Obama figured out why he is losing the white male vote......

[PharmBoy]

OK, now I understand what's wrong.  Maybe a baseball bat would help correct the situation created by the horse...Jim

[wiseguy]

Funny, Pharmboy

[Thespian]

George Bush was a flippin idiot, He ran this country into the ground. President Obama is a highly intellegent man and has done everything that he can to repair the damage caused by Bush. I am voting for him again.

+1

[PharmBoy]

Nothing personal, Wiseguy.  I have spent time in a virtual hell for your right to speak and vote as you please.  That was a long time ago, but I felt the same patriotism for our nation, our freedoms, and our constitution then as I do to this day.  Anyway, I just thought that it was funny and couldn't help myself...Jim

[Steve K (IA)]

George Bush was a flippin idiot, He ran this country into the ground. President Obama is a highly intellegent man and has done everything that he can to repair the damage caused by Bush. I am voting for him again.

 

[Moonshot_1]

Yeah Bash President Bush
Yeah Bash President Obama

The reality is Government is a team sport.
We elect a team with such a bi-polar disorder and send'em to DC it is a wonder we still exist.
Maybe that's the reason we still exist. Who knows.

As to President Obama, can't say I'm a fan at all.
He's got that political bent that views Government as the answer to everything.
Sure, it's the answer to some things, but not virtually everything.
When it comes to Health Care for example, I'm not sold on the idea that the institution that gave us the US Federal Tax Code should be in charge of anything much less Health care.

He doesn't strike me as a Leader either. I see him better suited as a Legislator rather than Executive. (This is relative to personality rather than politics)

[Bob E.]

Bad mouthing Zero is nothing more than the truth. (except maybe the Muslim part)   In truth, he is probably atheist, but that has little to do with his complete failure as president.

ABO

Complete failure? Specifically, what failures are you talking about??

1.  Sending the debt thru the roof, instead of reducing it.
2.  Denying oil drilling permits, so less oil down the road
3.  Cost of Health care bill promised to be under 1 trillion, now CBO puts at 2.5 billion next ten years, and will go higher.

That is just three.

#1 not true according to http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit.  For FY09, which is attributed to Bush, the deficit was $1.413T.  Obama's deficits since then have been pretty stable at about $1.3T.  This is largely due to a poor economy that results in historically low revenues while having higher outlays for unemployment, welfare, foodstamps, medicade, etc.

#2 not true...domestic oil production is as an all-time high while our dependence on foreign oil is the lowest its been in decades.

#3 also not true.  The CBO actually reduced the cost of the health care bill from $1.131T to $1.082 according to this recent article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/health-care-reform_n_1347327.html

#1 In 8 years Bush increased the national debt by 4.8 trillion dollars. Obama increased it by 4.4 trillion in 3 years. As a percent of GDP, debt under Bush hit a high of 74.1%. Under Obama it is 99.7. Your personal share of the debt increased by $12,000 in three years under Obama ($35,153 to $48,358). Bush was terrible but the "Blamer-In-Chief" is even worse. Excusing continued financial irresponsibility by pointing to past irresponsibility is a child's argument. They are both wrong.http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

#2 Oil production on federal lands decreased by 11% from 2010-2011. http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/02/23/ier-analysis-oil-and-gas-production-declines-on-federal-lands-in-fy2011/#_ednref4  Oil production in the U.S. is up despite Obama and is due to the development of fields in North Dakota and advances in drilling technology. Obama's Energy Sec.  Steven Chu, told the Wall Street Journal Oil "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe, 'Mr. Chu has called for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years to coax consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work.' Increases in energy prices is the previously admitted plan of this administration to promote its "green" agenda. But the chickens are coming home to roost in an election year and they are back tracking to save their lying asses. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122904040307499791.html
Chu now gives himself an "A" for keeping gas prices down after previously admitting it is not a goal of the Dept of Energy. Steven Chu says lowering gas prices not goal



#3 False, March 12th the CBO projected a cost increase of $115 billion over the original projections ( for 10 years). http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37081.html

#1.  Do I wish that the deficit was less?  Yes, on that we agree.  But the claim was that Obama had blown it up, which isn't exactly accurate.  I found this from the NYTimes  (not exactly a liberal paper) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss  that shows that Obama's policies are far less costly than Bush's.

#2.  You are talking about two completely unrelated topics. The fact is that oil production is up, demand is down, yet we have rising gas prices.  That would indicate that the rise in prices has nothing to do with supply and demand, but rather other factors such as wall street speculation and instability in the mid-east.  As for gas taxes, these haven't been raised in decades, and our failing transportation budgets (and therefore our roads and bridges) are suffering for it.  They should and will need to be raised gradually over time to bring our transportation infrastructure back from the crumbling state it is quickly approaching.  And finally, with regard to green energy, it is an economic fact that, even with the gas prices we pay now, they will need to be much higher to make green/alternative energy competitive.  Making that economic statement doesn't necessarily mean that you want or will force prices to go up, especially in a bad economy.

#3.  Interesting that your link has different numbers than my link. I believe the difference is the baseline of the estimates.  Yours is referencing an older projection from before or around the time it was passed, and mine references the more recent previous CBO estimate.  But they are still close at just over $1Trillion.  That's a far cry from the $2.5T that MP stated.  And the bottom line is that the Affordable Care Act still has a net negative cost (a reduction) to the future deficit compared to doing nothing because of the offsets in other spending that were included in the bill.

#1 Are you kidding? The NY Times not liberal? It is a pillar of liberal thought! And what you cited was an OPINION piece. Look at the $ figures yourself. Obama had the chance to let the Bush tax cuts expire and he caved.

#2. I'm saying Obama, through his policies and ideology is unconcerned with keeping the cost of energy down and his minions have done nothing to mitigate the rise in cost. In fact CHU's stated goal was to increase cost.  If you have such an individual in charge of the energy dept., what do you think will happen? Chu wants European gas prices, which translated to $7-$8 per gal and it is on its way there. Obama bears at least partial responsibility for the increase. Anticipation of supply is one of many factors in price speculation. When it rains in Brazil, soybean prices fall on the board of trade. When Obama hinders supply it effect prices.  Another reason for the cost increase is the devaluation of our dollar due to our massive dept.  When the Fed simply prints money it reduces its value and commodity prices increase. I never mentioned gas taxes.

#3 Obama care "a net negative" for the deficit. That is delusional. You can't actually believe the gov't can provide insurance for 30 million uninsured and save money? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.  And I'll bet you a beverage of your choice, the individual mandate will be declared unconstitutional.

#1  more like held hostage by the republicans in exchange for unemployment benefits.  And OK...but at least the NYT ain't Thinkprogress, Huff Post, or MSNBC. And how are actual dollar figures an opinion piece?  If you want to dispute the figures, please do.  But at least back it up with where they are wrong.

