and a very unproductive and equally partisan legislature.

A great orator, a very sharp guy but also very divisive at times. His main flaws have been the absolute cluster---k that is the Middle East (to be fair look what he inherited), the deterioration in race relations (not exactly his fault but he has made some ill advised comments that have added fuel to the fire), the drone strike program and the fact that he never really delivered on his promise of "hope" and "change".

On the positive side he steadied the ship economically and he broke an important barrier by becoming the first black President which is an important milestone in this nations history.

ItsMillerTime

10-03-2016, 01:14 PM

Eight years ago people were saying George W. Bush was the worst president in American history and were convinced that he was a war criminal who was selling the country to the rich. They're peddling the same shit about Barack Obama now because it keeps the middle-class yelling and screaming at each other while the upper class keeps making runs to the bank.

Its all bullshit and pretty much par for the course.

:cheers:

The fact that people still don't understand this really boggles my mind. All the pro-Trump and pro-Hillary clowns that literally make 30 threads a day to yell at each other, you guys really think your patsy of a candidate is going to make a positive impact on your daily life? Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

:yaohappy:

UK2K

10-03-2016, 01:17 PM

:cheers:

The fact that people still don't understand this really boggles my mind. All the pro-Trump and pro-Hillary clowns that literally make 30 threads a day to yell at each other, you guys really think your patsy of a candidate is going to make a positive impact on your daily life? Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

:yaohappy:

Get government out of our lives...

That's all I'm asking.

Replay32

10-03-2016, 01:58 PM

No. Not even close. Especially when comparing him to our last president.

UK2K

10-03-2016, 02:07 PM

No. Not even close. Especially when comparing him to our last president.

Non-taxpayer... confirmed.

ItsMillerTime

10-03-2016, 02:08 PM

Get government out of our lives...

That's all I'm asking.

In a perfect world this would work. However, the private sector in this country is (also) morally and financially corrupt that we need certain government regulations to keep things in check. But hey, land of the free and home of the brave and all that right? :rolleyes:

bladefd

10-03-2016, 04:42 PM

You couldn't type up a bigger list of bullshit if you tried: congratulations. What do you know about Christianity anyway? Based on this pile of garbage, I would assume very little.

Oh, each of those points are all true. Of course, not all conservatives are like that but more than half are pure hypocrites and have beliefs that are nothing like Jesus or any saint.

Go on, point by point. This is what majority, which is more than 50%, of conservatives believe. I forgot about their often anti-science stances and wanting to teach creationism alongside evolution :lol

"
Lets talk about these hypocrites who we call conservatives.
-Conservatives don't give a damn about conserving the environment
-Conservatives have no issue with humans polluting the environment for energy and want to continue things as they are.. in fact, many want to drill more and do more coal mining. They complain when someone mentions expanding clean green renewable energy like solar power
-they talk big about jesus and christianity, yet are against everything Jesus fought for including treating everyone like how you want to be treated and being against people of different faiths different from them and even are constantly bitching and moaning about LGBT community. Goes against everything jesus believed
-they bit <h and moan every time someone poor gets access to food stamp or charity or something. They often may bit <h about the poor and minorities altogether
-the biggest gun gungho folks are conservatives, crying nonstop about guns. Completely un-Christlike
-they complain when Healthcare access expands to more people around the nation, yet have no issues with massive corporations and wall street and other scumbags not paying taxes and screwing rest of us in the name of greed. Why are conservatives defending the biggest scumbag greedy tax-evading corporations?
"

Patrick Chewing

10-03-2016, 05:26 PM

No. Not even close. Especially when comparing him to our last president.

Welfare recipient confirmed.

9erempiree

10-03-2016, 06:04 PM

https://s21.postimg.org/qgsr84bnr/Firefox_Screenshot_2016_10_03_T22_04_33_470_Z.png

jstern

10-03-2016, 06:55 PM

I like Obama. He has been a really good President. I don't like Hillary one bit.

I miss the good old days when the argument was that Obama was going to turn this nation into a Muslim nation. So a lot of people have an irrational hate for him.

Kvnzhangyay

10-03-2016, 07:13 PM

No presidency has affected me much anyhow, so I really don't give a shit

KyrieTheFuture

10-03-2016, 07:32 PM

No one would remember Obama if he wasn't Black. He was okay, a generally abysmal record in all things that actually matter but no one pays attention to. Pretty good on social issues. Improved our standing in the world despite what tin foil hatters say.

I don't understand blaming him for partisanship...blame the worst congress we have EVER had.

I don't understand blaming him for race relations, makes absolutely no sense. He doesn't speak for black people any more than a white president speaks for white people.

Blame him for his appalling drone and cyber warfare.

longtime lurker

10-03-2016, 09:14 PM

Obama has been a good President. He inherited a completely shit situation and managed to navigate the worst financial crisis of my life time. He's made positive strides on social issues and the economy despite having a Congress that refuses to work with him. His foreign policy has been abysmal though. I don't understand how he's divisive on race. He's annoyingly down the middle on race issues. Conservatives live in their own little world, it's not Obama's fault that right wing racists lost their fvcking mind because at the reality of a black President.

9erempiree

10-03-2016, 09:56 PM

I don't understand how he's divisive on race. He's annoyingly down the middle on race issues. Conservatives live in their own little world, it's not Obama's fault that right wing racists lost their fvcking mind because at the reality of a black President.

This is where you lose all credibility. Should have stayed on course with your analysis but instead you added that part.

He is very divisive. Did you forget the 'son' speech and the speech where he was actually crying about Blacks being murdered in Chicago?

You would think he diffused the riots that happened so frequent in our country with that great speech-giving ability.

We actually don't care about him being the first Black president. A lot of people are using the 'first Black president' argument to prop him up actually. I don't give a rat's ass what his skin color is.

The only time skin color comes into play is when people want him to diffuse violence.

Pointguard

10-03-2016, 10:06 PM

Pointguard

10-03-2016, 11:58 PM

Really have to laugh at the clowns saying he was the most divisive President ever while never mentioning how backward and straight up racist the right has been in the House. One of the most disgusting things seen in the majority of Ish's lifetime. They went against stances they believed in just to be contrary to Obama. He reshaped bills because he did his homework on the stances of several key members of the house. But being true to their sorry ways they changed their stances. Obama went beyond the center plenty of times only to see that they playing the worst game of politics in the modern era.
How timely. Just tonight, the idiots in the House veto the President after he tells them how dangerous the bill was. And they figuring that what does it matter, we're getting a one up on Obama. THEN they blame Obama because they weren't bright enough to see the flaws. This is typical of these idiots.
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/congress-overrides-obama-veto-blames-obama-776993859646 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSLAfCcL7xI

poido123

10-04-2016, 12:00 AM

How timely. Just tonight, the idiots in the House veto the President after he tells them how dangerous the bill was. And they figuring that what does it matter, we're getting a one up on Obama. THEN they blame Obama because they weren't bright enough to see the flaws. This is typical of these idiots.
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/congress-overrides-obama-veto-blames-obama-776993859646 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSLAfCcL7xI

TBH, he's on his way out.

If he wanted something done, he should of done it earlier.

