Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/

What is your response to this, TI?

Originally posted by Lestov16
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/

What is your response to this, TI?

I have read that article and it does not mention anything specific on what jobs he has "created."

He does not get the credit for improving the economy and creating jobs, small business and capitalism get the credit.

If you want to take a look at the health care and military industry. More doctors and nurses have quit or lost their jobs because of Obama care and he kicks people out of the military while in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Health Care and Military is what Obama is directly in charge of and control of and people are getting fired and leaving by the thousands.

Health Care Jobs Crisis

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2013/12/08/doctor-nurse-vacancies-soar-amid-obamacare-rollout/

http://www.reportingonhealth.org/2014/03/10/whether-it%E2%80%99s-retire-or-flee-doctors-are-leaving-health-care

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/7/doctors-feel-ill-winds-blowing-as-they-look-closel/?page=all

Soldiers being fired in the field in harms way.

http://www.stripes.com/news/odierno-more-troops-in-afghanistan-may-get-pink-slips-1.304106

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/07/23/army-officials-on-pink-slip-controversy-we-dont-have-a-choice/

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/07/23/captains-deployed-to-afghanistan-get-pink-slip.html

All I know is that during the time of Bush the economy was good. Now, during the time of Obama, the economy sucks. No hack article is going to change that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All I know is that during the time of Bush the economy was good

I loled at this

Lestov16, Then you pay my bills. Maybe your rich, and don't give a shit about people who are struggling. But if Obama was good at economics, then the economy would be better. If it quacks, its a duck.

Let me guess; it's Bushes fault.

No, it's Obama's fault.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All I know is that during the time of Bush the economy was good. Now, during the time of Obama, the economy sucks. No hack article is going to change that.

Hilarious

Originally posted by Lestov16
I loled at this

I'm guessing this bait thread for me didn't spin in your favor when I busted it out with facts.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I'm guessing this bait thread for me didn't spin in your favor when I busted it out with facts.

They don't care about facts. They live in a dream world where Democrats save the world from the evil Republicans.

Originally posted by Lestov16
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/

What is your response to this, TI?
And they used the U6 unemployment statistic (which I think is better than the U3) instead of using the U3 (which is a peeve of mine).


Well, even though I have been highly critical of Obama, gotta eat my words and say he is a great economic president.

Bush inherited a crash that happened shortly after he took office. Obama inherited a crash that he inherited before he took office (and we were bound to recover).

But how much of that was Obama? I know under Clinton's administration, during his second, a significant portion of the improved economy could be attributed to Clinton. So how much of the recovery in Obama's second term can be attributed to his direct efforts?



Edit - We still aren't at our 2007 unemployment levels, however. We still have not fully recovered. I thought Romney would have been a better economic president in 2008 and I still think that. Obama does not seem half bad...I just have no idea what he's done to get the credit for that.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I just have no idea what he's done to get the credit for that.

He has done everything he could to inhibit this country from moving forward, but that is the great thing about human nature and this country, we find a way.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...Well, even though I have been highly critical of Obama, gotta eat my words and say he is a great economic president...
Economically speaking, is your personal economics better right now, as compared to 6 or 8 years ago? Do you have more money in the bank? And is that money more valuable then before?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Economically speaking, is your personal economics better right now, as compared to 6 or 8 years ago?

Yes but even during the crash a few years back, I was doing better than ever. I did better despite the economy. When we had the crash in 2008 and it lasted through 2009, I got 3 promotions and 4 raises. lol



Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you have more money in the bank? And is that money more valuable then before?

I definitely have more money in the bank so much so that it would be a waste of time to check how inflation compares to back then. The only money I had in the bank in 2008 was the money I got paid (I lived paycheck to paycheck). These days, I have a healthy savings.



I was the exception to the situation and I am a poor example of how bad Americans have had it since 2008.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Economically speaking, is your personal economics better right now, as compared to 6 or 8 years ago? Do you have more money in the bank? And is that money more valuable then before?

I have less money in the bank now then I did 8 years ago yet I make 30-40% more money as I did 8 years ago.