#2  You did mention gas taxes...I highlighted it in your quote above.  And actually, your statement that Obama wants higher gas prices...or even agrees with Chu on the matter....is directly contradicted by the original Wall Street Journal article that the Foxnews video references.  From the WSJ article But Mr. Obama has dismissed the idea of boosting the federal gasoline tax, a move energy experts say could be the single most effective step to promote alternative energies and temper demand. Mr. Obama said Sunday that a heightened gas tax would be a "mistake" because it would put "additional burdens on American families right now."

#3  Obamacare...this is where the right tries to spin it into something it isn't.  Obamacare doesn't PROVIDE insurance for 30 million.  It REQUIRES those 30 million people to PURCHASE insurance, along with requirements for the insurance companies to SELL it to them (regardless of preexisting conditions, etc.) and what they can and cannot do with those policies with regards to coverage, cancellation, premiums, etc.  Sure there are some subsidies for lower-income people that couldn't otherwise afford it paid for by other cost-cutting provisions within the 3000 page bill.  But on the whole, YES, the CBO scored the Affordable Care Act as a deficit reducer in the $Billions over 10 years.  From the CBO.gov document..."CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $130 billion over the 2010-2019 period (see Table 1)." Furthermore, they reiterated that later when they scored the House's repeal bill that the republicans passed last year.  As for the constitutionality, I believe it is.  But I wouldn't make any bets with the current make-up of the SCOTUS...although I'd be glad to share a beverage with you to discuss it afterwards.

[Bob E.]

As to President Obama, can't say I'm a fan at all.
He's got that political bent that views Government as the answer to everything.
Sure, it's the answer to some things, but not virtually everything.

The role of government is exactly the debate we should be having.  What gripes me is all of the misinformation and distorted "facts" and outright lies that are so prevalent...and the fact that reasonable people are not calling them out on it when they do it.  And those that do are labled as biased, often without actually disputing the facts. 

I don't really agree that Obama believes the govt is the answer to EVERYTHING.  Look at his health care bill, for example.  It is a market based approach with private insurance companies still providing the insurance for a profit...not a single-payer govt run program that many on the left...me included...would have rather seen. But oftentimes, the govt is the answer...primarily when it involves protecting American citizens from the abuses of big business...whether that is workplace safety, slave labor, food safety, protecting our environment, the air we breathe and the water we drink, auto crash protection, etc., etc. In fact, these corporate abuses like these are the issues that have led to the formation of many of our govt agencies and legislation like OSHA, EPA, NTSB, etc.

[The Anvil]

Bottom line is this; next November you're going to between Obama and Romney.

Romney was the architect of Obamacare (it's really nationalized Romneycare) and in 2004 he signed in to law the Massachusetts Assault Weapons ban. In doing so he offered this wisdom:

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense.  They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

I've heard that Obama is going to try and take away my guns. But I KNOW that Mitt has no problem doing it. He's DONE it. Like most politicians Mitt Romney will say and do anything to get elected but I fear that his level of incompetence may in fact exceed that of Bush II. If my choices come November are the devil you know Vs. the devil you don't then I'm sticking with the familiar.

YOU ARE YOUR OWN WORST ENEMIES.

"Voting is no longer an exercise in choosing the best man for the job but rather, choosing the despot whose self interest aligns most closely with your own." - J.G. McCarthy

[MP]

Bob E.

What worries me is the Court saying the Mandate is constitutional.  NEVER before have we been required to buy something, just for existing.

If it is OK, there would be NO limits on what can be required of us.

Need to sell electric cars?  Just pass a law that requires ALL of us to buy an electric car!  It is commerce!

Need to move solar energy?  Just pas a law requiring everyone to put solar panels on their roof next year.  Commerce!

What is happening to our liberty?  It is disappearing day by day, and is almost gone.  Liberty also means the ability to FAIL.  We seem to be wanting to take that out of the equation.

MP

[Trynt]

Bad mouthing Zero is nothing more than the truth. (except maybe the Muslim part)   In truth, he is probably atheist, but that has little to do with his complete failure as president.

ABO

Complete failure? Specifically, what failures are you talking about??

1.  Sending the debt thru the roof, instead of reducing it.
2.  Denying oil drilling permits, so less oil down the road
3.  Cost of Health care bill promised to be under 1 trillion, now CBO puts at 2.5 billion next ten years, and will go higher.

That is just three.

#1 not true according to http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit.  For FY09, which is attributed to Bush, the deficit was $1.413T.  Obama's deficits since then have been pretty stable at about $1.3T.  This is largely due to a poor economy that results in historically low revenues while having higher outlays for unemployment, welfare, foodstamps, medicade, etc.

#2 not true...domestic oil production is as an all-time high while our dependence on foreign oil is the lowest its been in decades.

#3 also not true.  The CBO actually reduced the cost of the health care bill from $1.131T to $1.082 according to this recent article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/health-care-reform_n_1347327.html

#1 In 8 years Bush increased the national debt by 4.8 trillion dollars. Obama increased it by 4.4 trillion in 3 years. As a percent of GDP, debt under Bush hit a high of 74.1%. Under Obama it is 99.7. Your personal share of the debt increased by $12,000 in three years under Obama ($35,153 to $48,358). Bush was terrible but the "Blamer-In-Chief" is even worse. Excusing continued financial irresponsibility by pointing to past irresponsibility is a child's argument. They are both wrong.http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

#2 Oil production on federal lands decreased by 11% from 2010-2011. http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/02/23/ier-analysis-oil-and-gas-production-declines-on-federal-lands-in-fy2011/#_ednref4  Oil production in the U.S. is up despite Obama and is due to the development of fields in North Dakota and advances in drilling technology. Obama's Energy Sec.  Steven Chu, told the Wall Street Journal Oil "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe, 'Mr. Chu has called for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years to coax consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work.' Increases in energy prices is the previously admitted plan of this administration to promote its "green" agenda. But the chickens are coming home to roost in an election year and they are back tracking to save their lying asses. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122904040307499791.html
Chu now gives himself an "A" for keeping gas prices down after previously admitting it is not a goal of the Dept of Energy. Steven Chu says lowering gas prices not goal



#3 False, March 12th the CBO projected a cost increase of $115 billion over the original projections ( for 10 years). http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37081.html

#1.  Do I wish that the deficit was less?  Yes, on that we agree.  But the claim was that Obama had blown it up, which isn't exactly accurate.  I found this from the NYTimes  (not exactly a liberal paper) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss  that shows that Obama's policies are far less costly than Bush's.

#2.  You are talking about two completely unrelated topics. The fact is that oil production is up, demand is down, yet we have rising gas prices.  That would indicate that the rise in prices has nothing to do with supply and demand, but rather other factors such as wall street speculation and instability in the mid-east.  As for gas taxes, these haven't been raised in decades, and our failing transportation budgets (and therefore our roads and bridges) are suffering for it.  They should and will need to be raised gradually over time to bring our transportation infrastructure back from the crumbling state it is quickly approaching.  And finally, with regard to green energy, it is an economic fact that, even with the gas prices we pay now, they will need to be much higher to make green/alternative energy competitive.  Making that economic statement doesn't necessarily mean that you want or will force prices to go up, especially in a bad economy.

