UK news not optimistic for Obama re-election

[joeydb]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...aster-in-2012/

Excerpt:

" But there is also the distinct possibility of an electoral rout of the president if the economy goes further south. “Hope and change” might have played well in 2008, but it is a message that will likely ring hollow in November 2012, with an American public that is deeply disillusioned with the direction Obama is taking the country."

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by joeydb

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...aster-in-2012/

Excerpt:

" But there is also the distinct possibility of an electoral rout of the president if the economy goes further south. “Hope and change” might have played well in 2008, but it is a message that will likely ring hollow in November 2012, with an American public that is deeply disillusioned with the direction Obama is taking the country."

You won't hear that from the American media. Everything's going great. Personally I'm "hoping" for "change".

[jms62]

I'm not happy with Obama but the Repubs have SHOWN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING even remotely looking like a candidate I'd rather have. That is a pretty pathetic thing for me to have to say. You want change ??? What? From bad to worse?

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by jms62

I'm not happy with Obama but the Repubs have SHOWN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING even remotely looking like a candidate I'd rather have. That is a pretty pathetic thing for me to have to say. You want change ??? What? From bad to worse?

Hit the nail on the head. They don't have one appealing candidate as of now.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Hit the nail on the head. They don't have one appealing candidate as of now.

But there is Sarah Palin.....

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

But there is Sarah Palin.....

like he said, not one....

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

But there is Sarah Palin.....

They would have to be crazy to nominate her.
McCain was way behind and Palin was nothing more than a Hail Mary. I just wish she would pose for Playboy and get off the damn grid already. She is nothing more than a disruption for a party that lacks a real candidate.

[SOREHOOF]

The only way the repubs can lose this is exactly the same way the dems lost 2004. Except the media is pro- Obama.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

The only way the repubs can lose this is exactly the same way the dems lost 2004. Except the media is pro- Obama.

Um...Fox, WSJ yeah..nice post

Yeah Ron Paul isn't a good candidate.


I guess people enjoy being lied to. It's like you don't want to face reality.

[kp319]

Put yer money on O!

[Danzig]

i can't believe no one has yet mentioned libya, our role there, or the lack of communication between the white house and congress. congress rebuked the president yesterday for failing to follow the rules about engagement of troops-not a peep. the patriot act continues, not a whimper. where is all the outrage now? there was plenty when bush was in office, and tyranny was spotted in every move he made. but now? nothing. there are some posters who think obama is doing a great job. at what? what has changed? is the economy better? out of those expensive wars? how's spending? the budget, the deficit? gay rights? gays in the military?
a certain member of congress once went on the record about the debt ceiling, and how having to raise it showed the ineptitude of the govt. boy, that mindset has now changed, hasn't it?

i'm serious tho. what has changed? what sets obama's reign over the previous one? i thought bush sucked. i don't see what's different since he left.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i can't believe no one has yet mentioned libya, our role there, or the lack of communication between the white house and congress. congress rebuked the president yesterday for failing to follow the rules about engagement of troops-not a peep. the patriot act continues, not a whimper. where is all the outrage now? there was plenty when bush was in office, and tyranny was spotted in every move he made. but now? nothing. there are some posters who think obama is doing a great job. at what? what has changed? is the economy better? out of those expensive wars? how's spending? the budget, the deficit? gay rights? gays in the military?
a certain member of congress once went on the record about the debt ceiling, and how having to raise it showed the ineptitude of the govt. boy, that mindset has now changed, hasn't it?

i'm serious tho. what has changed? what sets obama's reign over the previous one? i thought bush sucked. i don't see what's different since he left.

Well, there's been a slight change to health care, increased benefits for troops, withdrawal from Iraq, an actual plan to withdraw from Afghanistan, bin Laden fish food....just to name a few. Folks in this country are driven by sound bites and expect immediate results to issues decades in the making. Don't get me wrong, President Obama has dropped the ball a number of times (allowing Bush tax cuts to continue for example) and has been slow to act on gay rights but he needs the help of Congress also. I'll never be satisfied with middle of the road politics but it's better than right wing politics!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i can't believe no one has yet mentioned libya, our role there, or the lack of communication between the white house and congress. congress rebuked the president yesterday for failing to follow the rules about engagement of troops-not a peep.