Go figure.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes but even during the crash a few years back, I was doing better than ever. I did better despite the economy. When we had the crash in 2008 and it lasted through 2009, I got 3 promotions and 4 raises. lol





I definitely have more money in the bank so much so that it would be a waste of time to check how inflation compares to back then. The only money I had in the bank in 2008 was the money I got paid (I lived paycheck to paycheck). These days, I have a healthy savings.



I was the exception to the situation and I am a poor example of how bad Americans have had it since 2008.

I'm happy for you, but most people I know are like me, worse off then 8 years ago.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I have less money in the bank now then I did 8 years ago yet I make 30-40% more money as I did 8 years ago.

Go figure.

You need to learn to live within your means?

Yeah, 30% more?! That's WAY more than inflation.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You need to learn to live within your means? Originally posted by Digi
Yeah, 30% more?! That's WAY more than inflation.

I didn't say this was tied to inflation nor did I blame it on anyone.

The economy is a beast unto itself. People that dedicate their entire lives to analyzing it...usually can't. The President's power to control its swings is limited, at best. So assigning praise or blame to an administration is usually just selectively picking facts to favor whatever beliefs you already hold. There is ample data to praise or blame either Bush or Obama, if we chose to skew it as such. So I tend to downplay the government's role in economic prosperity much more so than others.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I didn't say this was tied to inflation nor did I blame it on anyone.

Heh. In the context of the thread, it's hard not to see that implication, though, especially given your previously-established political leanings here on the forums. But fair enough.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I didn't say this was tied to inflation nor did I blame it on anyone.

You asked us to go figure though....and we figure it's your own fault.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All I know is that during the time of Bush the economy was good. Now, during the time of Obama, the economy sucks. No hack article is going to change that.

You understand the stock market crash that started the recession happened while Bush was still president, yes? Before Obama even took office.

Originally posted by BackFire
You understand the stock market crash that started the recession happened while Bush was still president, yes? Before Obama even took office.

So, Obama was not competent enough to deal with the bad situation he was given? That doesn't sound like the "best contemporary president (economically)".

One of the biggest problems with Obama and his followers is that they don't take responsibility, and try to blame everything on Bush. When are you guys going to man-up?

Originally posted by BackFire
You understand the stock market crash that started the recession happened while Bush was still president, yes? Before Obama even took office.

Shakya has made it quite clear that he doesn't like Bush, either. He's not a fan of Dems. or Reps.

The economy was very good during Bush...it just took a dump towards the end.

Edit - And Bush inherited the .com crash.




Slightly off topic but I wrote a huge long-ass paper on the recession in 2010. From my research, basically, Bush was partially at fault for the 2008 crash. Some want to assign "majority at fault" and others "very slightly at fault" but there is one thing many economists agree on: Bush was partially at fault for the crash.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
One of the biggest problems with Obama and his followers is that they don't take responsibility, and try to blame everything on Bush. When are you guys going to man-up?

lol




It only takes a bit of research to see how hopeful I was for Obama to take office based on his 2008 Campaign Platform. And then it takes only another 2 years after he takes office before I changed my tune. I didn't vote for him nor would I have, but many of his promises are what I wanted. So, yeah, I took my medicine, already, with Obama. I admitted I was wrong about him.

Originally posted by BackFire
You understand the stock market crash that started the recession happened while Bush was still president, yes? Before Obama even took office.

As if it was Bush's fault for causing the stock market crash. This is whats funny about liberals. The blame the repulicans for "crashing the stock market" then take credit for its recovery.

When the facts are liberals crashed the market through sub prime lending and the brain children of this was Clinton and Barney Frank.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/ franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fia
sco/

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
As if it was Bush's fault for causing the stock market crash. This is whats funny about liberals. The blame the repulicans for "crashing the stock market" then take credit for its recovery.

When the facts are liberals crashed the market through sub prime lending and the brain children of this was Clinton and Barney Frank.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/ franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fia
sco/

I remember reading that artical back in 2011, pretty sure it was posted here. Reading it again, it still seems like the author is blaming the government in total, both the Clinton and Bush admin.