#3.  Interesting that your link has different numbers than my link. I believe the difference is the baseline of the estimates.  Yours is referencing an older projection from before or around the time it was passed, and mine references the more recent previous CBO estimate.  But they are still close at just over $1Trillion.  That's a far cry from the $2.5T that MP stated.  And the bottom line is that the Affordable Care Act still has a net negative cost (a reduction) to the future deficit compared to doing nothing because of the offsets in other spending that were included in the bill.

#1 Are you kidding? The NY Times not liberal? It is a pillar of liberal thought! And what you cited was an OPINION piece. Look at the $ figures yourself. Obama had the chance to let the Bush tax cuts expire and he caved.

#2. I'm saying Obama, through his policies and ideology is unconcerned with keeping the cost of energy down and his minions have done nothing to mitigate the rise in cost. In fact CHU's stated goal was to increase cost.  If you have such an individual in charge of the energy dept., what do you think will happen? Chu wants European gas prices, which translated to $7-$8 per gal and it is on its way there. Obama bears at least partial responsibility for the increase. Anticipation of supply is one of many factors in price speculation. When it rains in Brazil, soybean prices fall on the board of trade. When Obama hinders supply it effect prices.  Another reason for the cost increase is the devaluation of our dollar due to our massive dept.  When the Fed simply prints money it reduces its value and commodity prices increase. I never mentioned gas taxes.

#3 Obama care "a net negative" for the deficit. That is delusional. You can't actually believe the gov't can provide insurance for 30 million uninsured and save money? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.  And I'll bet you a beverage of your choice, the individual mandate will be declared unconstitutional.

#1  more like held hostage by the republicans in exchange for unemployment benefits.  And OK...but at least the NYT ain't Thinkprogress, Huff Post, or MSNBC. And how are actual dollar figures an opinion piece?  If you want to dispute the figures, please do.  But at least back it up with where they are wrong.

#2  You did mention gas taxes...I highlighted it in your quote above.  And actually, your statement that Obama wants higher gas prices...or even agrees with Chu on the matter....is directly contradicted by the original Wall Street Journal article that the Foxnews video references.  From the WSJ article But Mr. Obama has dismissed the idea of boosting the federal gasoline tax, a move energy experts say could be the single most effective step to promote alternative energies and temper demand. Mr. Obama said Sunday that a heightened gas tax would be a "mistake" because it would put "additional burdens on American families right now."

#3  Obamacare...this is where the right tries to spin it into something it isn't.  Obamacare doesn't PROVIDE insurance for 30 million.  It REQUIRES those 30 million people to PURCHASE insurance, along with requirements for the insurance companies to SELL it to them (regardless of preexisting conditions, etc.) and what they can and cannot do with those policies with regards to coverage, cancellation, premiums, etc.  Sure there are some subsidies for lower-income people that couldn't otherwise afford it paid for by other cost-cutting provisions within the 3000 page bill.  But on the whole, YES, the CBO scored the Affordable Care Act as a deficit reducer in the $Billions over 10 years.  From the CBO.gov document..."CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $130 billion over the 2010-2019 period (see Table 1)." Furthermore, they reiterated that later when they scored the House's repeal bill that the republicans passed last year.  As for the constitutionality, I believe it is.  But I wouldn't make any bets with the current make-up of the SCOTUS...although I'd be glad to share a beverage with you to discuss it afterwards.

#1 It says "opinion" right in the internet address! And you know statistical information can been interpreted in a variety of manners. I would like you to disprove the info I posted on the increases in debt, its percentage of GDP and your personal share. Your claim, Obama is no worse than Bush's last year's deficit is true. But that is hardly a logical endorsement. "Elect Obama, He's no worse than Bush's worst year?"

#2 The tax statement was directly from Sec Chu, (note the single quotes) not me. I used it to illustrate Chu's desire to raise gas prices by any means. Obama would not appoint a Sec of Energy whose vision on energy use, he didn't share. Listen to his own word:

President Obama Wants Higher Energy Prices	powered by Aeva

 . (I regret the inclusion of a blatant political ad, but I couldn't locate the video sans ad) Current denials are election year politics.

#3 I stand by my offer on that bridge!

[Bob E.]

Bob E.

What worries me is the Court saying the Mandate is constitutional.  NEVER before have we been required to buy something, just for existing.

If it is OK, there would be NO limits on what can be required of us.

Need to sell electric cars?  Just pass a law that requires ALL of us to buy an electric car!  It is commerce!

Need to move solar energy?  Just pas a law requiring everyone to put solar panels on their roof next year.  Commerce!

What is happening to our liberty?  It is disappearing day by day, and is almost gone.  Liberty also means the ability to FAIL.  We seem to be wanting to take that out of the equation.

MP

Well, to me it's a little different than solar panels or electric cars because with health care, we as a society have said that health care cannot be denied.  If you get sick or have an accident, you go to the ER and you will be treated regardless of ability to pay.  And if you cannot pay, then the rest of us pick up the tab.  And just by existing, every one of us has health care expenses that cannot be avoided, unless we just go and die.  Now, if we decide that you cannot be treated and will be allowed to suffer and die unless you have the ability to pay (as Ron Paul has suggested), then yes that would change the dynamic.  But really, do we as a society want that to let that happen?  

This is not a liberty issue in as much as it is a personal responsibility issue.  But in terms of "liberty", rather than looking at it from an infringement on your liberty to have to purchase insurance, why not look at it like this...If you crash your motorcycle and go to the ER to get your broken arm and other injuries fixed and don't have insurance...and therefore since I have insurance, I end up picking up the tab through higher premiums and costs...what about my liberty??  Why should I have to pay for your irresponsibility in not having health insurance?

[MP]

Bob E.

What worries me is the Court saying the Mandate is constitutional.  NEVER before have we been required to buy something, just for existing.

If it is OK, there would be NO limits on what can be required of us.

Need to sell electric cars?  Just pass a law that requires ALL of us to buy an electric car!  It is commerce!

Need to move solar energy?  Just pas a law requiring everyone to put solar panels on their roof next year.  Commerce!

What is happening to our liberty?  It is disappearing day by day, and is almost gone.  Liberty also means the ability to FAIL.  We seem to be wanting to take that out of the equation.

MP

Well, to me it's a little different than solar panels or electric cars because with health care, we as a society have said that health care cannot be denied.  If you get sick or have an accident, you go to the ER and you will be treated regardless of ability to pay.  And if you cannot pay, then the rest of us pick up the tab.  And just by existing, every one of us has health care expenses that cannot be avoided, unless we just go and die.  Now, if we decide that you cannot be treated and will be allowed to suffer and die unless you have the ability to pay (as Ron Paul has suggested), then yes that would change the dynamic.  But really, do we as a society want that to let that happen?  

This is not a liberty issue in as much as it is a personal responsibility issue.  But in terms of "liberty", rather than looking at it from an infringement on your liberty to have to purchase insurance, why not look at it like this...If you crash your motorcycle and go to the ER to get your broken arm and other injuries fixed and don't have insurance...and therefore since I have insurance, I end up picking up the tab through higher premiums and costs...what about my liberty??  Why should I have to pay for your irresponsibility in not having health insurance?