Pointguard

10-04-2016, 12:23 AM

TBH, he's on his way out.

If he wanted something done, he should of done it earlier.
How many times has the house wasted time on nonsense doing exactly this. Just doing anti Obama actions without regard to their conscience. But to answer your question this bill originated in the House and Obama vetoed it and told them to do their homework. They didn't and realized it too late. But blamed Obama because they didn't do their homework.

NumberSix

10-04-2016, 12:41 AM

How many times has the house wasted time on nonsense doing exactly this. Just doing anti Obama actions without regard to their conscience. But to answer your question this bill originated in the House and Obama vetoed it and told them to do their homework. They didn't and realized it too late. But blamed Obama because they didn't do their homework.
You're an idiot. It was a unanimous vote in both the house and the senate. That means all the Democrats voted for it too.

Obama vetoed it and then it was a nearly unanimous vote to override the veto. Only 1 person voted against the override.

Those darn Republicans doe.

Pointguard

10-04-2016, 12:59 AM

You're an idiot. It was a unanimous vote in both the house and the senate. That means all the Democrats voted for it too.

Obama vetoed it and then it was a nearly unanimous vote to override the veto. Only 1 person voted against the override.

Those darn Republicans doe.
Did you watch the video you purified jerk. The Democrats weren't blaming Obame you funny farm reject. How hard is it to watch a video after I already explained it.

Patrick Chewing

10-04-2016, 01:03 AM

I don't understand blaming him for race relations, makes absolutely no sense. He doesn't speak for black people any more than a white president speaks for white people.

He should be blamed for some of the racial divide. His meddling in of certain social issues that revolve around African-Americans only IS divisive.

9erempiree

10-04-2016, 01:08 AM

Did you watch the video you purified jerk. The Democrats weren't blaming Obame you funny farm reject. How hard is it to watch a video after I already explained it.

Liberal tactics.

Start to name call.

These guys are so predictable.

Pointguard

10-04-2016, 01:14 AM

Liberal tactics.

Start to name call.

These guys are so predictable.
:lol

Who started the name calling? And he isn't Liberal but very predictable. Why is it so hard to read here?

Dresta

10-04-2016, 06:17 AM

Lawl no. Reagan's legacy has been a disaster for the middle class. Only the rich have ever benefited from his policies. And Obama > Clinton. I honestly think Obama ranks very highly in the all-time list.
You are completely delusional. If Reagan's legacy has been a disaster for the middle class, then what has Obama been?:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ct51uo_W8AAFujA.jpg

His administration has been an unmitigated disaster, the consequences of which he has been rather careful to push down the road and hand to his predecessor (to convince gullible fools like yourself, who only pay attention to superficialities, that he's done a great job).

No. Anybody with any shred of common sense can tell you that.

Obama will be remembered as a good president, but there will always be basement dwellers and senile senior citizens who think otherwise.
Oh, look, it's Mr. Reasonable. All that is required to evaluate a Presidency is a "shred of common sense", and anyone who disagrees is either a senility ridden old person (nice bigotry that) or a basement-dweller. That's quite the argument you've got there: logically iron-clad, and full of reasonableness and, dare I say, "common sense"?

FYI, sensible people with common sense tend to listen to and respect their elders, even when they can't agree with them, you know, because they've lived and experienced more than you have, and you might learn something worthwhile from such a wealth of experience (and also a much harder life than yours--the conceit to dismiss the war generation so contemptuously--you are disgusting); petulant and juvenile people tend to dismiss their elders out of prejudice and bigotry, usually because their elders are the ones dishing out the bad news, and telling young folks what they ought not to do (and when the next generation gets old they recognise how conceited they were to dismiss such people with the arrogance of an angry teenagers).

Dresta

10-04-2016, 06:22 AM

How timely. Just tonight, the idiots in the House veto the President after he tells them how dangerous the bill was. And they figuring that what does it matter, we're getting a one up on Obama. THEN they blame Obama because they weren't bright enough to see the flaws. This is typical of these idiots.
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/congress-overrides-obama-veto-blames-obama-776993859646 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSLAfCcL7xI
:facepalm

Overriding that veto is one of the few things Congress has done right for once.

But yeah, as long as some guy in hipster glasses on MSNBC is spoonfeeding you bullshit, you'll keep lapping it up I guess.

And yes, Mitch McConnell is a piece of shit: him and Obama have that one in common.

Dresta

10-04-2016, 06:39 AM

Oh, each of those points are all true. Of course, not all conservatives are like that but more than half are pure hypocrites and have beliefs that are nothing like Jesus or any saint.

Go on, point by point. This is what majority, which is more than 50%, of conservatives believe. I forgot about their often anti-science stances and wanting to teach creationism alongside evolution :lol

"
Lets talk about these hypocrites who we call conservatives.
-Conservatives don't give a damn about conserving the environment
-Conservatives have no issue with humans polluting the environment for energy and want to continue things as they are.. in fact, many want to drill more and do more coal mining. They complain when someone mentions expanding clean green renewable energy like solar power
-they talk big about jesus and christianity, yet are against everything Jesus fought for including treating everyone like how you want to be treated and being against people of different faiths different from them and even are constantly bitching and moaning about LGBT community. Goes against everything jesus believed
-they bit <h and moan every time someone poor gets access to food stamp or charity or something. They often may bit <h about the poor and minorities altogether
-the biggest gun gungho folks are conservatives, crying nonstop about guns. Completely un-Christlike
-they complain when Healthcare access expands to more people around the nation, yet have no issues with massive corporations and wall street and other scumbags not paying taxes and screwing rest of us in the name of greed. Why are conservatives defending the biggest scumbag greedy tax-evading corporations?
"
I'll just deal with this one, because most of them are too stupid and prejudicial for me to bother with (as if demanding the right to defend yourself is somehow at odds with Christianity, a doctrine all about personal conscience and the improvement of the self, rather than the improvement of society through social engineering and constant tinkering with the social fabric of a society--from which stems a lot of our mental health ills btw). The reason many "conservatives" don't care about conservation of the environment, or the countryside, or whatever, is because they are not really conservatives, but an earlier generation of liberals, who have been branded "conservative" by their successors; if you look closely, you will see this is happening again before our eyes, and that people like Sam Harris, will soon be called conservative. Free-market fanaticism is not conservative, and never has been (the free market is the most radical force ever unleashed). Manchesterian Liberalism is not conservatism; get that into your head once and for all. Every generation of liberals, for more a good century, has come along and branded their progenitors as conservatives--but that doesn't make it so.

Your understanding of Christianity is no more than a caricaturisation. A fundamental tenet of Christianity is that if you seek to change the world, then do so by reforming yourself first and foremost; take strength from hardship, personal and spiritual development being the most important thing, and so forth. Charity by compulsion is not charity: is that so hard to understand? Charity is a voluntary exercise carried out by individuals, and in this context, it is highly esteemed by Christian doctrine (whereas the deformed, socialistic charity by compulsion is not, being at odds with the belief in the salience of individual conscience). Your ignorance of Christianity prevents any kind of sensible discussion on that subject.