That's because the rebuke was simply a political ploy, a replacement because Boehner feared that Kucinich's "get out of Libya" resolution had enough votes to pass. They created the rebuke rather than tell the President to get out of Libya in literally 15 days. It is all political, not policy.

[Danzig]

yes, i read that yesterday. but, i dont understand why there is still a lot of 'obama is doing a good job'comments when in fact no headway has been made in our top issues. defenswe spending is still skyhigh, afganistan being ratcheted up is taking whatever savings would have been realized with removing combat troops from iraq...and we are still in iraq btw, which means that is still costing us. afganistan is a huge folly~we need out of there. spening billions on a country worth a few millioms.
obama said years ago that our economy was his number one priority. he has a funny way of showing it. tax revenue, ss revenue down~job growth is what is needed, but his one big effort was on health care~which only helped a fraction of the people compared to un and under employed. i am frustarted with our govt because i see no urgency on their part. nothing has happened economy~wise since the huge stimulus.

[Danzig]

and somer, yes, congress needs to step up as well. it just seems there is a lot of inconsistencies here and elsewhere. the prez is a dem, so his fans blame congress instead of him. when it was bush, it was bushes fault.
now, congress voted on iraq and afganistan.....this president hssnt even bothered to contact them regarding libya~and not a peep.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, i read that yesterday. but, i dont understand why there is still a lot of 'obama is doing a good job'comments when in fact no headway has been made in our top issues. defenswe spending is still skyhigh, afganistan being ratcheted up is taking whatever savings would have been realized with removing combat troops from iraq...and we are still in iraq btw, which means that is still costing us. afganistan is a huge folly~we need out of there. spening billions on a country worth a few millioms.
obama said years ago that our economy was his number one priority. he has a funny way of showing it. tax revenue, ss revenue down~job growth is what is needed, but his one big effort was on health care~which only helped a fraction of the people compared to un and under employed. i am frustarted with our govt because i see no urgency on their part. nothing has happened economy~wise since the huge stimulus.

Well, I disagree with "no" headway made in our top issues We are out of Iraq in two months (essentially), Afghanistan is being drawn down, and Libya was put off on NATO rather than us (and there were plenty of calls by the more hawkish in Congress for us to take control and lead boots on the ground in Libya)

Obama addressed health care as it's expense - private insurance companies, hospitals, the healthcare industry - is 16% of our national economy (more than any other first world nation). He wanted it addressed immediately not as a social, but as an economic issue. He did prolong Medicare by 12 years, cut billions in wasteful spending in that program, and will get 30 million people off freeloading off everyone else and increasing our insurance premiums by getting them their own health care. And the program pays for itself, no tax increases.

Do you think the current House (who originates budget measures) would approve any type of spending (stimulus) whatsoever right now? We are in a very tenuous recovery, and yet they are actively trying to restrict spending and implement revenue stream decreases! (tax cuts)

The people currently in control of our financial future in the House have zero incentive to initiate a strong financial recovery. In fact they've publicly stated they don't even have that as their number one goal, and to do so would work against themselves - their primary goal is to prevent Obama's reelection.

They have proven that by going immediately off on social control tangents (abortion, planned parenthood, defund NPR, etc) and completely ignoring jobs, stimulus, recovery. The Republicans just came out with their "jobs" plan - which is cut taxes for corporations. That's it. Well, Reaganomics and trickle-down was disproven as a viable financial policy a few decades ago. But that is all they are offering.

So I do share your frustration.

[dellinger63]

, and Libya was put off on NATO rather than us (and there were plenty of calls by the more hawkish in Congress for us to take control and lead boots on the ground in Libya)

Of the NATO troops KIA this year what percentage of them were American and when killed were they under NATO or U.S. command?
And this is good? How?