In my opinion, you should NOT.  Do NOT pay for it.  If you have the money to buy a MC, you can pay for a broken arm.

Care has been deemed "essential".
What about eating?
What about housing?

Seems like we are moving to paying for all of that too!

WHY?

As I get older, I get grouchier.  My present feelings are:  If you are able bodied, take care of yourself!  No work, no eat.  No work, no health care.  No work, no house.  etc.

I have full compassion for those who are disabled mentally or physically, so they SHOULD be taken care of.

Have you seen the vids of the 20-40 year old people, who are there to collect "their" benefits?  Perfectly able, and yet, we OWE them everything!  Sorry.  In my world, they starve.

In health care, I would like to see it go the other way.

I would like to see catastrophic insurance, which would be a cheap premium for those who can afford it, and for the poor, have it subsidized by the govt.  ie, pay for the HUGE, MAJOR bills.  Those that financially break people.

Then, let the individual either buy insuranse, or self insure, for the smaller things.  ie, why should I have to pay for your recreational sex by providing free birth control?

Pay for your own office call.

MP

[Oss]

I will vote for you MP

[Bob E.]

#1 It says "opinion" right in the internet address! And you know statistical information can been interpreted in a variety of manners. I would like you to disprove the info I posted on the increases in debt, its percentage of GDP and your personal share. Your claim, Obama is no worse than Bush's last year's deficit is true. But that is hardly a logical endorsement. "Elect Obama, He's no worse than Bush's worst year?"

#2 The tax statement was directly from Sec Chu, (note the single quotes) not me. I used it to illustrate Chu's desire to raise gas prices by any means. Obama would not appoint a Sec of Energy whose vision on energy use, he didn't share. Listen to his own word: President Obama Wants Higher Energy Prices  . (I regret the inclusion of a blatant political ad, but I couldn't locate the video sans ad) Current denials are election year politics.

#3 I stand by my offer on that bridge!

This was getting long so I clipped off all of the previous quotes...

#1  Is Business Insider a better reference?  I have no idea about the ideology of this site...just did a bit of Googling.  http://www.businessinsider.com/government-spending-2011-7  But you'll probably believe it must be liberal because it primarily lays the blame on Bush and even calls the republicans hypocritical...although it does call out the dems as well.  From the link: "As you can see, from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year. From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline. In other words, federal government spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President Obama."

Furthermore, there is a related article regarding deficits:  http://www.businessinsider.com/us-budget-deficit-2011-7  From the link:  "If you believe that the growth during the "Bush Boom" was a debt-fueled mirage--a theory that is certainly supported by the evidence--then you can lay the blame squarely at the feet of President Bush. His combination of reduced taxes and increased spending took the US from a surplus to a deficit, and even the economic boom from a massive housing bubble and enormous borrowing couldn't close the gap. Even if you think the "Bush Boom" was real, moreover, the recession and financial crisis began on his watch, and the deficit was already exploding when President Obama took office. So it's very hard to escape the conclusion that President Bush bears a lot of the responsibility for our current mess."

The point isn't an endorsement of Obama, but rather to refute the original statement that implied that he is the worst ever and that it is all his fault.  He isn't and it isn't.  The rising debt is only slightly due to a modest (and primarily one-time stimulus spending and lingering social program expenses necessary due to the crashing economy) increase in spending under Obama, and primarily due to massive decreases in revenue that happened just prior to his taking office.  To say it is his fault is misguided. Think of it like this...you own a store that is barely getting by and, in order to drum up more business,  your manager cuts all of the prices of the merchandise to the point where mark-up isn't covering your overhead costs....then walks.  The new manager isn't allowed to raise prices back to where they need to be to cover costs, so he is told to buy less merchandise until eventually the store goes under.  Whose fault is it that the business failed?

#2  Funny that you criticize me for citing the NYT, but you find no problems with using Foxnews.  The fact is that his statement regarding the "energy prices would necessarily skyrocket" was in response to a question about Cap-and Trade...a policy originally proposed and supported by the republicans, but now attacked because Obama agreed with them on it...you know...because he's such a SOCIALIST!!!!!.    This is actually one of the biggest frustrations that liberals/progressives have with him and why is approval/disapproval numbers aren't really reflective of the general population.  On the right, he is being painted and attacked for being such a radical liberal socialist.  So of course they don't like him.  But many on the left see him as being right of center on many issues where they expected him to be more progressive than he has been.

#3  The Affordable Care Act had alot more than just the "Obamacare" provisions within those 3000 (or whatever it was) pages.  Alot of it was cuts to various items in order to pay for it.  And the CBO (completely non-partisan entity...unless their conclusion disagrees with your political narrative) did score it as a deficit reducer.  As for the bridge, I am a bridge engineer....so I might just be interested.  How about some details?

[MP]

I will vote for you MP

Oh, no!  Please, do NOT vote for me!  LOL   Thanks

MP

[Bob E.]

In my opinion, you should NOT.  Do NOT pay for it.  If you have the money to buy a MC, you can pay for a broken arm.

Care has been deemed "essential".
What about eating?
What about housing?

Seems like we are moving to paying for all of that too!

WHY?

As I get older, I get grouchier.  My present feelings are:  If you are able bodied, take care of yourself!  No work, no eat.  No work, no health care.  No work, no house.  etc.

I have full compassion for those who are disabled mentally or physically, so they SHOULD be taken care of.

Have you seen the vids of the 20-40 year old people, who are there to collect "their" benefits?  Perfectly able, and yet, we OWE them everything!  Sorry.  In my world, they starve.

In health care, I would like to see it go the other way.

I would like to see catastrophic insurance, which would be a cheap premium for those who can afford it, and for the poor, have it subsidized by the govt.  ie, pay for the HUGE, MAJOR bills.  Those that financially break people.

Then, let the individual either buy insuranse, or self insure, for the smaller things.  ie, why should I have to pay for your recreational sex by providing free birth control?

Pay for your own office call.

MP

Well...you had me until the recreational sex comment, which I won't even validate with a response.

As for the "let them die" position, I guess that's a national debate worth having.  But currently, it is the LAW that hospitals cannot turn away patients and must provide care.  What people can and cannot afford though is alot more complicated than you seem to assume.  You said "If you have the money to buy a MC, you can pay for a broken arm."  This is a ridiculous statement in that the cost of the transport and treatment in the ER...especially if surgery and rehab are necessary...can run tens of thousands of dollars.  And what if you are the primary wage-earner for your family?  Most people are less than a couple lost paychecks from financial ruin.  Futhermore, you reference "ie, pay for the HUGE, MAJOR bills.  Those that financially break people."  Who determines what bills would break any one when there is such a wide spectrum of economic class?  My sister-in-law is a college-educated single mom working full time in her field.  The problem is that her field (social worker) doesn't pay a ton of money, and her husband left her with the mortgage on their rather modest ($106K) house.  So things are tight.  When her daughter, who is 4, gets sick and has to go to the doctor, it is a real financial hardship for her just to make the copays on the visit and any prescription meds she might have to buy. If she were to get really sick and have to go into the hospital, she would likely go bankrupt and lose her house without help from her family.  And she has insurance.