-"Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration."

-"In the end, it was a colossal policy error by Congress and two presidential administrations. Frank admitted this in the Kudlow interview above. To his credit, Frank recognized his error by 2007, but by that time it was too late."

Second link doesn't work; I get this: The page you requested has either moved or been deleted.

Originally posted by Robtard
I remember reading that artical back in 2011, pretty sure it was posted here. Reading it again, it still seems like the author is blaming the government in total, both the Clinton and Bush admin.

"Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration."

"In the end, it was a colossal policy error by Congress and two presidential administrations. Frank admitted this in the Kudlow interview above. To his credit, Frank recognized his error by 2007, but by that time it was too late."

Second link doesn't work; I get this: The page you requested has either moved or been deleted.

According to most here its Bush's complete fault for the collapse and Obama is the savior. Complete horse shit.

Here is the article for the link that does not work.

THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
According to most here its Bush's complete fault for the collapse and Obama is the savior. Complete horse shit.

Well one thing we do know, Obama inherited the 2007-2009 housing crisis crash from the previous admin(s).

Originally posted by Robtard
Well one thing we do know, Obama inherited the 2007-2009 housing crisis crash from the previous admin(s).

And we know Frank and Clinton caused it.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
And we know Frank and Clinton caused it.

According to the article you posted, it was from both sides. Frank was just the assclown who tried to blame the Right, but later recanted.

Originally posted by Robtard
According to the article you posted, it was from both sides. Frank was just the assclown who tried to blame the Right, but later recanted.

I posted the second article as well.

He recanted only because he was holding the smoking gun.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I posted the second article as well.

He recanted only because he was holding the smoking gun.

Second article didn't really refute the first.

Originally posted by Robtard
Second article didn't really refute the first.

So he was directly incharge of the banking sub com and telling everyone that fanny and Freddy were ok? When simply that wasn't the case.

Don't take this as a fight, but you seem to be trying to do another "blame the liberals/Democrats" thing again. All I can tell you, your article spreads the blame across both sides while painting Frank in a poor light

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't take this as a fight, but you seem to be trying to do another "blame the liberals/Democrats" thing again. All I can tell you, your article spreads the blame across both sides while painting Frank in a poor light

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, Obama was not competent enough to deal with the bad situation he was given? That doesn't sound like the "best contemporary president (economically)".

Maybe. That's not really relevant to what I said. I didn't say he was the best contemporary president. The OP did. I didn't make the thread.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
One of the biggest problems with Obama and his followers is that they don't take responsibility, and try to blame everything on Bush. When are you guys going to man-up?

Don't be stupid. I'm not saying things that are for Obama or against Bush, here. I'm not blaming Bush for the crash, simply saying that it happened while he was in office, and you seemed to be ignoring that by saying that the economy was great under Bush. Sure, it was good for most of the time he was President, except for that one time, but that probably doesn't count, since Obama was almost in office.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
As if it was Bush's fault for causing the stock market crash. This is whats funny about liberals. The blame the repulicans for "crashing the stock market" then take credit for its recovery.

When the facts are liberals crashed the market through sub prime lending and the brain children of this was Clinton and Barney Frank.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/ franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fia
sco/

Jesus, you guys really get pissy when someone posts historical facts, here. Read above. I'm not blaming Bush for anything, simply saying that the crash occurred while he was in office. Blaming Bush for the crash, that'd just be silly, wouldn't it? Just like I'm sure if there was an enormous economic crash you guys wouldn't attempt to blame it totally on Obama or anything.

It's not that of the month to be pissy, but I'll keep you posted

As a Moderate Republican, I can say that Obama is still a better President as a whole than GW Bush was, despite his Obama-flaws

As a moderate communist nazi, I agree.

