Type to search

5 Ways ‘Obama Knows Exactly What He’s Doing’

Featured Post Memo Pad Politics White House

5 Ways ‘Obama Knows Exactly What He’s Doing’

Share
obama knows what he is doing

Marco Rubio revealed that his greatest strength is his greatest weakness at Saturday night’s GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire.

When confronted by Chris Christie with the less-than-creative observation that the Senator’s entire campaign revolves around him regurgitating carefully poll-tested “25-second speeches,” Marco Rubio regurgitated the same talking point again and again on Sunday.

The line “Obama knows exactly what he’s doing” is a telltale example of the mini-Trump, hyper-pessimistic belligerence that has defined Rubio’s campaign, which has begun to drown in an undertow of anti-Muslim bigotry. Rubio’s sinister suggestion about the president arises from the fevered swamps of the Republican right , where Dinesh D’Souza gets rich and gets jailed while suggesting that Obama has a secret anti-colonialist plan to ruin America. Newt Gingrich picked up this strain of conspiratorial nonsense in 2012, although since then it has largely dissipated into the wingnut-o-sphere as the nation experienced the best two years of job creation since the late 1990s.

To say “Obama knows exactly what he’s doing” sounds like a scary proposition in the GOP primary, where voters believe he is about to seize their guns and replace them with health insurance. But it’s actually a great election talking point. And if a Democratic candidate is elected in November, it will largely be the result of Barack Obama’s continued popularity.

The president’s approval rating is flirting with 50 percent, giving him the highest favorable rating of any active national political figure by far. When Gallup asked Americans last month whether they’re better off now than eight years ago, 50 percent said, “Yes.” In this ultra-partisan atmosphere that is the closest thing you’re going to get to a consensus.

Marco Rubio, on the other hand, is forced to flee his immigration bill, which is the closest thing to an accomplishment in his Senate career. Whenever he has been faced with a major challenge — in his State of the Union response, when House Republicans refused to even vote on his bill, during Saturday’s debate — he has crumbled.

Still, the press loves his face and GOP donors love his pliability. What plutocrat wouldn’t love a guy who wants to cut the richest Americans’ tax rate to zero?

But Rubio is right about Barack Obama. He clearly knows exactly what he’s doing Because despite inevitable imperfections and failings, especially in Syria and the Veterans Administration, and amidst multifarious disasters that he inherited, Obama’s successes far outshine his limitations. Today, our first African-American president heads towards his home stretch as the first president since Eisenhower to conclude a second term without being personally implicated in scandal.

Here are five examples of Barack Obama knowing exactly what he’s doing.

  1. We have the best economy in the world.
    Republicans have been clear that president is only responsible for jobs created or stock market conditions when the news is bad. America’s economy isn’t great — unless you compare it to the rest of this century and the rest of the world. While our economy still needs tons of improvement to repair the hollowing out of decades of conservative policies, we’ve experienced more than six years of unfettered private sector job growth,  an undisputed record. Best of all, job creation picked up dramatically since taxes went up on the rich and Obamacare went into full effect, disproving conservative economic nostrums yet again.
  2. Our uninsured rate is at a historic low.
    About nine out of ten Americans now have health insurance. Seventeen million Americans gaining coverage doesn’t mean health care in America is perfect. It just means Obama knows what he’s doing. At the very least he has a lot better sense of what he’s doing than the last president, who numbly watched about 8 million Americans lose their insurance.
  3. He’s gotten the rest of the world, including China, to commit to fighting climate change.
    Marco Rubio lives in a state that’s literally sinking into the the horrors of global warming. But the only evidence he needs to assure us that climate change doesn’t exist are checks from his donors. Obama, however, accepts climate science and has done more than all other presidents combined to fight it. His greatest accomplishment on this front — even greater than building a clean energy industry that could save the world via the Stimulus — is taking away the right’s favorite excuse for doing nothing about this looming disaster. He “pushed publicly and privately for China to commit to serious, meaningful reductions in emissions. The result was a landmark bilateral agreement where, for the first time, China agreed to concrete targets for emissions reductions. That, in turn, helped pave the way for the COP21 agreement reached in Paris,” explained Brandon Fureigh of the Truman National Security Project.
  4. Iran has given up 99 percent of its uranium peacefully.
    As we continue to deal with the endless consequences of a war we launched to remove weapons of mass destruction that didn’t actually exist, Obama has led the global effort to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. Thus far the government in Tehran has complied fully with the agreement and willingly avoided any path that could lead to it gaining such a weapon. “And even if the Iranians were to attempt to produce enough nuclear fuel for a bomb, it will now take them more than a year to do so,” the New York Times editorial board noted. “Before the agreement, that breakout time was two to three months.”
  5. Under Obama, abortions and teen pregnancies have fallen to new lows.
    If you actually care about preventing abortions, you should be a huge fan of Barack Obama. Rubio said that he’d be willing to lose an election to defend his view that abortion should become illegal, even in cases of rape and incest. But the biggest difference between Rubio and Obama is that Obama prevents abortions. The abortion rate today is about half of what it was in 1976. Teen pregnancies are at an all-time low. Here is the greatest irony of the so-called life debate: Abortion is more common where it’s illegal. And if you want to prevent abortions, you do the opposite of what Republicans did in Texas by defunding Planned Parenthood and denying poor women access to health care. Instead, you do what Barack Obama did, with the greatest expansion of contraception coverage in American history via the Affordable Care Act, which may have been the one thing the U.S. government has done that will prevent the most abortions. Of course, Marco Rubio wants to repeal it.
Tags:

248 Comments

  1. Carolyn1520 February 7, 2016

    History will reflect what a great president Obama is. There is nothing the mouth breathers have been able to do to change that fact. Think of how great things could have been for all of us, if their main goal had not been obstruction at every turn.

    Reply
    1. FireBaron February 8, 2016

      Nothing except vote to repeal or otherwise gut the ACA, reduce funding to the VA then complain about lack of care, ignore the crumbling infrastructure, ignore coastal erosion, allow lead contamination into the water supply, etc. All-in-all, the Mouth Breather party has a pretty poor track record.

      Reply
  2. Kaitlin Rush February 7, 2016

    Rubio’s just admitting what everyone knows. Obama knows exactly what he’s doing and that’s why we should vote for Obama in 2016. Oh wait…

    Rubio should stay clear of invoking Joe Biden. I could not help but think, “You are no Joe Biden.”