You also oversimplify the situation of the poor able-bodied adults.  Sure, some are perpetual gamers of the system.  But the vast majority are working poor, but make such low wages that they still qualify for bennies.  And then there is the current economy where there is something like 5 applicants for every job opening.  How do you just tell someone to get a job when, if every job opening was filled, would only take about 20% of those currently unemployed off the roles?  If there were more jobs than applicants, then you would have a valid point. Are you suggesting the government give people jobs so they are working for their "wages"?

[Trynt]

#1 It says "opinion" right in the internet address! And you know statistical information can been interpreted in a variety of manners. I would like you to disprove the info I posted on the increases in debt, its percentage of GDP and your personal share. Your claim, Obama is no worse than Bush's last year's deficit is true. But that is hardly a logical endorsement. "Elect Obama, He's no worse than Bush's worst year?"

#2 The tax statement was directly from Sec Chu, (note the single quotes) not me. I used it to illustrate Chu's desire to raise gas prices by any means. Obama would not appoint a Sec of Energy whose vision on energy use, he didn't share. Listen to his own word: President Obama Wants Higher Energy Prices  . (I regret the inclusion of a blatant political ad, but I couldn't locate the video sans ad) Current denials are election year politics.

#3 I stand by my offer on that bridge!

This was getting long so I clipped off all of the previous quotes...

#1  Is Business Insider a better reference?  I have no idea about the ideology of this site...just did a bit of Googling.  http://www.businessinsider.com/government-spending-2011-7  But you'll probably believe it must be liberal because it primarily lays the blame on Bush and even calls the republicans hypocritical...although it does call out the dems as well.  From the link: "As you can see, from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year. From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline. In other words, federal government spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President Obama."

Furthermore, there is a related article regarding deficits:  http://www.businessinsider.com/us-budget-deficit-2011-7  From the link:  "If you believe that the growth during the "Bush Boom" was a debt-fueled mirage--a theory that is certainly supported by the evidence--then you can lay the blame squarely at the feet of President Bush. His combination of reduced taxes and increased spending took the US from a surplus to a deficit, and even the economic boom from a massive housing bubble and enormous borrowing couldn't close the gap. Even if you think the "Bush Boom" was real, moreover, the recession and financial crisis began on his watch, and the deficit was already exploding when President Obama took office. So it's very hard to escape the conclusion that President Bush bears a lot of the responsibility for our current mess."

The point isn't an endorsement of Obama, but rather to refute the original statement that implied that he is the worst ever and that it is all his fault.  He isn't and it isn't.  The rising debt is only slightly due to a modest (and primarily one-time stimulus spending and lingering social program expenses necessary due to the crashing economy) increase in spending under Obama, and primarily due to massive decreases in revenue that happened just prior to his taking office.  To say it is his fault is misguided. Think of it like this...you own a store that is barely getting by and, in order to drum up more business,  your manager cuts all of the prices of the merchandise to the point where mark-up isn't covering your overhead costs....then walks.  The new manager isn't allowed to raise prices back to where they need to be to cover costs, so he is told to buy less merchandise until eventually the store goes under.  Whose fault is it that the business failed?

#2  Funny that you criticize me for citing the NYT, but you find no problems with using Foxnews.  The fact is that his statement regarding the "energy prices would necessarily skyrocket" was in response to a question about Cap-and Trade...a policy originally proposed and supported by the republicans, but now attacked because Obama agreed with them on it...you know...because he's such a SOCIALIST!!!!!.    This is actually one of the biggest frustrations that liberals/progressives have with him and why is approval/disapproval numbers aren't really reflective of the general population.  On the right, he is being painted and attacked for being such a radical liberal socialist.  So of course they don't like him.  But many on the left see him as being right of center on many issues where they expected him to be more progressive than he has been.

#3  The Affordable Care Act had alot more than just the "Obamacare" provisions within those 3000 (or whatever it was) pages.  Alot of it was cuts to various items in order to pay for it.  And the CBO (completely non-partisan entity...unless their conclusion disagrees with your political narrative) did score it as a deficit reducer.  As for the bridge, I am a bridge engineer....so I might just be interested.  How about some details?

#1 My contention is not that it is all Obama's fault. After 3 years in office, it is undeniable the national debt only continues its rapid growth. He was not elected to perpetuate and exacerbate a the problem. After 3 years a decent manager would at least be making progress in the right direction.

#2 I criticized your claim that the NYT was not liberal (not its use). I would not expect you to quote Fox. and I apologized in advance for posting the political ad.  Like I said, I couldn't locate the footage elsewhere. And I don't claim Fox isn't conservative.

#3 I'm aware there are some positive aspects of Obama care, which could have been implemented without creating this bureaucratic monster. My life experience has shown me the gov't is good at two things; blowing things up and spending money.  It does neither in a financially responsible way.  I'll get back to you on those bridge specs.

[Bob E.]

#1 My contention is not that it is all Obama's fault. After 3 years in office, it is undeniable the national debt only continues its rapid growth. He was not elected to perpetuate and exacerbate a the problem. After 3 years a decent manager would at least be making progress in the right direction.

#2 I criticized your claim that the NYT was not liberal (not its use). I would not expect you to quote Fox. and I apologized in advance for posting the political ad.  Like I said, I couldn't locate the footage elsewhere. And I don't claim Fox isn't conservative.

#3 I'm aware there are some positive aspects of Obama care, which could have been implemented without creating this bureaucratic monster. My life experience has shown me the gov't is good at two things; blowing things up and spending money.  It does neither in a financially responsible way.  I'll get back to you on those bridge specs.

#1  Fair enough, but what would you have had him do differently?  Debt and deficit are two different things.  The debt is due to the deficit and will increase, even if you reduce the deficit.  As long as you run any deficit at all...anything but a surplus...the debt will increase.  Even if Obama could have halved the deficit on day 1, the debt would have grown by nearly $700B per year.  So the object would be to cut the deficit to the point of having a surplus.  And you would have to do that incrementally over a period of years, especially in a fragile economy.  When the major cause of the massive increase in the deficit is reduced/lost revenue, would you have had him raise taxes by 45% in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression?  Considering pre-existing mandated expenses that were in place prior to Obama taking office already exceeded revenues by a large margin, there is no way you could cut enough of the budget to balance it...he could have cut discretionary spending by 100%, and there would still be a large deficit...contrary to the Tea Party's demands of cut-cut-cut.

#2  Actually, you dismissed the data because it was from the NYT.  But that's fine.  NYT is liberal (I don't read it and honestly didn't realize it was considered liberal since it wasn't Huff Post, or MSNBC.) and Fox is conservative.  We agree. 