I've recently been presented with enough data that I'm now tentatively democrat on economic issues, despite philosophically being economically libertarian. More than anything, though, I think the economy is an unsolvable puzzle for any one person, corporation, or governmental entity. The economy can be influenced in occasionally tangible ways by government, but rarely predictably so, which is the important part. The 2008 crash was going to happen regardless of who was President, and the next guy (in this case, Obama) was going to have a tough, uphill battle to recovery that wouldn't please everyone.

Blame and praise probably could be assigned in retrospect. But to think that either Bush or Obama had or has a chance in hell of righting the ship from their office, or are able to fully control how their policies affect the global economy, seems a bit naive to me. We believe the narratives we want to. Sometimes the harder decision is realizing that the truth is too complicated to fit within the two-party narrative.

As a result of all this, I vote almost exclusively on other issues. Social, environmental, foreign policy and military, etc. There are no guarantees regardless, but in those areas there's a much greater chance that seeing something you want (for example: lowered greenhouse emissions, gay marriage, etc.) will actually have the intended affect.

In any case, to the OP's initial point, it doesn't mean much to me because all I see is "here's who sat at this desk while the economy recovered, largely on its own." Anything more than that, and I'm immediately skeptical of the person's biases.

Originally posted by Robtard
As a Moderate Republican, I can say that Obama is still a better President as a whole than GW Bush was, despite his Obama-flaws

As a white, American Citizen, Male, who owns property (constitutionally, I am a highly qualified resident of the US) I think Obama is worse than Bush only because Bush didn't lie about being a warmongerer.

Originally posted by dadudemon
As a white, American Citizen, Male, who owns property (constitutionally, I am a highly qualified resident of the US) I think Obama is worse than Bush only because Bush didn't lie about being a warmongerer.

Very odd thing to say, especially the first part. The Obama lying/warmonger is arguable.

Originally posted by dadudemon
As a white, American Citizen, Male, who owns property (constitutionally, I am a highly qualified resident of the US) I think Obama is worse than Bush only because Bush didn't lie about being a warmongerer.
Tried to find a quote where Bush admitted to being a warmonger.

Google failed me.

Obama's actually been rather consistent when it comes to military matters. In his acceptance speech at the Nobel Award Ceremony near the beginning of his term, he made no bones about his belief that America has a duty to use military force to make the world a better place. In his words "Hitler wouldn't have been stopped with a peace movement."

No one paid attention to it because the headline was "Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize." And now people are surprised that we're just as involved in the Middle East as we were under Bush.

Originally posted by Robtard
Very odd thing to say, especially the first part.

You're either joking or you are not familiar with both US History and the US Constitution (my assumption is you're joking, just as I was, because you're far too familiar with history to forget how voting was in the nascent US).



http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html





Originally posted by Robtard
The Obama lying/warmonger is arguable.

Not even the informed US liberals/Dems believe what you're saying, here. Since I almost voted for him solely for his war-related promises/campaign promises (2008), I think that his lies about his warmongering hits a sore spot with me (since, at the time, I had 2 god-brothers serving in Iraq). When he continued down his war-path, I was already used to the idea that he was going to continue to lie about the war stuff. Remember the Gitmo promise? I do.

"We are bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. And I've set a timetable. We will have them all out of there by 2014"

-Obama circa 2012

VX1gdpEFAzg








http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html


And to make it clear how active our troops are:

Deaths by Time Period: Bush
2001-2008 564
Jan 1-19 2009 11
Bush Total: 575


Deaths by Time Period: Obama:
2009 - 2014
Obama Total: 1726

http://icasualties.org/



It is not debatable that Obama lied about his warmongering. This is basic logic.


Of course, you could just be trolling here, too, and just wanted me to reply with a fact-based reply because you agreed with me. It is difficult to tell with you and others, these days, because no one seems to be serious anymore.

I am totally serial constantly, yo

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're either joking or you are not familiar with both US History and the US Constitution (my assumption is you're joking, just as I was, because you're far too familiar with history to forget how voting was in the nascent US).



http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html







Not even the informed US liberals/Dems believe what you're saying, here. Since I almost voted for him solely for his war-related promises/campaign promises (2008), I think that his lies about his warmongering hits a sore spot with me (since, at the time, I had 2 god-brothers serving in Iraq). When he continued down his war-path, I was already used to the idea that he was going to continue to lie about the war stuff. Remember the Gitmo promise? I do.