    Reply
  3. angryspittle February 7, 2016

    My greatest complaint with Obama has been his continuation of a foreign policy of international murder via drone which only makes more enemies. And I realize that turning around a policy that is based upon a budget that devotes over 50% to war is like turning an aircraft carrier around in a bathtub but nonetheless it still bothers me as an ethical and moral being. Do we really need a military presence in over 140 countries around the damn world? To what end? Simply to feed the insatiable appetites of the MIC and Wall St.? When a D-8 Cat costs about 500K and an Abrams A-1 costs about 475 million I understand the profits involved but at what social cost?

    Reply
    1. Dan Pantz February 7, 2016

      I’m right there with you… well said.

      Reply
      1. jmprint February 8, 2016

        So you would literally want more of our sons and daughters mutilated than have a few casualties, due to drone usage, I suggest you enlist all your family members and join the fight against ISIL.

        Reply
        1. Dan Pantz February 8, 2016

          Never even came close to suggesting that. Buy hey, it’s cool, you’re clearly not interested in understanding, but instead hurling wild accusations. I suggest you get a clue before commenting.

          Reply
          1. jmprint February 8, 2016

            If I misunderstood my apologies.

            Reply
    2. JPHALL February 7, 2016

      So what is the alternative to using drones? Manned aircraft or men on the ground?

      Reply
      1. FireBaron February 8, 2016

        Unfortunately, yes. Then you would be railing against our people on the ground being attacked or our aircraft being hit by shoulder held SAMs. I served 12 years in the USN, mostly on FBM submarines. Our whole job was to rain nuclear destruction on the world in retaliation for someone else’ first strike. Yes, it’s a sanitized version of warfare in that we would never see our targets or the resultant damage. However, it’s a lot less US Military lives lost than it would be had we the need to send troops in, as most of the GOP seems to want. Call it less personal, but I’ll take a drone strike any day over having to send my and my friends’ sons and daughters off to fight.

        Reply
        1. Eleanore Whitaker February 8, 2016

          Fire Baron…Your post should be on the first page of every media in the US…You speak for most honorable, patriotic Americans. Thank you.

          Reply
    3. dana becker February 7, 2016

      Boots with human beings in them or drones hopefully hitting a target that has little human collateral damage which is always tragic. He is damned if he does or damned if he doesn’t. I do feel though that each and every life weighs on him.

      Had McCain or Romney been in office, you might just be for the drones since they will have started wars all over the world showing how tough the they can be. That’s a lot of blood and treasure. Neither of which we can afford to throw away.

      Think about that if you vote. Who will send our people to their deaths and dismemberment for the right reasons? And who might just be a cowboy.

      Reply
  4. Dominick Vila February 8, 2016

    I have no problem with the use of drones. Terrorism, regardless of its root causes, is a very real threat to our national security and the security of the Western world. I much rather have drone strikes, than losing 4,700 U.S. soldiers in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, while giving a free pass to the homeland of the 9/11 terrorists in exchange for lucrative contracts. Drone strikes target known or suspected terrorist targets, instead of carpet bombing, which would kill both terrorists and their victims. An estimated 600,000 people were killed during the occupation of Iraq, 2 million fled to save their lives and the effects of the purge against Sunnis when we decided to replace Sunni Baathists with Shias aligned to Iran. In addition to loss of life and misery, that decision destabilized the entire Persian Gulf, and contributed to the emergence of ISIL and the Daesh.
    Yes, it would be wonderful if drone attacks were not needed, but I for one prefer that to the alternatives.
    As for the Affordable Care Act, I consider it one of the greatest social achievements in many decades. Demagogues like Rubio are still against it, apparently for religious reasons, but even Republican governors are beginning to understand the benefits of that program, both in term of addressing the needs of our society, as well as reducing medical costs, state budget costs and, potentially, corporate costs if it was expanded to include everyone.

    Reply
  5. Dominick Vila February 8, 2016

    Rubio is right, President Obama knows exactly what he is doing, and thank God for that! He inherited an economy that according to W was on the verge of collapse, Wall Street on the verge of collapse, 800,000 jobs lost a month, GM and Chrysler on the verge of bankruptcy with tens of thousands of workers at risk of losing their jobs, bankruptcies and foreclosures at record levels, gas prices at a record high, no private sector investment, consumer confidence at an all-time low, 4,700 U.S. soldiers killed and tens of thousands maimed during a crusade in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11…and Republicans remain determined to take us back to the good old day? Smells like high treason to me.
    My only criticism of President Obama is that he has been too polite and accommodating with those determined to slow down the economy and job creation for political purposes, with those who refused to close the Guantanamo prison camp, and who believe torture is justified regardless of what the Constitution and our laws say to that regard. He should have exposed totalitarianism, political extremism, and deliberate actions designed to slow down progress for political gain.

    Reply
    1. plc97477 February 8, 2016

      I agree he should have been able to push back against the partisan crap but you have to know if he did what they would call him and how it would look to the rest of the country. They were already being as racist as possible without adding that.

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila February 8, 2016

        You are right. He chose which battles were worth fighting for, and when to avoid spending political capital. Most importantly, and contrary to what his detractors say, he respects the opinions of others and gave in to their demands when the issue did not compromise the economic recovery or our national security.

        Reply
    2. David February 8, 2016

      Job growth? You mean people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits and have given up looking for work?

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila February 9, 2016

        Nope. I am talking about the Hiring signs that can be seen in stores throughout the country, Hiring signs in newspapers and on the Internet, and the official unemployment statistics that were accepted when previous presidents were in office. Denying the obvious, and ignoring or pretending the not too distant past was a figment of our imagination, is a political tactic that only finds fertile ground among the most partisan.

        Reply
        1. David February 9, 2016

          Feb 2016 the real unemployment rate in the U.S. was 9.9%. Gee, that’s only one out of every ten. Way to go Obomo! “Denying the obvious”? And let’s not forget to keep their hours at 32 or below per week…wouldn’t want to have to buy Obamacare. useconomy.about.com

          Reply
          1. Dominick Vila February 9, 2016

            The “real” unemployment rate? Are you talking about a different way of calculating unemployment that has not been used for any former president, and that only applies to the evil black man in the Oval Office? The unemployment rate, using the formula used for every former president, is 4.9%, in spite of all the obstructionism, refusal to invest in infrastructure because it would stimulate the economy and create more jobs (acknowledged by your hero Mitch McConnell), and to make sure Barack Obama was a one-term president. Too bad, one of the best presidents since Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Clinton managed to overcome the obstacles placed in front of him, and prevented the predicted collapse of the U.S. economy, and has created more jobs in 7 years than the two Bushes combined. All of it, while implementing desperately needed healthcare reform, fighting for equality, saving U.S. corporations, overcoming the impact of people like Mitt Romney buying DELCO, shutting it down, laying off American workers, and moving its operation to China. Keep dreaming.