#3  Such as...?  I actually think the govt does a pretty good job at some things.  People actually love their Social Security and Medicare.  Social Security works very well and has kept alot of seniors above water through the recession.  The funding just needs adjusted to meet the changing demographics, as it was under Reagan.  Also, Medicare, though expensive, actually runs pretty efficiently with about 97% of revenues going towards care and only 3% going to admin costs.  This is in comparison to the typical insurance company that has to be mandated to spend at least 80% of premiums on care and no more than 20% on profit and overhead costs.  Medicare is expensive because health care for the elderly is VERY expensive and therefore not profitable...so much so that insurance companies wouldn't even insure the elderly, which was the reason for developing Medicare in the first place.  Are there some things that could be changed?  Of course, but Paul Ryan's solution of just shifting the cost from the govt to the seniors doesn't solve any problems...it just moves them.  And keep me posted on that bridge. 

[The Anvil]

I will vote for you MP

Oh, no!  Please, do NOT vote for me!  LOL   Thanks

MP

Yeah I wouldn't worry about it.

[bigguy]

OK. Curiosity is killing me. Been going back through all the old posts trying to fine it. No luck.

What bridge are you standing by?

[Bob E.]

OK. Curiosity is killing me. Been going back through all the old posts trying to fine it. No luck.

What bridge are you standing by?

Trynt has a bridge he said he'd like to sell me.  I'm waiting for details. 

[Master Blaster]

Hes at it again, not letting a good crysis go to waste.  He had to weigh in on the Black kid shooting in Florida.  Saw it as a fortunate opportunity to regain some of the black vote that he has lost.  Never mind the facts are not all in yet.  I personally believe the  watch guy was totally wrong, but BHO needs to stay out of it and let the state do its job.

[bigguy]

OK. Curiosity is killing me. Been going back through all the old posts trying to fine it. No luck.

What bridge are you standing by?

Trynt has a bridge he said he'd like to sell me.  I'm waiting for details. 

If you can fish from it, I say buy it.   

[Trynt]

#1 My contention is not that it is all Obama's fault. After 3 years in office, it is undeniable the national debt only continues its rapid growth. He was not elected to perpetuate and exacerbate a the problem. After 3 years a decent manager would at least be making progress in the right direction.

#2 I criticized your claim that the NYT was not liberal (not its use). I would not expect you to quote Fox. and I apologized in advance for posting the political ad.  Like I said, I couldn't locate the footage elsewhere. And I don't claim Fox isn't conservative.

#3 I'm aware there are some positive aspects of Obama care, which could have been implemented without creating this bureaucratic monster. My life experience has shown me the gov't is good at two things; blowing things up and spending money.  It does neither in a financially responsible way.  I'll get back to you on those bridge specs.

#1  Fair enough, but what would you have had him do differently?  Debt and deficit are two different things.  The debt is due to the deficit and will increase, even if you reduce the deficit.  As long as you run any deficit at all...anything but a surplus...the debt will increase.  Even if Obama could have halved the deficit on day 1, the debt would have grown by nearly $700B per year.  So the object would be to cut the deficit to the point of having a surplus.  And you would have to do that incrementally over a period of years, especially in a fragile economy.  When the major cause of the massive increase in the deficit is reduced/lost revenue, would you have had him raise taxes by 45% in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression?  Considering pre-existing mandated expenses that were in place prior to Obama taking office already exceeded revenues by a large margin, there is no way you could cut enough of the budget to balance it...he could have cut discretionary spending by 100%, and there would still be a large deficit...contrary to the Tea Party's demands of cut-cut-cut.

#2  Actually, you dismissed the data because it was from the NYT.  But that's fine.  NYT is liberal (I don't read it and honestly didn't realize it was considered liberal since it wasn't Huff Post, or MSNBC.) and Fox is conservative.  We agree. 

#3  Such as...?  I actually think the govt does a pretty good job at some things.  People actually love their Social Security and Medicare.  Social Security works very well and has kept alot of seniors above water through the recession.  The funding just needs adjusted to meet the changing demographics, as it was under Reagan.  Also, Medicare, though expensive, actually runs pretty efficiently with about 97% of revenues going towards care and only 3% going to admin costs.  This is in comparison to the typical insurance company that has to be mandated to spend at least 80% of premiums on care and no more than 20% on profit and overhead costs.  Medicare is expensive because health care for the elderly is VERY expensive and therefore not profitable...so much so that insurance companies wouldn't even insure the elderly, which was the reason for developing Medicare in the first place.  Are there some things that could be changed?  Of course, but Paul Ryan's solution of just shifting the cost from the govt to the seniors doesn't solve any problems...it just moves them.  And keep me posted on that bridge. 

#1 One if the simplest things was to let the Bush tax cuts expire. It would have resulted in more revenue and a reduction in expenses when unemployment benefits would lapse for some. Yes I know it is tough love. But some hard choices need to be made. Many would blame the Republicans for as you said holding him hostage. He had an easy out and he didn't take it. I know that is a minor thing but everything helps. Social security needs to be restructured and I say that as someone who is currently drawing benefits. It is short sighted to insist on current benefit plans only to see the entire system collapse and have nothing. As Obama likes to say "shared sacrifice". But to him is means more taxes. It should mean reduced spending. The gov't is like the spend thrift spouse that has maxed out the credit card and wants you to kick in more money so they can continue their spending spree, rather than pay off the balance on the card. I would be in favor of increased taxes to pay down the debt, unfortunately both party's will just continue to piss increased revenue down the spending rat hole.

#3 How can you say they run social security and medicare well when insolvency is on the horizon for both entities? In response to your Ryan comment, I would also like to remind you that Obama Care cut $500 billion from medicare in order to make those CBO figures look better. The reason I put so little faith in CBO numbers, is not because it is biased, but they are required to use assumptions provided by the current administration. One reason for the "net negative" is the fact that administration's scenario includes a ten year span but only six years of implementation.
http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html

[Bob E.]

#1 My contention is not that it is all Obama's fault. After 3 years in office, it is undeniable the national debt only continues its rapid growth. He was not elected to perpetuate and exacerbate a the problem. After 3 years a decent manager would at least be making progress in the right direction.

#2 I criticized your claim that the NYT was not liberal (not its use). I would not expect you to quote Fox. and I apologized in advance for posting the political ad.  Like I said, I couldn't locate the footage elsewhere. And I don't claim Fox isn't conservative.

#3 I'm aware there are some positive aspects of Obama care, which could have been implemented without creating this bureaucratic monster. My life experience has shown me the gov't is good at two things; blowing things up and spending money.  It does neither in a financially responsible way.  I'll get back to you on those bridge specs.