Also, tax evasion and tax avoidance are not the same thing: you are only sounding like an ignorant loudmouthed bigot at this point; there are many Christian justifications one could invoke for not wanting to give money to a downright criminal government, which uses that money to extrajudicially kill people; as long as one obeys the law, that is perfectly congruent with Christian morality. Non-procreational sex (i.e. sex for pleasure) is a sin according to Christian morality, yet you demand Christians applaud what they consider to be sinful lest they be un-Christian. This is a self-evident absurdity, and yet you parrot it. I could say a lot more about your jaw-dropping ignorance and conceit on this topic, but I think i've said enough.

DukeDelonte13

10-04-2016, 07:24 AM

You are completely delusional. If Reagan's legacy has been a disaster for the middle class, then what has Obama been?:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ct51uo_W8AAFujA.jpg

His administration has been an unmitigated disaster, the consequences of which he has been rather careful to push down the road and hand to his predecessor (to convince gullible fools like yourself, who only pay attention to superficialities, that he's done a great job).

Oh, look, it's Mr. Reasonable. All that is required to evaluate a Presidency is a "shred of common sense", and anyone who disagrees is either a senility ridden old person (nice bigotry that) or a basement-dweller. That's quite the argument you've got there: logically iron-clad, and full of reasonableness and, dare I say, "common sense"?

FYI, sensible people with common sense tend to listen to and respect their elders, even when they can't agree with them, you know, because they've lived and experienced more than you have, and you might learn something worthwhile from such a wealth of experience (and also a much harder life than yours--the conceit to dismiss the war generation so contemptuously--you are disgusting); petulant and juvenile people tend to dismiss their elders out of prejudice and bigotry, usually because their elders are the ones dishing out the bad news, and telling young folks what they ought not to do (and when the next generation gets old they recognise how conceited they were to dismiss such people with the arrogance of an angry teenagers).

I'm glad I got a jobless bum who pretends to be an intellectual on a basketball forum giving me life lessons. Maybe the angry old man who tells me Obama is the anti-christ is right after all. :oldlol:

Dresta

10-04-2016, 07:57 AM

I'm glad I got a jobless bum who pretends to be an intellectual on a basketball forum giving me life lessons. Maybe the angry old man who tells me Obama is the anti-christ is right after all. :oldlol:
Straw man, ad hominem, and a red herring, all in two sentences: that must be a record. But what does one expect to someone who makes arguments like: "so-and-so is awesome, and it only takes common sense to know that; anyone who disagrees is either senile or a bum!"

And for the record, I don't "pretend" to be anything, and certainly not an "intellectual" (whatever that means, the title has always been common amongst frauds and charlatans, and I want no part of it, thanks). I post on here reactively, in response to things, spur of the moment, no different from you (what makes your online message board posting so superior, eh? Is it the smugness or the conceit, or the banality?). Don't get jealous because I sometimes have something interesting to say, whereas all you've got are the same kind of tedious tropes and platitudes that any half-educated person regurgitates when they are in the ignorant throes of youth. So yes, you do need some life lessons: the first being that you ought to grow the hell up, and stop acting like a juvenile.

Pointguard

10-04-2016, 08:57 AM

:facepalm

Overriding that veto is one of the few things Congress has done right for once.

But yeah, as long as some guy in hipster glasses on MSNBC is spoonfeeding you bullshit, you'll keep lapping it up I guess.

And yes, Mitch McConnell is a piece of shit: him and Obama have that one in common.

So you admit Congress has been foul... ohhhh k. Have you ever thought why???

Spoonfed or not its been this way since Obama has been in office. I brought it up because it was timely.

bladefd

10-04-2016, 11:29 AM

The reason many "conservatives" don't care about conservation of the environment, or the countryside, or whatever, is because they are not really conservatives, but an earlier generation of liberals, who have been branded "conservative" by their successors; if you look closely, you will see this is happening again before our eyes, and that people like Sam Harris, will soon be called conservative. Free-market fanaticism is not conservative, and never has been (the free market is the most radical force ever unleashed). Manchesterian Liberalism is not conservatism; get that into your head once and for all. Every generation of liberals, for more a good century, has come along and branded their progenitors as conservatives--but that doesn't make it so.

I know that. I simply was referring to the group of people we consider conservatives today.

Majority of these folks want nothing to do with conserving the environment, which is extremely selfish and foolish. We are part of the environment as much as environment is part of us. Going against this very platform makes you wonder who these conservatives support. It is as hypocritical as one can get.

A fundamental tenet of Christianity is that if you seek to change the world, then do so by reforming yourself first and foremost; take strength from hardship, personal and spiritual development being the most important thing, and so forth. Charity by compulsion is not charity: is that so hard to understand? Charity is a voluntary exercise carried out by individuals, and in this context, it is highly esteemed by Christian doctrine

Another fundamental tenet of Christianity is helping those less fortunate. It goes back to the beginning of Christianity like 2000 years ago, and something that majority of today's conservatives want nothing to do with. It is hypocritical. They are so paranoid as if the whole world is out to trick them or take the money. Sometimes, it is just about helping people.

BTW, helping others is not in the name of socialism. You seem to be very paranoid of everything being somehow about socialism or transfer of wealth, when it simply isn't the case. Helping others is not about socialism but speaks more about your personality and personal philosophy/worldview than anything. By helping others, you help yourself. You can't be against it and not be considered hypocrites. Period. Do you understand that concept?

Also, tax evasion and tax avoidance are not the same thing: you are only sounding like an ignorant loudmouthed bigot at this point; there are many Christian justifications one could invoke for not wanting to give money to a downright criminal government, which uses that money to extrajudicially kill people; as long as one obeys the law, that is perfectly congruent with Christian morality.

Yes but the thing is many of these corporations tax evade and avoid taxes to fill their own pockets up more and live more extravagant lives. Meanwhile, the rest of us still have to pay taxes because we don't have the tools or the lawyers to help us avoid paying taxes. Tell me a Christian justification for greed and defending the greedy who break every rule in the book to avoid taxes. Good luck with that.

I also understand that there is no concept of taxes in Christianity, but that is not the point. The point concerns greed as it pertains to wealth. Yes I disagree with a lot of things the government does, but that doesn't mean that I would support greedy individuals for personal gain to blow around more money while the rest of us are forced to pay taxes. You cannot defend the greedy when who knows what they spend money for. At least we know a lot of the government money goes to social causes and running a democratic nation. Sure, there are corrupt politicians, but the government also spends on causes like NASA, science, medical research, other investments. You make it seem as if most of the money goes towards killing people when it simply isn't the case.

Majority of the folks we consider 'conservatives' today literally go against their own interests just to somehow help defend wealthy corporations to tax evade. It is completely hypocritical and to say otherwise is incongruent with the beliefs of Christianity.

Dresta

10-04-2016, 11:35 AM

So you admit Congress has been foul... ohhhh k. Have you ever thought why???

Spoonfed or not its been this way since Obama has been in office. I brought it up because it was timely.
Yes, but Obama was being foul by vetoing that bill, so I thought it a terrible example.

falc39

10-04-2016, 11:49 AM

I know that. I simply was referring to the group of people we consider conservatives today.