            Reply
  6. yabbed February 8, 2016

    President Obama has been a transformational president and exactly what this nation needed after the disasters created in America by GWB. Despite the crude racism and the nonsensical obstruction by the Republicans, President Obama has succeeded remarkably well and our country has benefited enormously from his presidency.

    Reply
    1. David February 8, 2016

      19 trillion in debt…could it get any better?

      Reply
      1. jmprint February 8, 2016

        At least the money that President Obama spends is to help the betterment of the people. Instead of spending millions on lawsuits that never permeate. Investigations that are solely to vindicate the opposition, and the money spent on this politicians that don’t earn their keep is what bothers me the most. At least your drinking water is not poison, speaking of poison, everything the conservative republicans try to conserve turns into poison for the people. WAKE UP DAVID, conservatism should be at the expense of our children.

        Reply
      2. paulyz February 8, 2016

        And it will reach $21 Trillion by the time Obama is gone. Even Christmas shopping didn’t help our “wonderful” economy, not even enough jobs created to keep up with population growth. Yes, Obama knows what he is doing, transforming us into Socialism.

        Reply
        1. BillP February 8, 2016

          The debt total as of 2/8/2016 is 18.9 trillion, the debt has increased less and less each year he has been president. The last 4 years % debt increase is 2012 – 8% , 2013 – 5.6%, 2014 – 4.8% and 2015 – 4.6%. The debt as of 12/31/2015 was 18.9 trillion, using the last 4 year average % increase of 5.7% it would reach 20 trillion not you 21 trillion. If the % increase goes down as it has every year from 2009 then the total would be under 20 trillion. Your statement offer no #’s to back it up.

          Reply
          1. paulyz February 8, 2016

            More twisting of facts by useless stats such as debt increasing (less & less) %wise each year. The fact is no matter how you spin it, our Debt under Obama has risen from $10.7 Trillion to $19 Trillion & growing. He will have nearly Doubled it in 8 years with not much to show for it. High unemployment, increases poverty, a weakened National Defense, etc.

            Reply
          2. BillP February 10, 2016

            No facts are what you can’t stand because they don’t agree with what you get from the right wing media. In Obama’s 1st two years the annual deficit was up 14% each year due to the high employment left by GW Bush’s 8 years and the recession Obama inherited from him. After that the annual deficit rose 8.5% in 2011, 8% in 2012, 5.6% I 2013, 4% in 2014 and 4.6% in 2015. Do the work to verify these #’s instead of just using the same old tired bs of twisting the facts. If you even did a little research you would find out that from 1980 on the debt rose every year except in 2000 when Clinton was president.

            Reply
      3. johninPCFL February 8, 2016

        Yet no complaints when Reagan took the debt from $400B to $4T? No complaints when GWB took the debt from $5.8T to $12.8T?
        Odd that only when you disagree with the political policy of the president that the debt becomes important to you.

        Reply
      4. BillP February 8, 2016

        That equals around a 77% increase. Reagan the Conservative savior increased the debt by 188% in his 8 years while GW Bush increased the debt by almost 90%. President Obama has increased the debt by 78% through today. President Obama has decreased the annual deficit every year since he was elected. He has done better than these two great Conservatives.

        Reply
      5. Dominick Vila February 9, 2016

        Our national debt is the sum of deficit spending, borrowing, interest on the debt, and future obligations.
        With the exception of Bill Clinton, whose economic model resulted in a budget surplus, we have been running deficits for decades as a result of Republican insistence on tax rates that result in insufficient revenues to cover military spending, and spending on social programs such as SS, MEDICARE, and MEDICAID. In other words, deficits are the difference between receipts and outlays. Take a close look at which party has relied the most on deficit spending, and which one either eliminated it or reduced it significantly, and you will know who is to blame for the accumulation of debt that we – and our children – will be paying for many years to come.
        To overcome the shortfall caused by inadequate taxation, the government has to make up by issuing Treasury bonds or notes, and has to pay interest on the money we borrow. Again, take a look at which party insists on inadequate taxation and you will have no problem understanding who is responsible for accumulation of debt.
        Obligations, or future liabilities, involve promises made by the government to contributors to social programs such as SS and MEDICARE. We, hard working Democrats, pay for the benefits we are expected to collect when we retire throughout our professional lives. Demographic changes (an aging population) and irresponsible taxation and budget management for many decades, has resulted in the government struggling to meet its obligations to American contributors to needed social programs.
        Obviously, there are other factors, including unfunded and unnecessary crusades.
        President Obama did not increase the deficit to almost $19T, most of his predecessors, and refusal by Congress to raise taxes to cover outlays, did.

        The question is: are we willing to pay for what we know we need, or should we end social programs, and scrap our military, so that hard core Republicans have enough money in their pockets to buy the latest cell phone?

        Reply
    2. plc97477 February 8, 2016

      You really should say the disaster that baby bush caused in the world because the financial melt down that was w affected the entire planet.

      Reply
  7. itsfun February 8, 2016

    19 trillion in debt, ISIS, soaring insurance rates. If anyone actually believe that Iran has stopped creating a atom bomb, I have ocean front property in North Dakota for them. If the economy is so great, why are both Hillary and Bernie campaigning to fix the economy? More and more terrorism, going around the US Congress to get his own way. Ignoring the Constitution by changing laws (obamacare). He knew he could get away with that because no Republicans had the courage to call him on that. Going golfing after a reporter gets his head cut off, instead of going after the murderers that committed that medieval crime. Yep, he sure knows what he is doing if he wants to destroy our way of life and our country.

    Reply
    1. David February 8, 2016

      What you said is the absolute truth!

      Reply
      1. FF February 8, 2016

        It’sfun, you sound like the typical consumer of Fox News. Not surprisingly, then, you’re unaware that the guy cutting off heads (Jihadi John) was obliterated in a drone strike months ago.