Obama addressed health care as it's expense - private insurance companies, hospitals, the healthcare industry - is 16% of our national economy (more than any other first world nation). He wanted it addressed immediately not as a social, but as an economic issue. He did prolong Medicare by 12 years, cut billions in wasteful spending in that program, and will get 30 million people off freeloading off everyone else and increasing our insurance premiums by getting them their own health care. And the program pays for itself, no tax increases.

Then there should be no problem putting in a stop/loss. However I suspect as the subsidized grow so do the premiums paid by the un-subsidized.

Do you think the current House (who originates budget measures) would approve any type of spending (stimulus) whatsoever right now?

Of course not because they consider a 17% loss a crazy investment rather than calling it a success.

We are in a very tenuous recovery, and yet they are actively trying to restrict spending and implement revenue stream decreases! (tax cuts)

Because they believe money in private hands grows the economy rather than Federal businesses like Fannie and Freddie.

The people currently in control of our financial future in the House have zero incentive to initiate a strong financial recovery. In fact they've publicly stated they don't even have that as their number one goal, and to do so would work against themselves - their primary goal is to prevent Obama's reelection.

Their hands are tied right now by the veto power of the president and the senate. The primary goal is to get untied (the ropes are loosening) so like parents, they can turn on the lights, tell everyone the party's over. Tell those not belonging in the home to go home, and start the cleanup.

They have proven that by going immediately off on social control tangents (abortion, planned parenthood, defund NPR, etc) and completely ignoring jobs, stimulus, recovery. The Republicans just came out with their "jobs" plan - which is cut taxes for corporations. That's it. Well, Reaganomics and trickle-down was disproven as a viable financial policy a few decades ago. But that is all they are offering.

Again they are trying to save money. Stop the rediculous support of a TV station. How many jobs, tax revenue and income would be raised by opening up Alaska for drilling?

So I do share your frustration.

I don't think so.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I don't think so.

I share 'Zigs frustration in lack of economic recovery.

No, I most certainly do not share your very unique fiscal policy positions.

How many jobs, tax revenue and income would be raised by opening up Alaska for drilling?

Dell - the oil companies were just renewed for billions in federal tax dollar subsidies to prop up their industry. WE are paying for that! As we are already paying private companies billions in our tax dollars, and based upon their current corporate income tax payments, I doubt they will produce little to any "tax revenue" of note. They will continue to cost us billions of tax dollars, though. How can you not be outraged at this, with your political views? Believe me, if we just gave away - last month! and we are broke! - billions in farm subsidies, or billions in another stimulus, or billions in Medicaid healthcare, you'd be screaming.

Blinkers off, buddy!

One year after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded and caught fire in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers and causing the worst accidental marine oil spill in world history, BP posted first-quarter profits of $7.1 billion in 2011—a 17-percent increase over the same quarter in 2010, although 2 percent short of the figure analysts had predicted.

Exxon and Shell did even better. Exxon posted first-quarter profits of $10.65 billion—a 69-percent increase—and Shell's profits rose 33 percent to $11.56 billion.

Oil Subsidies No Longer Needed
Yet with oil companies pocketing record profits, and consumers paying some of the highest prices ever seen for gasoline, Congress continues to provide billions of dollars in taxpayer-financed government subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies while debating how to trim the federal deficit by cutting environmental protections and services for women, children, seniors and the poor.

Republican Budget Proposal Preserves Oil Subsidies
The 2012 budget proposal set forth by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, for example, would preserve $40 billion in federal oil-company subsidies over the next 10 years ($4 billion annually) while cutting $389 billion from Medicare for seniors, $735 billion in Medicaid, which provides medical services to Americans too poor to afford private health insurance, and $923 billion in discretionary spending on domestic programs.

http://environment.about.com/od/petr...-Companies.htm

[Danzig]

obama and the dems had two years of full control. they wasted their time, didnt they? anyway, im just angry with the whole bs system. its ridiculous that we are all hampered while politics are played.