Majority of these folks want nothing to do with conserving the environment, which is extremely selfish and foolish. We are part of the environment as much as environment is part of us. Going against this very platform makes you wonder who these conservatives support. It is as hypocritical as one can get.

Another fundamental tenet of Christianity is helping those less fortunate. It goes back to the beginning of Christianity like 2000 years ago, and something that majority of today's conservatives want nothing to do with. They are so paranoid. It is hypocritical

BTW, helping others is not in the name of socialism. You seem to be very paranoid of everything being somehow about socialism or transfer of wealth, when it simply isn't the case. Helping others is not about socialism but speaks more about your personality and personal philosophy/worldview than anything. By helping others, you help yourself. You can't be against it and not be considered hypocrites. Period. Do you understand that concept?

Yes but the thing is many of these corporations tax evade and avoid taxes to fill their own pockets up more and live more extravagant lives. Meanwhile, the rest of us still have to pay taxes because we don't have the tools or the lawyers to help us avoid paying taxes. Tell me a Christian justification for greed and defending the greedy who break every rule in the book to avoid taxes. Good luck with that.

Majority of the folks we consider 'conservatives' today literally go against their own interests just to somehow help defend wealthy corporations to tax evade. It is completely hypocritical and to say otherwise is incongruent with the beliefs of Christianity.

Look I'm not Christian, but corporations not paying enough taxes and individuals choosing to improve the world are two entirely different things and are not mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible to be involved in both facets. People choose to help and improve through different ways and through varying scopes and magnitudes. It's a bit arrogant to come in and say they have to help people a certain way because you don't know what they are passionate about or most effective at creating change for. How exactly do you know what their interests are? Do you claim to know their lives better than themselves?

bladefd

10-04-2016, 12:09 PM

Look I'm not Christian, but corporations not paying enough taxes and individuals choosing to improve the world are two entirely different things and are not mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible to be involved in both facets. People choose to help and improve through different ways and through varying scopes and magnitudes. It's a bit arrogant to come in and say they have to help people a certain way because you don't know what they are passionate about or most effective at creating change for. How exactly do you know what their interests are? Do you claim to know their lives better than themselves?

Not paying enough? No no, just pay what you owe. Why do majority of conservatives attack anyone that says that one should pay what one owes?

You're right that one can be involved in both facets of improving the world and not paying taxes. I never argued against it. The question is why are conservatives defending greedy corporations though? I never said that you must help a certain way, but at least be consistent and have rationale behind it.

My main point is that majority (more than 50%) of conservatives are hypocrites, and they often (not always) go against their own interests for whatever reason. Nothing else. I have yet to see an argument otherwise. Also, I am assuming you understand that this is an argument not against corporations, which would be a different argument altogether, but argument against conservatives defending things that go against their own interests while touting being Christians when quite a few of their beliefs go against Christianity. Oil corporations making billions while polluting the environment don't need to be defended to tax evade or avoid their taxes.

UK2K

10-04-2016, 12:24 PM

Obama, as you no doubt know, promised his would be the most transparent administration in history, after the Bush administration was widely criticized for not being transparent with open records requests.

Yet last year, the Obama administration spent $31.3 million to fight FOIA cases

NumberSix

10-04-2016, 12:42 PM

I know that. I simply was referring to the group of people we consider conservatives today.

Majority of these folks want nothing to do with conserving the environment, which is extremely selfish and foolish. We are part of the environment as much as environment is part of us. Going against this very platform makes you wonder who these conservatives support. It is as hypocritical as one can get.
American conservatism isn't a reference to conserving the environment. It's in reference to conserving the principles of the founding and the principles of the constitution.

Another fundamental tenet of Christianity is helping those less fortunate. It goes back to the beginning of Christianity like 2000 years ago, and something that majority of today's conservatives want nothing to do with. It is hypocritical.
Wrong. American Christians donate WAY more to charity than non-religious people and Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats.

Helping the less fortunate is a PERSONAL responsibility. There's nothing charitable about demanding that the government tax the rich to fund social programs while doing absolutely nothing yourself. You don't get points for wanting the government to be charitable with other people's money.

BTW, helping others is not in the name of socialism. You seem to be very paranoid of everything being somehow about socialism or transfer of wealth, when it simply isn't the case. Helping others is not about socialism but speaks more about your personality and personal philosophy/worldview than anything. By helping others, you help yourself. You can't be against it and not be considered hypocrites. Period. Do you understand that concept?
Yes, we understand that you want people to be helped with other people's money, but probably not your own. Sorry, you don't get credit for that.

NumberSix

10-04-2016, 12:47 PM

My main point is that majority (more than 50%) of conservatives are hypocrites, and they often (not always) go against their own interests for whatever reason. Nothing else. I have yet to see an argument otherwise. Also, I am assuming you understand that this is an argument not against corporations, which would be a different argument altogether, but argument against conservatives defending things that go against their own interests while touting being Christians when quite a few of their beliefs go against Christianity. Oil corporations making billions while polluting the environment don't need to be defended to tax evade or avoid their taxes.
You have no basis to call these people hypocrites. You appear to have no understanding of what a conservative is and no understanding of Christianity.

Bosnian Sajo

10-04-2016, 01:17 PM

No, but Obama is the most charismatic president I've ever seen. He really got a lot of people hype, and I think most of them are disappointed because of that.

Obama is a great presidential figure. He has a presence. For that alone, I think he couldn't have been a disaster. However, I do think that he didn't accomplish that much of what he promised. It wasn't really change.

A lot of it came from the fact that we all hated George W Bush. Trump coming in with 'make America great again' is not that different, but the thing is... while people are still unsettled with the state of the country, it's nowhere near where it was in 2008.

Hillary has potential to be a disaster.

-Smak

Killed Osama
Took our troops out of Afghanistan
Same sex marriage is now legal (ew, but ok)
Brought in a new healthcare system, like he said he would
Opened up a US embassy in Cuba, first time flag flown in Havana since JFK
Trans-Pacific partnership
He urged minimum wage to go up to $10/hour...18 states now go by this
Helped save the auto industry...250k jobs made in the process
Unemployment went WAAAAAY down.

When you say he didn't make change....what EXACTLY are you talking about? Is there something specific you thought was going to happen? It's one thing if these things don't effect you, it's another to sit there and pretend like he didn't bring DRASTIC change to this country, most for the better.

qrich

10-04-2016, 06:55 PM

Disaster may be going a bit too far, but it hasn't been good, not even close.

brownmamba00

10-04-2016, 07:50 PM

I like Obama but his presidency has been very mediocre.

The new healthcare system is a net positive but that's about it really

FillJackson

10-04-2016, 10:14 PM

bladefd

10-04-2016, 10:39 PM

American conservatism isn't a reference to conserving the environment. It's in reference to conserving the principles of the founding and the principles of the constitution.

Never said it was, but if you look at Christianity, there are many references to protecting nature and animals. I'm not a christian, but do you really want me to find bible references to protecting nature? Majority of conservatives are against protecting the environment by touting up drilling more oil and doing more coal mining. These are destructive things to nature. They complain when someone mentions expanding clean green renewable energy like solar power. Hypocrisy to Christianity.