        Reply
        1. Eleanore Whitaker February 8, 2016

          Itsfun and David are delusional men who hate themselves so much they just can’t stand being miserable all alone…Misery love company to them.

          Reply
      2. Eleanore Whitaker February 8, 2016

        Here he is…the other Good Stepping right winger…hoping for Hitler’s resurrection are you?

        Reply
    2. jmprint February 8, 2016

      The only truth about your statement is that republicans are cowards. What part of your way of life is he destroying? The country that I live in USA is not in a depression, I can afford insurance, that I couldn’t afford before. Hiring signs everywhere. Real estate market is up. WTF are you complaining about. The 19 trillion in debt will be worked on, soaring insurance rate is the reason I wasn’t insured in 2010. And I feel more secure with the Iran Deal then without. And Bernie and Hilary are going to work on improving the economy. Who said the economy was perfect? You have to admit it is MUCH better then 2008, if not your are a FOOL.

      Reply
      1. itsfun February 8, 2016

        Its not better than it was.I am happy your insurance rates are so low, you can thank me for that because my tax money is being use to subside the insurance companies that are losing money because of Obamacare. How secure do you feel about North Korea. Iran will be and is doing the same thing. The economy is miserable. All there hiring signs are for low paying part time jobs. Companies cannot afford to hire full time employees because of Obamacare. Take a look in the mirror if you want to see what you call me.

        Reply
        1. Eleanore Whitaker February 8, 2016

          It isn’t? Gee…you fool the 16 million who can now finally afford to pay for their own healthcare insurance…and the 17 record high the DOL posted for jobs that Obama helped create..Do you ever stop lying?

          I realize you hate yourself more than anyone else…but if you are having your hater boy party…you need to be miserable all by yourself…We call you what your posts prove…that you are a liar.

          Do you deny the magnitude of the Sept. 2008 Financial Meltdown that had Bush and Cheney scared shitless?

          Reply
          1. itsfun February 8, 2016

            What about the 29 million that are still not insured? I thought Obamacare was suppose to insure everyone. You just keep on lying and calling names, that seems to be all you are good for.

            Reply
          2. jmprint February 8, 2016

            We are working on that, it will happen, the pharmaceutical and insurance companies can’t continue to gouge us.

            Reply
          3. itsfun February 8, 2016

            The insurance companies have no reason to make any changes. Obamacare guarantees them profit by subsiding them if they don’t make enough. How much of the pharmaceutical profits go into research for new wonder drugs. We need cures for Parkinson’s, dementia, MS, cancer, etc. These cures come from private companies not the government. Let the insurance companies compete between state lines, instead of handcuffing them. Competition will lower the prices of policies.

            Reply
          4. jmprint February 8, 2016

            Bull, our taxes subsidies research. Obamacare was trying to be fair to all, but the insurance companies are not satisfied with making a profit, they want to make a killing.

            Reply
          5. itsfun February 8, 2016

            I don’t think so. Obamacare subsides the insurance companies when they don’t make the money they want. Obama was all for this. If he wasn’t it wouldn’t be in the ACA tax law. Most private industries pay for their own R&D, then pass the cost onto the costumer.

            Reply
          6. rozyredtoes February 9, 2016

            Would you please step to the head of the line. We don’t want the insurance companies to overlook you.

            Reply
        2. jmprint February 8, 2016

          In what way is it not better then the spiral down effect that was happening.

          Reply
        3. jmprint February 8, 2016

          Bud, MY TAXES help pay for your portion so get a grip. And I am glad at what I see in the mirror: A hard working individual that employs others and helps the economy roll. An individual that does not mind helping others that don’t have as much as me. An individual that is concerned about the future of America in the republican’s conservative destructive hands.

          Reply
          1. itsfun February 8, 2016

            Your taxes don’t pay for my healthcare. I pay for it.

            Reply
          2. rozyredtoes February 9, 2016

            Since when do you have to pay taxes on welfare and disability? I know one thing you have done for the economy . You have gotten it rolling down hill.

            Reply
        4. rozyredtoes February 9, 2016

          Why even respond she is dumber than sore toe. You are most likely arguing with an entitlements baby. Without our tax money I doubt she could feed herself.

          Reply
    3. latebloomingrandma February 8, 2016

      The present economy, unemployment rate, rapidly falling deficit, job creation, falling gas prices—-you better believe that a President Romney would be taking full credit for this.

      Reply
      1. itsfun February 8, 2016

        The economy is very weak. Unemployment rate is lower only because of more part time jobs because of obamacare and millions of people completely dropping out of the work force because of no jobs. The national debt is now 19 trillion. Who is going to pay for that. Fracking and oil production in Dakota has brought down oil prices. However I am sure you are right and a President Romney would take credit for it also. Presidents always take credit for good no matter what caused the good and always find someone to blame for the bad.

        Reply
        1. jmprint February 8, 2016

          Wrong the cost of gas is down, because of Saudi Arabia, they are intentionally hoping to stop fracking or hurt them to the point of non-existence. Unemployment is down, no matter why it is down fact it is the lowest it’s been since 2008.

          Reply
          1. itsfun February 8, 2016

            If oil cost is down because Saudi Arabia wants to stop fracking, doesn’t that mean fracking is one of the causes of the oil prices going down? Unemployment is down, welfare is up food stamps are up. We have something like more than the entire population of Spain on food stamps.

            Reply
          2. BillP February 8, 2016

            These trolls always claim that the job report looks good due to part time jobs being created but that defies what is in these reports. The latest not only showed a drop to 4.9% but also an increase in the average wages earned. I didn’t hear these same trolls moaning about W last year where 4,2 million jobs were lost, that he kept 2 wars of the books while he decreased US gov’t tax revenue with his top tier heavy tax reduction (4.9% to the highest earners). That trickle down theory sure worked well, didn’t it. As for his claim that “because of more part time jobs because of obamacare and millions of people completely dropping out of the work force because of no jobs.” is disproved by the U6 rate is down from 14.2% in1/2009 to 9.9% in 1/2016.

            Reply
          3. rozyredtoes February 9, 2016

            The Saudi’s are in deep financial poo and I am loving it.

            Reply
        2. rozyredtoes February 9, 2016

          The employment figures are total BS.