#1  Fair enough, but what would you have had him do differently?  Debt and deficit are two different things.  The debt is due to the deficit and will increase, even if you reduce the deficit.  As long as you run any deficit at all...anything but a surplus...the debt will increase.  Even if Obama could have halved the deficit on day 1, the debt would have grown by nearly $700B per year.  So the object would be to cut the deficit to the point of having a surplus.  And you would have to do that incrementally over a period of years, especially in a fragile economy.  When the major cause of the massive increase in the deficit is reduced/lost revenue, would you have had him raise taxes by 45% in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression?  Considering pre-existing mandated expenses that were in place prior to Obama taking office already exceeded revenues by a large margin, there is no way you could cut enough of the budget to balance it...he could have cut discretionary spending by 100%, and there would still be a large deficit...contrary to the Tea Party's demands of cut-cut-cut.

#2  Actually, you dismissed the data because it was from the NYT.  But that's fine.  NYT is liberal (I don't read it and honestly didn't realize it was considered liberal since it wasn't Huff Post, or MSNBC.) and Fox is conservative.  We agree. 

#3  Such as...?  I actually think the govt does a pretty good job at some things.  People actually love their Social Security and Medicare.  Social Security works very well and has kept alot of seniors above water through the recession.  The funding just needs adjusted to meet the changing demographics, as it was under Reagan.  Also, Medicare, though expensive, actually runs pretty efficiently with about 97% of revenues going towards care and only 3% going to admin costs.  This is in comparison to the typical insurance company that has to be mandated to spend at least 80% of premiums on care and no more than 20% on profit and overhead costs.  Medicare is expensive because health care for the elderly is VERY expensive and therefore not profitable...so much so that insurance companies wouldn't even insure the elderly, which was the reason for developing Medicare in the first place.  Are there some things that could be changed?  Of course, but Paul Ryan's solution of just shifting the cost from the govt to the seniors doesn't solve any problems...it just moves them.  And keep me posted on that bridge. 

#1 One if the simplest things was to let the Bush tax cuts expire. It would have resulted in more revenue and a reduction in expenses when unemployment benefits would lapse for some. Yes I know it is tough love. But some hard choices need to be made. Many would blame the Republicans for as you said holding him hostage. He had an easy out and he didn't take it. I know that is a minor thing but everything helps. Social security needs to be restructured and I say that as someone who is currently drawing benefits. It is short sighted to insist on current benefit plans only to see the entire system collapse and have nothing. As Obama likes to say "shared sacrifice". But to him is means more taxes. It should mean reduced spending. The gov't is like the spend thrift spouse that has maxed out the credit card and wants you to kick in more money so they can continue their spending spree, rather than pay off the balance on the card. I would be in favor of increased taxes to pay down the debt, unfortunately both party's will just continue to piss increased revenue down the spending rat hole.

#3 How can you say they run social security and medicare well when insolvency is on the horizon for both entities? In response to your Ryan comment, I would also like to remind you that Obama Care cut $500 billion from medicare in order to make those CBO figures look better. The reason I put so little faith in CBO numbers, is not because it is biased, but they are required to use assumptions provided by the current administration. One reason for the "net negative" is the fact that administration's scenario includes a ten year span but only six years of implementation.
http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html

#1  The problem is that allowing unemployment benefits to expire actually wouldn't have saved money...for a couple of reasons.  First, in terms of the overall economy, according to the CBO (yeah I know you said you don't like them) unemployment bennies are one of the most stimulative things the government can do.  Second, when unemployment runs out, those people now qualify for welfare. So all you do is move the expense from one column to another.  Sure, that might be a reason to have let them expire.  But the the problem is that other column (welfare) is then the responsibility of the states because welfare money is doled out in block grants.  And the states were already having huge problems balancing budgets in the face of the massively reduced revenues.  Most, if not all, states don't have the option of running a deficit.  So this would have crushed them.  The other issue was extending the lower-end Bush tax cuts and allowing only the upper end to expire to help the economy.  The republicans blocked it, unless tax cuts were extended for all.

#3  Choosing to inadequately fund Social Security and Medicare, two programs with the support of over 70% of Americans who want no changes to the benefits (even higher if you add those who support minor changes), is a failure of Congress.  It is not a failure of the programs.  The biggest problem is that too many people want something for nothing.  Everyone wants these programs, but nobody wants to pay their actual costs.  Reagan adjusted the funding for SS back in the 80's.  That was 30 years ago.  Is it so unreasonable to think that after 30 years, it might not need adjusted again?  Medicare needs a similar adjustment.

By the way, I'm glad we settled #2...lol! 

[Bob E.]

Hes at it again, not letting a good crysis go to waste.  He had to weigh in on the Black kid shooting in Florida.  Saw it as a fortunate opportunity to regain some of the black vote that he has lost.  Never mind the facts are not all in yet.  I personally believe the  watch guy was totally wrong, but BHO needs to stay out of it and let the state do its job.

Wow!  Just...wow. 

[98valk]

A very explicit examination of the man in the White House, and the projection of
what could be ahead for the American people...Interesting!


Israeli Psychologist on Obama:
 
Dr. Sam Vaknin is an Israeli psychologist. Interesting view on our president. Dr. Vaknin
has written extensively about narcissism.
 
Dr. Vaknin States "I must confess I was impressed by Obama from the first time I saw
him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well,
appeared to be confident -- a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not
just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his
demeanor that was unsettling.. His posture and his body language were louder than his
empty words. Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American
history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi "religious" impact on
so many people.
 
The fact that Obama is a total incognito with Zero accomplishment, makes this
inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In
fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects."
 
Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love believes "Barack Obama appears
to be a narcissist." Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands
narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he
talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and
demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest friends suggest that the man is
either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
 
Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic
leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit
mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. David Koresh,
Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph
Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous
influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with
their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and
instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the
moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom.
 
When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late.
One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse "Obama's early
life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising
dislocations,"says Vaknin. "Mixed-race marriages were even less common then.
His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant two years old. Obama saw his
father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then his mother re-married and
Obama had to relocate to Indonesia , a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to
be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his
maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few
years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. "She died of cancer in
1995."
 
One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They
project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the
charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his
bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself
and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His
admirers become his co-dependents. Narcissists have no interest in things that do not
help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that
is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their
precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and does
not deserve their attention.
 
If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no
interest in it. The "present" vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if
things go wrong. Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not
about him.
 
Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract
and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School 
provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what? His
own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for
which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He
entitled the book Dreams from My Father.
 
Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still a
nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why
would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he
can write about such an august being as himself?
 
Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This
is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar
per month.. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and
who raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in
history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother
cannot be used for his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself.
 
This election was like no other in the history of America  . The issues were
insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man
bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from
reality as the leader of the free world?
 
I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are
narcissists. They pose no threat to others. They are simply self serving and selfish.
Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the
run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him
reality and fantasy are intertwined.
 
This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw.
Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It
is this disguise that makes them treacherous. Today the Democrats have placed all their
hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party. The great majority of
blacks voted for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially
driven. This is racism, pure and simple.
 
The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will
cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their
support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their
heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a
backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent
and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial
tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960's.
 
Obama will set the clock back decades. America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of
the world depends on the strength of America  , and its weakness translates into the
triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations.. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad,
Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo 
terrorists, and virtually all sworn enemies of America  are so thrilled by the prospect
of their man in the White House.