BTW, if you knew about the founding fathers, you would know many of them were farmers including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and many genuinely cared about nature including Ben Franklin, etc. Climate change/global warming has a major effect on farming and nature. Those guys would never support "drill baby drill" and disgusting coal mining that severely damages nature, environment and humans. Most founding fathers cared about nature.

Wrong. American Christians donate WAY more to charity than non-religious people and Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats.

I won't push this because you are right. Remember, conservatives are often richer than liberals, but they do give more from sheer number of monetary amounts. I'm curious to see what percent of those donations are to religious institutions like churches and how much go to help people. A lot of religious institutions do spend a chunk of charity money on things that don't directly help people, such as upgrading buildings, local advertising, etc.

Helping the less fortunate is a PERSONAL responsibility. There's nothing charitable about demanding that the government tax the rich to fund social programs while doing absolutely nothing yourself. You don't get points for wanting the government to be charitable with other people's money.

NASA, NSF, NIH, public health services, vaccination programs to ensure vaccines are provided in eliminating polio/smallpox/measles/etc in America, medicare, CDC, EPA, etc are all essential social+scientific programs.. There are some social programs out there I would cut altogether or combine a few together and cut funding.

It is not about transferring wealth to invest in various technologies, including medical technologies and research, and spending on resources like food kitchens to help homeless while funding agencies to help them find jobs. I would include that within helping others. It is not about giving away free money as you may have been thinking :facepalm

FillJackson

10-04-2016, 10:39 PM

Disaster may be going a bit too far, but it hasn't been good, not even close.
The signal achievement under Obama has been preventing another Depression.

The American economy is better shape after this worldwide financial crisis than most.

poido123

10-04-2016, 11:10 PM

I like Obama but his presidency has been very mediocre.

The new healthcare system is a net positive but that's about it really

Wasn't Obamacare the worst aspect of his presidency?

:roll:

dude77

10-04-2016, 11:33 PM

Wasn't Obamacare the worst aspect of his presidency?

:roll:

:lol

that self ether

falc39

10-05-2016, 12:05 AM

Never said it was, but if you look at Christianity, there are many references to protecting nature and animals. I'm not a christian, but do you really want me to find bible references to protecting nature? Majority of conservatives are against protecting the environment by touting up drilling more oil and doing more coal mining. These are destructive things to nature. They complain when someone mentions expanding clean green renewable energy like solar power. Hypocrisy to Christianity.

BTW, if you knew about the founding fathers, you would know many of them were farmers including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and many genuinely cared about nature including Ben Franklin, etc. Climate change/global warming has a major effect on farming and nature. Those guys would never support "drill baby drill" and disgusting coal mining that severely damages nature, environment and humans. Most founding fathers cared about nature.

Some of these claims are a bit over-the-top. I mean anyone can nitpick these kind of hypocrisies on people. Why don't you feel guilty when you eat a nice meal on a friday night when there are children starving in Africa? How dare you complain about the 1% when you live in a country that relative to the rest of the world, is considered the 1%? How can you support affirmative action if you are against racism? How can you complain about not having enough money and being poor, but have the latest and greatest iphone? etc. How many people are actually farmers these days? Can you really expect people to have the mindset of a farmer? In the 21st century??? This is basically what you said: They support constitution->Framers were farmers->hypocrisy that they don't think like a farmer!

There was a time when coal mining and oil drilling was absolutely needed and in some parts of the world they are still absolutely needed due to the cheap energy it provides. Who knows how many years of technological progress and advancement of civilization would be held back if these natural resources were never utilized. Do you use anything that makes your life more comfortable that gets its energy from coal or oil drilling? Well, hypocrisy!!!!

I won't push this because you are right. Remember, conservatives are often richer than liberals, but they do give more from sheer number of monetary amounts. I'm curious to see what percent of those donations are to religious institutions like churches and how much go to help people. A lot of religious institutions do spend a chunk of charity money on things that don't directly help people, such as upgrading buildings, local advertising, etc.

I would imagine that there are good churches and not so good ones, just like there are good charities and poor charities. It's really no different than most charitable organizations where there are costs that go into running and advertising it's purpose. There are some really gross scams out there that involve some major charities (like Red Cross), and the government themselves never do a good job at distributing welfare and money either. What you complain about religion and such is really applicable to human beings in general.

NASA, NSF, NIH, public health services, vaccination programs to ensure vaccines are provided in eliminating polio/smallpox/measles/etc in America, medicare, CDC, EPA, etc are all essential social+scientific programs.. There are some social programs out there I would cut altogether or combine a few together and cut funding.

It is not about transferring wealth to invest in various technologies, including medical technologies and research, and spending on resources like food kitchens to help homeless while funding agencies to help them find jobs. I would include that within helping others. It is not about giving away free money as you may have been thinking :facepalm

The problem is not that people are selfish and not wanting to help and be charitable, the problem is there are people out there who think they themselves (or only a select group of people) know how to spend everyone's money better. You may have certain ideas of what is effective to spend money on, but what makes your ideas that much more superior than your fellow man? And why do you get to choose where his money should go? Would it be fair if he forced the same to you?

NumberSix

10-05-2016, 11:21 AM

Obama will be remember for his healthcare disaster and for handing the middle over to ISIS and Iran.

UK2K

10-05-2016, 12:52 PM

Wasn't Obamacare the worst aspect of his presidency?

:roll:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-illegal-bailout-for-obamacare-1475276262

An Illegal Bailout for ObamaCare

News leaked this week that the Obama Administration is moving to pay health insurers billions of dollars through an obscure Treasury Department account known as the Judgment Fund. This would be a cash infusion for an ObamaCare program known as “risk corridors,” an allegedly temporary provision in the 2010 law that enticed insurers to participate in the exchanges.

The program was supposed to hedge against the risk that insurers would suffer large losses from plans that are limited in how they can price premiums for age or illness. Profitable insurers would pay into a fund that would be redistributed to companies that took unforeseen losses. The Administration said that risk corridors would be budget-neutral because more insurers would benefit than buckle, and the fund might even produce a profit.

Meanwhile back on earth, risk corridors resulted in industry-wide adverse selection, in which there are not enough healthy insurers to subsidize the sick ones. In 2014 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) collected a mere 12% of what insurers requested, and the fund payed out some $360 million of nearly $2.9 billion in claims.

The agency tried to raid other Health and Human Services funds to make up the shortfall, but legislators blocked that run around the law. Congress has twice stipulated that the Affordable Care Act must be enforced as written: No taxpayer money may be appropriated to risk-corridor payments. Yet CMS said in a memo this year that the payments are “an obligation of the United States government,” and the agency is “open to discussing the resolution of those claims.”

The plan now is to sneak around Congress through publicly financed lawsuit settlements. The Justice Department is eager to end a $5 billion class-action suit from Oregon’s now insolvent co-op, Health Republic Insurance, which demanded full payment of risk-corridor claims. So Justice will likely unload cash from the Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund, a 1950s invention that permanently allows for payment of judgments against the U.S.