          Reply
      2. David February 10, 2016

        Taking credit for 9.9% real unemployment; national debt at 19+ trillion…

        Reply
    4. LCR78 February 8, 2016

      Republican Congress was right there helping create our debt. Run for Congress if you are so sure of everything and know how to fix all of our issues.

      Reply
      1. itsfun February 8, 2016

        Did you forget that Obama was going to shut down the government if the Congress didn’t approve what he wanted.

        Reply
        1. Eleanore Whitaker February 8, 2016

          Obama NEVER planned to shut the government down..that was your Mr. Tan Man…Boehner…and his Mutton Chops Big Daddy McConnell so pissed that the ACA passed that Ole Mutton Chops was ready to spit fire to continue to get those nice fat Pay to Play HMO bribes he accepts so readily..You can lie and lie and lie…but your lies can’t prove one damn bit of truth..

          Reply
          1. itsfun February 8, 2016

            You are the liar here and still have no ideal of what is going on in this country or the world. As usual you call people names to make yourself feet important. You are a real loser.

            Reply
          2. Eleanore Whitaker February 8, 2016

            I am going to PROVE YOU are a LIAR…Here is what you posted: “When Obama change the ACA tax law he violated the Constitution and the left wants to ignore that and say he did a good thing. When the President refuses to sign a budget into law, he effectively shuts down the government, until Congress obeys him and changes the budget to his liking.”

            Now..I want you to go to a .gov site and prove what you posted. If you can’t, you damn well better be ready to admit you made up these lies like you do with every single one of your posts.
            Either post the direct citations proving what you posted…or I have proven you to be a liar.

            Don’t bother with your right wing BS sites either…I won’t accept any but a .gov citation.

            Reply
          3. itsfun February 8, 2016

            I done this before with you. I know from past experience you don’t have a clue what is in the Constitution. It is clearly stated that only the House and Senate make laws and the President can or can not sign them into law. The House and Senate can only make changes to existing laws and again the President can or can not sign them into laws. When Obama made changes to the ACA tax law he violated the Constitution. Go read the Constitution, I am not going to that for you again. The President proposes a budget and sends it to the House for their approval. The House can then make changes to the proposed budget and sends it back to the President for his approval. If the President does not agree with the proposed changes he doesn’t sign the budget. Until the Pres signs a budget we don’t have one. Thus if we don’t have a budget, we can pay our bills or employees or anyone. This is called shutting down the government. Personally I couldn’t care less what you accept or don’t accept.

            Reply
          4. Independent1 February 8, 2016

            Sorry, but as usual you’re full BS!! If the House and Senate pass a budget bill and send it to the President – if he refuses to sign it, the bill BECOMES LAW WITHIN TEN DAYS PROVIDED CONGRESS IS IN SESSION!!

            1.A bill becomes law if signed by the President or if not signed within 10 days and Congress is in session.- the bill is sent to the President for review.

            2.If Congress adjourns before the 10 days and the President has not signed the bill then it does not become law (“Pocket Veto.”)

            3.If the President vetoes the bill it is sent back to Congress with a note listing his/her reasons. The chamber that originated the legislation can attempt to override the veto by a vote of two-thirds of those present. If the veto of the bill is overridden in both chambers then it becomes law

            PROVE THAT OBAMA EVER THREATENED TO VETO A GOP BUDGET BILL!!! THAT WASN’T SOME KIND OF GOP INTENDED GIMICK TO SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT – LIKE THREATENING TO DEFUND OBAMACARE!!!

            Reply
          5. rozyredtoes February 9, 2016

            You are shouting again.

            Reply
          6. Independent1 February 9, 2016

            “When Obama made changes to the ACA tax law he violated the Constitution.”

            As usual you are wrong. A president is charged with implementing laws faithfully – that is, in line with what Congress actually intended, and not necessarily what a law says. As can be expected, Congress rarely writes laws that are flawless, and therefore in implementing them, most laws require the Executive Branch to create the regulations that are needed in order to faithfully implement the law.

            Sometimes crafting these regulations takes more time than Congress may have anticipated in setting implementation dates and therefore, most Presidents understand that they have some leeway in actually implementing a law.

            And just for your edification, it was actually George Bush, who had to delay the full implementation of the Prescription Drug Benefit of Medicare because of the disastrous rollout of that legislation. The rollout was so bad, that Bush had to ask states to actually cover prescription costs for people in their states that the failed Medicare Drub Benefit system wouldn’t process correctly because it was so flawed. The actual implementation of Part D was delayed by almost 6 months.

            In fact, Bush added signing statements to virtually all the legislation he signed, identifying what in each piece of legislation he had no intention of having the Executive Branch implement. And despite what you say, Presidents have the authority to refuse to implement legislation exactly as it was written. The only recourse citizens or Congress have is to sue the government with respect to whatever portion of the legislation the Executive Branch is refusing to implement.

            If you doubt all I’m saying, take a read through the article from the link below: here’s an excerpt:

            The Supreme Court just last month went a long way toward requiring federal courts to trust the government agencies that execute the laws to interpret for themselves just what authority Congress has given them in their areas of official activity. What an agency decides is the range of its power, that ruling said, should be given considerable deference by the courts.

            Given the complexity of modern government operations, very few of the laws that Congress passes are completely self-executing; most if not all of them require regulations to put them into actual effect. And writing regulations is the business of the federal agencies. An array of government agencies have been working for more than three years, for example, to write the rules for the new Affordable Care Act – the vast new law regulating the entire health care financing system.

            The Constitution’s Article II assigns to the President the national government’s “executive power,” and tells the President that “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” It does not say how that is to be done, or when, but the emphasis on being “faithful” at least implies that the President will respect the choices that Congress has made and written into law.

            At the same time, Article II does not say that a law shall be carried out at all cost, so every President operates on the assumption that federal agencies can be given some leeway in how they do it. And every lawyer advising a President is certain to provide more than one memo saying that the process of executing a law should aim at ensuring that it carries out the goal Congress set for it, even if that means varying somewhat from the text.

            http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/07/constitution-check-can-the-government-legally-delay-the-health-care-mandates/

            Reply
          7. David February 10, 2016

            “A president is charged with implementing laws faithfully — that is, in line with what Congress actually intended, and not necessarily what a law says.” What? Are you serious? Let me guess, you think that the President is the one to determine what Congress “meant”? Give me a break! Read the Constitution. You are an absolute DA!