"We are bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. And I've set a timetable. We will have them all out of there by 2014"

-Obama circa 2012

VX1gdpEFAzg








http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html


And to make it clear how active our troops are:

Deaths by Time Period: Bush
2001-2008 564
Jan 1-19 2009 11
Bush Total: 575


Deaths by Time Period: Obama:
2009 - 2014
Obama Total: 1726

http://icasualties.org/



It is not debatable that Obama lied about his warmongering. This is basic logic.


Of course, you could just be trolling here, too, and just wanted me to reply with a fact-based reply because you agreed with me. It is difficult to tell with you and others, these days, because no one seems to be serious anymore.

I do remember Gitmo and I do remember him trying to extend the Iraq withdrawal timetable that was set under Bush, as I've criticized Obama for both in here in the past. My wording was wrong though, was in regards to Obama being worse than Bush, as I still think the BS the war was sold on is the greater sin

Originally posted by Robtard
I do remember Gitmo and I do remember him trying to extend the Iraq withdrawal timetable that was set under Bush, as I've criticized Obama for both in here in the past.

1. You are definitely understating Obama's role in the warmongering.
2. Good, I'm glad you're not one of those people that thinks Obama is barely at fault for everything and that it's always the fault of the GOP.

Originally posted by Robtard
My wording was wrong though, was in regards to Obama being worse than Bush, as I still think the BS the war was sold on is the greater sin.

I can't disagree that doing the war, to begin with, was definitely the greater sin.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. You are definitely understating Obama's role in the warmongering.
Yes and no. I realize that the views and dreams he had before taking office probably got a massively unrelenting slap-of-reality after he took on the mantle of POTUS when he was faced with information on how things actually are/work.

Now that doesn't excuse that he has taken a dump on the people who voted him in by not keeping certain promises, but being pragmatic after the fact is just that.

Rob its christmas eve, close your trap and go enjoy the day in the bay area.

Just having a friendly discussion with DDM cos all my shopping is done, brah. Maybe it's you who should be enjoying yourself instead of bitching at me?

Originally posted by Robtard
Just having a friendly discussion with DDM cos all my shopping is done, brah. Maybe it's you who should be enjoying yourself instead of bitching at me?

Im joking Merry Christmas btw

Merry Christmas to you

Im right wing and i hate that everyone was laughing at bush cos he sent nucular weapons to iraq. Imma hate obama as worst pres evar cos im not butthurt.

I like being told what doctors i can and cant visit so yeah, i'm all about big bama

Originally posted by Lestov16
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/

What is your response to this, TI?

Not remotely surprising. He got handed the worst situation, and was able to do the most about it, and didn't go for any of the 'trickle down' BS that we now know doesn't work well.

If his hands weren't tied so much later on by the obstructionists in congress, he'd be better still.


Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
I like being told what doctors i can and cant visit so yeah, i'm all about big bama

You do realize your insurance company already told you what doctors to use, right....?


And something like *30 million* more Americans have coverage now?

And before Obamacare, America was paying twice as much in taxes for health care than any other country, in exchange for worse coverage (most countries have 100%) and the 'honor' of having to pay expensive bills.


Wider health care is, frankly, superior. Obamacare's a step up from what we had before, though a step down from true universal- and by that, I mean in both cost and care provided.

In my opinion President Obama, is the best contemporary president, I would go as far as to say that he may be the best president ever. He said many things, and stuck by those things, while others simply could not happen based on opposition that he has met with throughout his tenure. I would vote for him again if I could, because he sure as hell beats any other candidate for the job at this time. Imagine Chris Christie as president? Well he's probably going to be the next one in, and it makes no sense... Not when we have a better person for the job, doing the job right now. The Presidency is a job. If you're doing a good job, why should you be fired is the way that I'm looking at it. Instead, we'll likely get an overindulgent prick, in a time that we sorely need a sensible leader.