This is an illegal move to spend money where Congress wouldn’t. A June memo from the Congressional Research Service notes that plaintiffs would have to wait until the government digs up more money or Congress decides to appropriate it. In a 1998 letter the Government Accountability Office pointed out that the Judgment Fund is not a tool to “circumvent congressional restrictions on appropriations,” which is precisely what the White House is doing.

Obama stealing taxpayer money to pay for his **** up.

What else is new?

The reality is, half of his voters don't pay taxes anyway, so what do they care?

ILLsmak

10-05-2016, 04:29 PM

Killed Osama
Took our troops out of Afghanistan
Same sex marriage is now legal (ew, but ok)
Brought in a new healthcare system, like he said he would
Opened up a US embassy in Cuba, first time flag flown in Havana since JFK
Trans-Pacific partnership
He urged minimum wage to go up to $10/hour...18 states now go by this
Helped save the auto industry...250k jobs made in the process
Unemployment went WAAAAAY down.

When you say he didn't make change....what EXACTLY are you talking about? Is there something specific you thought was going to happen? It's one thing if these things don't effect you, it's another to sit there and pretend like he didn't bring DRASTIC change to this country, most for the better.

It's whatever; I mean, I am on the outside. I see both sides going at each other and a lot of it just seems like pure propaganda. I can only hope that most of you are trolling.

There are sheep on both sides. Only when you distance yourself from it will you be able to see how biased everyone is, even your side.

On the topic: can prolly list whatever with whoever. Check it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/4242376/George-W-Bushs-10-Best-Moments.html

Could write a list on how much Bush did for education, how he took down Saddam, etc, and we all know how world changing Bush was.

What Obama seemed to be promising was a change of ideals. Which, to be fair, a lot of people have promised and lied about. Meaning: that Washington would stop being this and that and actually help the people. I disagree with that happening. He was convincing, though, so I voted for him.

I don't agree that because everyone promises that and fails to deliver that he shouldn't be held accountable for it, though, because that was the basis of his campaign.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

random shit. Check out promises broken, but really it was just a larger umbrella of 'change' he presented that was not really given. I'm not gonna say it's better or worse than 2008 because 2008 seemed pretty bad, but I'm talking about... he did the same shit Hillary is doing like "We're gonna beef up the middle class, and crack down on the rich people..." and that didn't really happen, imo.

-Smak

brownmamba00

10-05-2016, 04:35 PM

Wasn't Obamacare the worst aspect of his presidency?

:roll:
Only a moron would think that.

Health insurance is a MUST.

UK2K

10-05-2016, 04:40 PM

Only a moron would think that.

Health insurance is a MUST.

Then give people who DIDN'T have it the same shitty healthcare I can expect at the VA. Or would that be inhumane? 'But you can't give the poor shittier healthcare than the wealthy'. Irony at its finest.

And don't force me to pay it.

And don't tell me it's going to make MY healthcare cheaper, because everyone who paid for healthcare knew that was a fat ****ing lie.

But because Americans (particularly Democrats) are too stupid to know any better, it was passed.

"You can't do it political, you just literally cannot do it. Transparent financing and also transparent spending. I mean, this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes the bill dies. Okay? So it’s written to do that," Gruber said. "In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in, you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical to get for the thing to pass. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not."

Too. ****ing. Stupid. ^He's^ talking about you.

Shouldn't even be able to vote, but that's democracy. The stupid decide on policies they know nothing about. The people who pay no taxes decide how much we tax those who do. 'Merica 2016.

Now the whole ****ing thing is collapsing, companies are pulling out after massive losses, costs are skyrocketing, and Obama and fam are trying to take money from secret funds to try and quietly subsidize these companies because he doesn't want people to know what a disaster it is. But, soon enough, everyone will.

But I agree, healthcare is important.

bladefd

10-05-2016, 08:04 PM

There was a time when coal mining and oil drilling was absolutely needed and in some parts of the world they are still absolutely needed due to the cheap energy it provides. Who knows how many years of technological progress and advancement of civilization would be held back if these natural resources were never utilized. Do you use anything that makes your life more comfortable that gets its energy from coal or oil drilling? Well, hypocrisy!!!!

I know it was necessary at one point, but we are talking about today not 20-30 years ago. Solar panels have pretty much available last 15 years (initially not efficient), nuclear power plants (clean and efficient as long as you recycle the radioactive rods after use like France does), geothermal, and even wind turbines in some areas -- water tide turbines are another option. We also should have been investing significantly more money in research for nuclear fusion plants. We've been keeping ourselves limited to coal and oil for too long while still giving out huge subsidies to oil and coal companies through that whole time.

Sure, we all use things that use energy that comes from coal and oil. My family uses solar panels in our house, but yes the food we eat, things we buy, clothes, etc does use coal and oil to manufacture, transport, distribute, and storage along its lifecycle. Unfortunately, that is what I believe needs to change. What other option do we currently have? There are no labels on what uses clean energy and what doesn't.

Why are conservatives so against clean energy? Why they so gungho of oil and coal? Can you explain that to me? There have been some studies showing how dangerous burning oil and coal are to your skin, lungs, brain when you breathe in these things are even get exposed to them through the ocean or whatever. Biodiversity, such as animals, get destroyed as well through things like spills and even just exposure to them. Are we going to put saving a few dollars over life today when we are other clean energy technologies that can be harnessed? Are they against science or what is the rationale behind it? Is it to just keep it the way it is because it has been that way for the last 50 years? Technology changes, ideas change, science improves, philosophy changes, etc.. One cannot cling to same idea forever and be willing to reconsider old ideas.

You may have certain ideas of what is effective to spend money on, but what makes your ideas that much more superior than your fellow man? And why do you get to choose where his money should go? Would it be fair if he forced the same to you?

Let me ask you a question. Lets say we removed all taxes from society completely. 0% taxes. Who would build roads? Bridges? Infrastructure? Invest in energy? Run the power grid? Internet? Oversee planes and provide things like law enforcement, firefighters, hospitals even? You do realize that taxes are what run these things, right? This are not all privatized, and I don't even know if you can privatize everything from top to bottom. You will still need money to run these things, and most of it comes from tax money.

Even things like NASA, NSF, NIH, public health services, CDC, EPA, national vaccination programs as I mentioned earlier are essential in keeping the public healthy and continuing technological investment on a national scale.

If we could all avoid paying taxes, we all would, and most of us would pocket what we save rather than go out there and spend. Even if we spent more money, it would be on things like clothes, shoes, more expensive food, and other materialistic things. We are not going to spend the extra money on investing into things governments spend on such as big technological research. Those are things that mainly governments can do with large tax-money revenues to work with and few massive corporations like Google, IBM, Apple, Amazon, Sony, Microsoft, etc.

Unfortunately, those corporations still cannot do things that go beyond increasing their bottom-lines. In life, it is not just about the bottom line. Some investments work and some don't. Think about NASA - not all of their investments were successful. With a corporation, a failure will make people lose their jobs and damage their bottom line. If it damages it enough, they may pull out altogether. Imagine medical research - there will be failures along with successes in treating certain diseases, but it is necessary to try different things to find one that works. Those often go beyond bolstering the bottom line.