            Reply
          8. rozyredtoes February 9, 2016

            The only citation you will ever get from the government is a deportation order as an illegal human.

            Reply
          9. jmprint February 8, 2016

            How do you feet important?

            Reply
          10. rozyredtoes February 9, 2016

            Your toe is showing. Hide it quick before it starts a stampede.

            Reply
        2. LCR78 February 8, 2016

          Only you think that was what was going on. Our system of government was designed with checks and balances to stop the tyranny of the many. No one person, decides anything. So, either you compromise and govern or you get these messes where people like Cruz try to shut down the government even when they don’t have the votes to get their way. A President can’t make law but he can veto them and our Constitution requires A 2/3rds vote to override that simply to prevent the majority in Congress from easily passing laws. Republicans don’t have anywhere near a 2/3rd majority in this country, so they have to deal with the President.

          Reply
          1. itsfun February 8, 2016

            The President does not have any constitutional authority to make or change any laws. When Obama change the ACA tax law he violated the Constitution and the left wants to ignore that and say he did a good thing. When the President refuses to sign a budget into law, he effectively shuts down the government, until Congress obeys him and changes the budget to his liking.

            Reply
          2. Robert Eckert February 8, 2016

            The opinions of Random Internet Guy about what “violates the constitution” don’t matter. The Supreme Court has the job of deciding that. Despite being controlled by Republican appointees, the Court rejected your argument and that settles the matter.

            Reply
          3. itsfun February 8, 2016

            The Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was legal as a tax? That makes it a tax law and it is administered by the IRS. What Obama did was to make changes to that law after it was in effect. He delayed parts of it. That is changing a existing law and he has no constitutional authority to change a existing law.

            Reply
          4. Robert Eckert February 8, 2016

            take it to the courts. I bet you lose.

            Reply
          5. itsfun February 8, 2016

            I don’t have the small fortune it would take.

            Reply
          6. Robert Eckert February 8, 2016

            The Koch brothers do.

            Reply
          7. jmprint February 8, 2016

            Congress insisted, he accommodated, the trap didn’t catch a rat, it caught the liars in the house. Why is it that the lawsuit that Boehner brought on because of this action, didn’t amount to crap?

            Reply
          8. itsfun February 8, 2016

            Are you saying its okay to violate the Constitution if Congress insist he break it? You have read the Constitution and you know Obama violated it. I have no idea what lawsuit Boehner had. I am just glad he is gone.

            Reply
          9. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

            delay: make (someone or something) late or slow.
            change : make or become different.
            The two terms do not share the same thing.

            Reply
          10. itsfun February 9, 2016

            The law has a implementation date in it. Delaying that date is changing the law as it is written.

            Reply
          11. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

            In what way does delaying implementation of a law change the law?
            I refer you to the definitions that I have provided above.
            As a further rebuttal I submit these links:
            http://theusconstitution.org/news/obamas-aca-delays-%E2%80%94-breaking-law-or-making-it-work

            http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/delaying-parts-of-obamacare-blatantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/

            Reply
          12. itsfun February 9, 2016

            When the date was written into the law, it is in stone so to speak. When that date is changed or delayed that is changing the written law saying what date features are to be implemented. Obama by delaying the implementation, changed the date.

            Reply
          13. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

            You can beat that dead horse all you want. Its not going to get up and take you anywhere.

            Reply
          14. itsfun February 9, 2016

            We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

            Reply
          15. jmprint February 8, 2016

            When congress absolutely knows for a fact that a bill will get vetoed if it has attachment to undo a Presidents work, then that puts the responsibility back on congress. You are just part of the “we will not let Obama get anything accomplished” fools, he showed you he could get things done with or without you.

            Reply
          16. itsfun February 8, 2016

            Like I said, he violated the Constitution and you think that is just fine. He is the one that is my way or the highway and believes he is a king and not the President of US. He is doing all he can to destroy our way of life and our type of government. He should have been impeached when he violated the constitution.

            Reply
          17. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

            I would request proof of your claims but as you have stated previously it is not your obligation to produce proof of your allegations. They should be just accepted a priori.

            Reply
          18. itsfun February 9, 2016

            Just saying if people want to call me a liar – prove it.

            Reply
          19. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

            That doesn’t seem to be the same rule you republicans play by.
            Accuse, accuse, accuse. Proof be damned.

            Reply
          20. itsfun February 9, 2016

            First I am not a Republican. I am a registered Independent. Second, even though I was called a liar when I said this, I did vote for a Democrat for the Governor of my State and I voted for a lady Democrat for the US Senate. I voted for a Republican for my US House Representative and a Republican for my State Representative. Eleanore than wanted to know how I knew the lady was a lady.
            Second no political party has a monopoly on accuse, accuse, accuse. Remember Harry Reid accusing Romney of not paying his taxes. That was a out and out lie. Politics have become a dirty, dirty business and that is one of the reasons we may need a “outsider that can’t be bought” as our President. Before you start saying I am on the Trump bandwagon, I believe Bernie Sanders fits into the can’t be bought category. I don’t respect Hillary because I can’t believe a word she says anymore. Remember how she said she was dodging bullets in Bosnia. Words and character mean a lot. The more Sanders gains in popularity, the more she changes her policies and goes farther and farther left just to appease the polls. I want a candidate that I can believe and who doesn’t change with the wind.

            Reply
          21. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

            “First I am not a Republican. I am a registered Independent. …”
            So you SAY.
            No one claimed a political party had an monopoly on accusations. Just that republicans are more apt at doing it without proof.
            News Flash. Politics has ALWAYS been dirty.
            I like Senator Sanders. I think that he is performing a great service to the Democratic party by causing former Secretary of State Clinton to move more in the direction that her party wants her to go.

            Reply
          22. rozyredtoes February 9, 2016

            Dirty beyond belief and we are all going to pay for it. These moronic liberals have no real idea what kind of future they are laying out for themselves.

            Reply
          23. David February 10, 2016

            Yes, our “Fearless Leader” has done that quite often with his Executive Orders.

            Reply
          24. Too busy to play February 19, 2016

            President Obama has had fewer Executive Orders than any POTUS in a century. Try to keep up, David, your lack of education is showing. And look elsewhere than Faux “news” for your news, because Faux has a 18% accuracy rate: about like yours.