Americais on the verge of destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a
pathological narcissist as president.   
 
Michael A. Haberman, M.D.       

[Skinhead]

George Bush was a flippin idiot, He ran this country into the ground. President Obama is a highly intellegent man and has done everything that he can to repair the damage caused by Bush. I am voting for him again.

Obama is a liar.  Good luck with your vote.  Some people never learn and will not admit when they made a mistake.

[3fan4life]

George Bush was a flippin idiot, He ran this country into the ground. President Obama is a highly intellegent man and has done everything that he can to repair the damage caused by Bush. I am voting for him again.

Obama is a liar.  Good luck with your vote.  Some people never learn and will not admit when they made a mistake.

[dipstick]

Y'all have NOTHING to fear, he's closing Gitmo and gas will NEVER reach $3.00 a gallon under "his watch" his words not mine. All I can say is I hope he has improved his forms of cheating at golf, thats all he seems to do.

[Bigun]

I'd just like to hear the explaination of how he got a dead man from Conneticuts SSN. Funny thing is the guy died in Hawaii. As far as I'm concearned this BOZO has done nothing but pull the wool over the entire USA. I never was a Birther but as more info comes out I'm starting to see that he is a fraud and a felon and has the whole Dem party acting as co conspiritors in his lies.
    And anyone that thinks the Govt should have anything to do with healthcare should visit a VA Hospital to see what having a bureaucracy running "Managed Health care" is truly about. And yes I work for the VA and am also a service connected Vet so I have a little experience with it. I was happy with GW untill his last year in office, hated Clinton untill his second term when he was forced to work with the republicans and am praying that if the American people are dumb enough to vote for Obummer again that they at least give us a republican house and senate so he cant do any more damage to this great country.

[Bob E.]

That's a pretty funny read there, CA.  Obama is a narcissist because he wrote an autobiograpy.  Do you know how many politicians have written autobiographies?  Have you seen the study that suggests that most corporate ceo's are psychopaths?  Yeah...probably just as valid.

[Chrisj CMA]

That's a pretty funny read there, CA.  Obama is a narcissist because he wrote an autobiograpy.  Do you know how many politicians have written autobiographies?  Have you seen the study that suggests that most corporate ceo's are psychopaths?  Yeah...probably just as valid.

Seems an accurate assesment to me.  "President" Obama is a narcissist NOT because he wrote a book (I dont think he wrote it anyway) but because He projects a grandiose but false image of himself.  He loves himself you can see it in his nose pointed upward pose.  Hes a poster boy for the NPD diagnosis. 

And as the good Dr (article) predicted he IS a disaster and he is setting race relations back YEARS and history will have way more negatives nailed to his presidency than positives. 

[The Anvil]

That's a pretty funny read there, CA.  Obama is a narcissist because he wrote an autobiograpy.  Do you know how many politicians have written autobiographies?  Have you seen the study that suggests that most corporate ceo's are psychopaths?  Yeah...probably just as valid.

Seems an accurate assesment to me.  "President" Obama is a narcissist NOT because he wrote a book (I dont think he wrote it anyway) but because He projects a grandiose but false image of himself.  He loves himself you can see it in his nose pointed upward pose.  Hes a poster boy for the NPD diagnosis. 

And as the good Dr (article) predicted he IS a disaster and he is setting race relations back YEARS and history will have way more negatives nailed to his presidency than positives. 

A politician is a narcissist? What are the odds!!!! 

You guys f**king kill me. 

[Bob E.]

And as the good Dr (article) predicted he IS a disaster and he is setting race relations back YEARS and history will have way more negatives nailed to his presidency than positives. 

How is he setting back race relations??  The only way he is setting back race relations is the fact that there are so many racist people who are pissed that there is a black man in the white house.  How dare he?  Are you suggesting that race relations would improve if black folk would just know their place...which is not the white house or any other level of public prominance? Again I ask, how is he setting back race relations?

[The Anvil]

How is he setting back race relations??  The only way he is setting back race relations is the fact that there are so many racist people who are pissed that there is a black man in the white house.  How dare he?  Are you suggesting that race relations would improve if black folk would just know their place...which is not the white house or any other level of public prominance? Again I ask, how is he setting back race relations?

I'd like to hear that explanation too. Maybe it was belting out an Al Green song that did it?

[Chrisj CMA]

How is he setting back race relations??  The only way he is setting back race relations is the fact that there are so many racist people who are pissed that there is a black man in the white house.  How dare he?  Are you suggesting that race relations would improve if black folk would just know their place...which is not the white house or any other level of public prominance? Again I ask, how is he setting back race relations?

I'd like to hear that explanation too. Maybe it was belting out an Al Green song that did it?

I wrote a response....how I really feel.....I just dont think this forum can take it.  So let me just say this.

Wealth redistribution and "social justice" are not peaceful nice fair and good things for society.  They create class warfare and that slips into race warfare many times...........maybe not now, but as soon as Obama runs out of other peoples money and some that were promised rivers of gold never saw anything........they could be mad

AND! It has nothing to do with Obama being part black and being in the Whitehouse and I resent the pot stirring and way you insinuated thats where Im coming from.  I took a breather from this place because I got tired of statements like yours and people like you that cant have a discussion and just stick to your view you have to attack others. 

[Bob E.]

How is he setting back race relations??  The only way he is setting back race relations is the fact that there are so many racist people who are pissed that there is a black man in the white house.  How dare he?  Are you suggesting that race relations would improve if black folk would just know their place...which is not the white house or any other level of public prominance? Again I ask, how is he setting back race relations?

I'd like to hear that explanation too. Maybe it was belting out an Al Green song that did it?

I wrote a response....how I really feel.....I just dont think this forum can take it.  So let me just say this.

Wealth redistribution and "social justice" are not peaceful nice fair and good things for society.  They create class warfare and that slips into race warfare many times...........maybe not now, but as soon as Obama runs out of other peoples money and some that were promised rivers of gold never saw anything........they could be mad

AND! It has nothing to do with Obama being part black and being in the Whitehouse and I resent the pot stirring and way you insinuated thats where Im coming from.  I took a breather from this place because I got tired of statements like yours and people like you that cant have a discussion and just stick to your view you have to attack others. 

I want to publicly apoligise to Chrisj for my statement.  It wasn't my intention to imply that he is racist.  I really only wanted to know what he meant by his accusation that Obama is setting back race relations.  After re-reading my statement, while it wasn't my intention, I recognize that it can be read in a way that crosses a line...and for that I apologize.  I recently had  a guy...he was actually one of the trainers at the physical therapy place I was going to for my back...that had made the statement that he liked when he lived in Atlanta because black people in the south knew their place, not like black people up here.  When he made the statement, I was so flabbergasted that I didn't even know what to say...and so I said nothing and it has bothered me since.  So when  I read Chris's statement, that popped into my head.  I'm sorry.

[Jess from VA]

Israeli Psychologist on Obama:

CA, thanks for sharing that.  

It is well thought out, and extremely accurate in every particular.    

ABO