We do need an effective and strong government to run certain things. Anarchy simply falls apart because everyone would only be out for themselves (you didn't say anarchy but I'm just saying to contrast with a government).

Pointguard

10-05-2016, 09:29 PM

Then give people who DIDN'T have it the same shitty healthcare I can expect at the VA. Or would that be inhumane? 'But you can't give the poor shittier healthcare than the wealthy'. Irony at its finest.

And don't force me to pay it.
You pay for car insurance right. They force you to pay for it. You care more about your car than yourself/family.

And don't tell me it's going to make MY healthcare cheaper, because everyone who paid for healthcare knew that was a fat ****ing lie.
I know about 30 people who have greatly benefited from it. About four who have had it back fire on them. You are capitalizing "MY" because you are selfish.

Now the whole ****ing thing is collapsing, companies are pulling out after massive losses, costs are skyrocketing, and Obama and fam are trying to take money from secret funds to try and quietly subsidize these companies because he doesn't want people to know what a disaster it is. But, soon enough, everyone will.

But I agree, healthcare is important.
As a nation we could no longer just sit on our thumbs while 34 poorer nations had better HC systems. And the do nothing politics on the right, definitely had to end. Obamacare is the right move in that direction. You are fine with 34 nations being superior, when we obviously can be the best, because you don't care about others. Its definitely helped about 15 million here. Sure it needs refinement but its far from a failure. And if the Legislative branch wasn't such an embarrassment and trying to limit the HC overhaul at every turn, it would be in a much better situation than it is now.

Pointguard

10-05-2016, 10:15 PM

Some major accomplishments.

*Ordered the killing of Osama bin Ladin.
*Saved the American auto industry.
*Staved off the Bush Depression
*Stabilized the world economy
*Been a strong advocate for combating climate change.
*Pushed the United States more toward green forms of energy than any president before him.
*Been a strong advocate for pay equality for women.
*Passed historic credit card reform - Signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act, to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive credit card practices.
*Championed health care reform that

highwhey

10-05-2016, 10:19 PM

obama could discover the cure to cancer and republicans would still be complaining about him.

Pointguard

10-05-2016, 11:17 PM

obama could discover the cure to cancer and republicans would still be complaining about him.
This.
The Obama standard is so high that they dismissed the idea of a standard for Trump all together. Trump can lie, make fun of cripple people, talk about women acting like they are on their period, make fun of his republican peer's height and weight, belittle judge's ancestry, said McCain wasn't a war hero... .

ILLsmak

10-05-2016, 11:23 PM

This.
The Obama standard is so high that they dismissed the idea of a standard for Trump all together. Trump can lie, make fun of cripple people, talk about women acting like they are on their period, make fun of his republican peer's height and weight, belittle judge's ancestry, said McCain wasn't a war hero... .

It's a different thing now. I'm sure if people could let Obama stay for 4 more years they probably would, at this point. If Obama was running against Trump, he would have destroyed him by now.

Trump is getting as far as he has gotten because Hillary is just as much of a slimeball, and everyone knows how corrupt the Clintons are. Almost any other candidate on either side would probably have won by now.

-Smak

falc39

10-06-2016, 03:32 AM

Why are conservatives so against clean energy? Why they so gungho of oil and coal? Can you explain that to me? There have been some studies showing how dangerous burning oil and coal are to your skin, lungs, brain when you breathe in these things are even get exposed to them through the ocean or whatever. Biodiversity, such as animals, get destroyed as well through things like spills and even just exposure to them. Are we going to put saving a few dollars over life today when we are other clean energy technologies that can be harnessed? Are they against science or what is the rationale behind it? Is it to just keep it the way it is because it has been that way for the last 50 years? Technology changes, ideas change, science improves, philosophy changes, etc.. One cannot cling to same idea forever and be willing to reconsider old ideas.

I'm not sure if I would make the assumption that all conservatives are against clean energy. I can't speak for all conservatives, but I personally am not against it. I am against it when the government comes in and heavily subsidizes and tries to force a certain decision on people, but that doesn't mean I am against the idea of the technology itself. If the technology makes sense, then for me it needs to prove itself in the market. When I buy a new car in the next couple of years, I'm of course going to do my homework on it and make the best decision that fits what I need and works for me. If an electric car makes sense then that's fine; but if it doesn't, I will have no problem buying one that uses just gasoline. Does that mean I hate clean technology? No. When I'm spending a lot of money that I saved up and earned, I have to make decisions relative to how it will impact my life.

Let me ask you a question. Lets say we removed all taxes from society completely. 0% taxes. Who would build roads? Bridges? Infrastructure? Invest in energy? Run the power grid? Internet? Oversee planes and provide things like law enforcement, firefighters, hospitals even? You do realize that taxes are what run these things, right? This are not all privatized, and I don't even know if you can privatize everything from top to bottom. You will still need money to run these things, and most of it comes from tax money.

Even things like NASA, NSF, NIH, public health services, CDC, EPA, national vaccination programs as I mentioned earlier are essential in keeping the public healthy and continuing technological investment on a national scale.

If we could all avoid paying taxes, we all would, and most of us would pocket what we save rather than go out there and spend. Even if we spent more money, it would be on things like clothes, shoes, more expensive food, and other materialistic things. We are not going to spend the extra money on investing into things governments spend on such as big technological research. Those are things that mainly governments can do with large tax-money revenues to work with and few massive corporations like Google, IBM, Apple, Amazon, Sony, Microsoft, etc.

I thought we were talking about what people decide to give to charity? I really don't get the point of your question. I don't think anyone here would support 0% taxes and no government. We can argue all day and night about what the government should spend money on, and every person will have a different opinion on it. To go back to charity, people do support a wide-range of charities. I have donated to charities. They probably aren't charities that you may support, but that's the good thing about living in a free society. People can support what they are inclined to support and what is more meaningful to them.

We do need an effective and strong government to run certain things. Anarchy simply falls apart because everyone would only be out for themselves (you didn't say anarchy but I'm just saying to contrast with a government).

Are all effective and strong governments worth having? An effective and strong government can mean many things to different people. Would a government like China be more better here? Given the USA's standing in the world, I would say it is already a strong government. How much stronger does it need to be? And how much are you willing to give up to have that (because there are tradeoffs whether people realize it or not)? There are many risks associated with a government that tries to be all things to all people.

poido123

10-06-2016, 05:44 AM

It's a different thing now. I'm sure if people could let Obama stay for 4 more years they probably would, at this point. If Obama was running against Trump, he would have destroyed him by now.

Trump is getting as far as he has gotten because Hillary is just as much of a slimeball, and everyone knows how corrupt the Clintons are. Almost any other candidate on either side would probably have won by now.

-Smak

Well Trump leads the beacon of light, however flawed that light might be.

I'd rather Pence, but Trump/Pence will have to do.

UK2K

10-06-2016, 06:48 AM

DonDadda59

10-06-2016, 11:09 AM

Tennessee... the first Obamacare exchange to collapse on itself.

I'll bet anybody, anything they want, that this won't be the last state exchange that collapses.

Any takers?

Where my 'Obamacare is the best thing since sliced bread' people?