            Reply
          25. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

            Ahh itsfun is serving up more Soufflé de BS. A delicacy voraciously consumed in the right-wing bubble-sphere but shunned by those with a firm grip on reality.

            Reply
          26. itsfun February 9, 2016

            Are you saying the President has the Constitutional authority to make or change laws?

            Reply
          27. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

            No.
            That’s the lie you and your right-wing bubble-sphere dwellers accuse the President of.

            Reply
          28. itsfun February 9, 2016

            He changed the ACA tax law when he changed the implementation date of some of the features in it. That’s not a lie. He did that. You are trying to say he didn’t change the law as written when he delayed the features. The dates were written into the law, delaying them is changing the law.

            Reply
          29. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

            Again I refer you to a dictionary, one of your choosing, so that you might see the difference between change and delay.

            Reply
          30. itsfun February 9, 2016

            Again; I say delaying or moving a date that was written into law is changing the law. If that is not changing the law, why write a date into the law? Changing the date was the constitutional duty of the Congress.

            Reply
          31. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

            There have been a number of times in the past where the implementation of laws has been delayed.
            Look it up.
            This is nothing new.

            Reply
          32. itsfun February 9, 2016

            I did a search on YAHOO asking “how many times has a president delayed the implementation of a law” You may want to do that.

            Reply
          33. rozyredtoes February 9, 2016

            Are you the real Eleanore? Please stand up and show your toe.

            Reply
          34. TheSkalawag929 February 10, 2016

            You have nothing relevant or of import to add to this conversation, so you may go back to your corner and continue playing with yourself while the adults talk. Okay?

            Reply
          35. rozyredtoes February 10, 2016

            Okay we understand , you can sit back down now.

            Reply
        3. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

          It impossible to forget what NEVER happened.

          Reply
    5. stcroixcarp February 8, 2016

      The economy is still recovering from the Bush/Cheney/ Wall Street induced great recession. And the wealthy made a killing during the hard times for the rest of us. What needs work now is to bring wages back up to a living level. Strengthen unions. Reduce and eliminate student debt, and require more taxes from the uber wealthy and corporations. Do you like being owned by the corporate capitalists ( and their religious fanatic allies) whose only reason to exist is profit?

      Reply
      1. itsfun February 8, 2016

        Yep almost 8 years of Obama and you are finding a way to blame George Bush. You will never get more full time jobs when you punish companies for hiring people for over 30 hours of work per week. Just who do you propose pay for the student debt? Our corporations are already the highest taxed in the world. You want to blame everyone that has worked hard to get where they are at, and you want to punish people for being successful. Why would anyone try to advance their self, just so they could give 50% and more of their wages to the government to give the money to non-producers? You want to give high school students, high school dropouts a high wage to flip hamburgers. You idea of high wages would just blow up when the college grads decided to apply for those jobs when you are guaranteeing a wage of $15.00 a hour or 30,000 a year. No one owns me, I earned every thing I have and I do intend to keep as much of it as I can, instead of giving it to the government.

        Reply
        1. Eleanore Whitaker February 8, 2016

          Tell us…All of those no bid contracts awarded by Bush/Cheney …$350 billion of that went to Halliburton. Tens of billions to KBR and Blackwater…but you want a total absolution of that? Do you big babies EVER grow the hell up?

          Your kind love to bitch, moan, wail and criticize…and never EVER take blame when blame is due you. Sorry but that kind of childish BS has been going on for 8 years now…YOU elected Bush but instead got Cheney for president. and now you want absolution for your stupidity?

          For almost 8 years the House of Reps. has a Republican majority …who sequestered, threatened government shut downs, stole money out of SS and Medicare to fund Republican states corporate Pay to Play and now you think we will just let you get away with the constant thieving? Think again buster. You know know why YOU hate Obama…he is on to your thieving and corruption by your GOP politicians. How many more do you think you can elect to waste tax dollars on bogus investigations…And you needn’t bother to post any more of your lies and distortions either.

          It was you Republicans who used obstruction on both Clinton and Obama to insure that their presidencies wouldn’t be a success..how childish do you little short pants little boys plan to get before someone decides to put shame into your lives?

          Reply
          1. itsfun February 8, 2016

            Again you make absolutely no point. You have a failed President and if you knew anything at all or would read or listen to any reputable news shows you would wonder how a President of the US could only find out about things like the IRS targeting conservatives by watching TV or how he found out about what was going on in Benghazi. You ignore the proven facts (admitted by the Obama administration) that your hero Hillary had at least 27 top secret documents on a unsecured server, that any average hacker could have broken into. You only know how to call names try to make yourself feel important, when in truth you are just a lonely old women trying get anyone to listen to you.

            Reply
          2. Eleanore Whitaker February 8, 2016

            Oh contrare mon mal ami…I make the best points…but if Hitler was still among us, you’d be one of the ones goose stepping …admit it? If someone tells a blockhead they see the sky is blue, the blockhead contradicts and says, “you make no point,…the sky is red.”

            At some point, you do realize you make a complete fool of yourself with your daily “I hate Obama” BS? President Obama IS the president. Get over it moron.

            You have NO facts. All you have are right wing distortions no one but you falls for. That’s how pathetic your posts have become.

            Rice, Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney all used private email servers…and Rice and Rummy both received the same classified information on them..But a coward, chicken livered, narrow minded fogie like you can’t admit that. Grow the hell up.

            Reply
          3. itsfun February 8, 2016

            Like I said you say nothing and just call people names. It must be terrible to such a lonely hateful person like you are.

            Reply
          4. Eleanore Whitaker February 8, 2016

            You can’t prove what you posted…can you Liar? I posted that I want a citation from a .gov site…You can’t do that and now I proved you lied. Want to try again? Or do you just figure you can lie, lie, lie and some poor fool less educated than you (if that’s possible) will believe your tripe.

            Try again hot shot…Your bluff was called and now you are trying to escape the hot seat.

            Reply
          5. itsfun February 8, 2016

            You are nuts and if you want proof of what I say, go find it yourself. Its up to you to prove I lied, not up to me to prove I didn’t.

            Reply
          6. Independent1 February 9, 2016

            If there’s anyone here that nuts IT’S YOU!!

            Reply
          7. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

            itsfun is like so many republicans. He is dazed, confused and punch-drunk from all the smackdowns and butt bustings that President Obama has put on republicans throughout his presidency.

            Reply
          8. jmprint February 8, 2016

            She says a lot, you just don’t read, you are so into yourself.