So you're telling me that the States whose leaders fought hardest to undermine Obamacare for years are now the States having issues with Obamacare? Shocking.

Meanwhile, Barrack 'Disaster' Obama just hit a new approval rating high (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/obama-approval-229224).

UK2K

10-06-2016, 12:00 PM

So you're telling me that the States whose leaders fought hardest to undermine Obamacare for years are now the States having issues with Obamacare? Shocking.

http://www.businessinsider.com/minnesota-obamacare-exchanges-emergency-situation-2016-10

Another state is seeing its Affordable Care Act — better known as Obamacare — exchanges hit some serious roadblocks.

In a release on Friday, Minnesota Commerce Commissioner Mike Rothman, who oversees the exchanges on which Minnesotans not receiving insurance through their employers or government programs can get insured, said premiums will rise as much as 67% for some insurers.

Make the bet then. What do you have to offer? Anything you want says Tennessee won't be the last state exchange to collapse. You're so in love with it, and it's so awesome, you should be willing to throw down anything, right?

Even with Obama trying to illegally funnel taxpayer money into his sinking ship (without Congressional approval of course, cause he does what he wants), I'll STILL bet you.

Let me ask you something... When Obama said our healthcare costs would drop, did you believe him? Cause I didn't.

Meanwhile, Barrack 'Disaster' Obama just hit a new approval rating high (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/obama-approval-229224).

Cool, change the discussion. Any take on Obamacare or nah?

qrich

10-06-2016, 12:02 PM

http://www.businessinsider.com/minnesota-obamacare-exchanges-emergency-situation-2016-10

Make the bet then. What do you have to offer? Anything you want says Tennessee won't be the last state exchange to collapse. You're so in love with it, and it's so awesome, you should be willing to throw down anything, right?

Even with Obama trying to illegally funnel taxpayer money into his sinking ship (without Congressional approval of course, cause he does what he wants), I'll STILL bet you.

Let me ask you something... When Obama said our healthcare costs would drop, did you believe him? Cause I didn't.

Premiums in AZ going to increase anywhere from 54-157% for 2017 :facepalm

Great time for me to become a producer

UK2K

10-06-2016, 12:12 PM

Premiums in AZ going to increase anywhere from 54-157% for 2017 :facepalm

Great time for me to become a producer

Not long after the Justice Department blocked Aetna's merger with Humana, the company announced it would be scaling back participation in Affordable Care Act exchanges. Now, Obamacare consumers in 11 states won't be able to keep their insurance, even though, one imagines, they like their plans. But choices are getting scarcer by the year. Aetna is now one of about a dozen major insurance providers that have dropped completely out or scaled back participation in exchanges.

****ing Democrats will get their socialist healthcare, you'd think with so many charitable people they wouldn't need to take money from people who don't want to give. But, they're all for show. It's one thing to ACT like you care, its something entirely else to BEHAVE like you care.

And like clockwork, government will come in to 'fix' something that isn't broken, **** it up completely, and then decide they need to come in and fix that too.

Rinse and repeat, until they have complete control of it.

A recent Kaiser Family Foundation study estimates that 664 counties will only feature one single insurer on Obamacare exchanges in 2017. In 2016, it was 225. Four entire states will have only one Obamacare insurer. In one Arizona county, there may be none. Since Obamacare, in effect, solidified in-state insurance cartels, the exchanges are starting to look very much the same. But opening markets up across state (and national) lines is a silly idea, I bet.

Hey DonDadda...

"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. "And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."

^That stupidity... that is you he was talking about. Hope you realize that.

qrich

10-06-2016, 12:15 PM

Yup, it's really hitting AZ hard, forcing people to choose one single provider. Even AHCCCS (Medicaid) is so much worse than it ever has been.

I don't get why people are fine with government ran health care when the current gov't ran one is probably worse than 3rd world nations.

bladefd

10-06-2016, 07:18 PM

I'm not sure if I would make the assumption that all conservatives are against clean energy. I can't speak for all conservatives, but I personally am not against it. I am against it when the government comes in and heavily subsidizes and tries to force a certain decision on people, but that doesn't mean I am against the idea of the technology itself. If the technology makes sense, then for me it needs to prove itself in the market. When I buy a new car in the next couple of years, I'm of course going to do my homework on it and make the best decision that fits what I need and works for me. If an electric car makes sense then that's fine; but if it doesn't, I will have no problem buying one that uses just gasoline. Does that mean I hate clean technology? No. When I'm spending a lot of money that I saved up and earned, I have to make decisions relative to how it will impact my life.

Not all conservatives but majority, which is more than 50%.

Also, sometimes as a government, you have to make tough decisions. Look at CFCs that were being used in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. When the science community showed the harm it was doing to the ozone with the ozone hole, governments banned CFCs. Would you be against that? The private sector was not going to stop using CFCs on their own even after they saw the danger it was to the ozone. Just look at the oil industry and coal industry spending billions on lobbying against the science behind climate change to send out faulty misinformation and giving billions to politicians globally to keep them in the pockets with money.

By the way, it was mainly the conservatives and corporations with investments in coal and oil fighting to keep oil and coal government subsidies intact. Now they complain when those same subsidies are shifting to clean energy. Why were they so for those subsidies when it was to oil and coal but now against it as it shifts to clean energy?? Smells like hypocrisy to me.

I thought we were talking about what people decide to give to charity? I really don't get the point of your question. I don't think anyone here would support 0% taxes and no government. We can argue all day and night about what the government should spend money on, and every person will have a different opinion on it. To go back to charity, people do support a wide-range of charities. I have donated to charities. They probably aren't charities that you may support, but that's the good thing about living in a free society. People can support what they are inclined to support and what is more meaningful to them.

Yes, initially I was talking about charity, but numbersix started talking about how the government cannot demand to tax people to fund social programs so I went into discussing that. I talked about investment spending through taxes with no direct return investment into your pocket for things like NASA, NIH, NSF, etc. You responded by asking what makes my ideas more superior to others and why should I decide whose tax money goes where.

My response was simply that there are certain things that only governments can afford to spend on. The reason is that these are things that go beyond bolstering the bottom line. If a private company had a few failures, they will move on to completely different ideas or simply pull out altogether in search of something with quicker monetary return rather than improving what they had. That is something that may not be what organizations like NASA does. I'm sure NASA has dealt with many failures on their way to where they are today, but the advantage they had was they were not focused on simply their bottom line. Same with social programs that help people find jobs - you will fail more times than succeed as jobs may only fill one person per position. A private company cannot afford to risk doing that because it would hurt their bottom line.

Are all effective and strong governments worth having? An effective and strong government can mean many things to different people. Would a government like China be more better here? Given the USA's standing in the world, I would say it is already a strong government. How much stronger does it need to be? And how much are you willing to give up to have that (because there are tradeoffs whether people realize it or not)? There are many risks associated with a government that tries to be all things to all people.

You are correct that an effective and strong government can mean many things to different people. I apologize for not being more clear. I guess I meant to say it generally rather than specifically. It was meant to just be a continuation of the lack of taxes idea more than anything. As in a strong and effective government is necessary more so than an anarchy where anything goes. TBH, I think the US government is currently more than strong enough so we both agree here.