            Reply
          9. itsfun February 8, 2016

            She says nothing except to call people childish names.

            Reply
          10. jmprint February 8, 2016

            You must not understand much, because I get a lot of good, solid information from her post.

            Reply
          11. itsfun February 8, 2016

            You may be the only one that does.

            Reply
          12. rozyredtoes February 9, 2016

            That means you are just as dingy as she is if she is really a she. Maybe you and her are the same person.

            Reply
          13. David February 10, 2016

            “Good, solid information…” Like what?

            Reply
          14. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

            Admittedly, I have not read everyone of your posts in reply to Eleanore Whitaker but as of yet I have not seen where you have been able to refute anything she has posted with truth or facts that back your claims. As a matter of fact I have not seen where you have been able to refute ANYONE’S post with truth of facts.

            Reply
          15. itsfun February 9, 2016

            One example would be Eleanore telling me that Bill Clinton was not impeached. I explained to her he was impeached by the House, but not removed by the Senate, and that the House impeaches and the Senate removes. She called me a liar on that too. I cut and pasted the part of the Constitution that proves what I said. She said that was bogus and another lie. After she actually checked the Constitution, she then accused me of sitting her up. I have done the research and posted it many times on my posts, only to have people say, my research didn’t count because they didn’t like my resources and didn’t believe it. So now I just put the burden of proof on the people that call me a liar. I am still waiting for anyone to prove me a liar. I probably have been wrong on some things, but I have never lied about anything.

            Reply
          16. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

            “Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity …”
            “The senate did not reach the 2/3’s majority needed to fully process his impeachment. Clinton was impeached by the House on two charges. The first being perjury, and the second being obstruction of justice. Following this he was acquitted by the senate.”
            For a public official, impeachment is similar to an indictment. Clinton was charged with actions that were deemed “high crimes and misdemeanors”, but was ultimately found not guilty.
            Accusation does not constitute guilt.

            Reply
          17. itsfun February 9, 2016

            Right: He was impeached by the House, but not removed from office by the Senate. The House impeaches and the Senate removes. I never said anything else.

            Reply
          18. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

            You might be greasy but you’re not slick.
            It’s what you imply with your comment where the fault can be found.
            Indictment (impeachment) is not proof of guilt.
            The Senate acquitted President Clinton of the charges brought by republicans.

            Reply
          19. itsfun February 9, 2016

            I didn’t imply anything, I said he was impeached, but not removed from office. I never said he was guilty of anything. I never implied he was removed from office either. I pointed out what the Constitution demands for a removal from the office of President.

            Reply
          20. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

            No you didn’t say that President Clinton was removed from office.
            But your comment reeked of the implication that he was guilty of something and that in your opinion the Senate disappointed you by not removing him from office.
            Perhaps if you were more clear in posting your thoughts maybe you wouldn’t be “inaccurately” accused by so many so often.

            Reply
          21. itsfun February 9, 2016

            Never meant to imply he was guilty of anything. I don’t believe he committed any treason or high crimes. He got a bj and used a cigar in the oval office. I feel that is a embarrassment to the nation, but not a crime or anything he should have been impeached for.

            Reply
          22. TheSkalawag929 February 10, 2016

            By the way, why are former President Clinton’s past actions of any relevance to the article at hand?

            Reply
          23. itsfun February 10, 2016

            Weren’t we talking about the difference between impeachment and removal? Both of us were talking about that. Because we were using Bill Clinton as the example, I just felt I should add what he did (in my opinion) was not treason or any kind of a high crime.

            Reply
          24. TheSkalawag929 February 10, 2016

            “Weren’t we talking about the difference between impeachment and removal?” Only after YOU brought it up.
            “Because we were using Bill Clinton as the example,”. No. YOU were the to use the former president.
            “I just felt I should add what he did (in my opinion) was not treason or any kind of a high crime.” I agree.

            Reply
          25. itsfun February 10, 2016

            Does it matter who brought it up? Of course I used Bill Clinton as a example. He is the only one in my lifetime that has been impeached.

            Reply
          26. TheSkalawag929 February 10, 2016

            Yes. I just want the record to show who led the conversation off track momentarily.

            Reply
          27. David February 10, 2016

            The Arkansas Bar Association apparently thought he was guilty of lying. He lost his license to practice law.

            Reply
          28. TheSkalawag929 February 10, 2016

            He accepted a voluntary suspension for “inaccurate responses he gave under oath to questions about his relationship with a White House intern.”
            Call it what you like. It makes no difference at this point in time since the former President isn’t running for any political office.

            Reply
          29. David February 10, 2016

            I love the Clintonistas! “At this point, what difference does it make?”. Too funny! Guess it all depends upon what your definition of the word “is”, is.

            Reply
          30. TheSkalawag929 February 11, 2016

            Maybe?
            But you have not answered my question. Is that because you can’t come up with a relevant difference that former President Clinton’s prior actions make on today’s current elections?

            Reply
          31. David February 10, 2016

            “I did not have sex with that woman.” You are right. Nothing here to worry about.

            Reply
          32. TheSkalawag929 February 10, 2016

            You’re right. There was and is nothing there to worry about. That is of course unless one is some kind of prude.

            Reply
          33. David February 10, 2016

            Unless you lie about it under oath…

            Reply
          34. TheSkalawag929 February 10, 2016

            According to what I have found on the subject, former President Clinton was never found guilty of lying under oath by the Senate.
            Accusation is not proof of guilt.

            Reply
          35. rozyredtoes February 9, 2016

            She loves it. To her it is better than riding an exercise bike with no seat and eating a banana at the same time.

            Reply
          36. rozyredtoes February 10, 2016

            Hey EW you need to write another book . The world has a toilet paper shortage.

            Reply
          37. David February 10, 2016

            Her “book” was published by the ‘vanity press’. Eleanore has quite a inferiority complex.

            Reply
          38. jmprint February 8, 2016

            He is only a failed President to your tea party band wagon. And you only say he failed because you couldn’t break him, he is tough and the best, too bad it’s hard for you to swallow. You are a republican blow hard it shouldn’t be hard to swallow. Realty the servers were hacked at the white house and not Hiliary’s server, no harm done. And she didn’t do anything intentionally wrong as Petraeus did. He gets to keep his 4 star general pay.

            Reply
          39. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

            If President Obama is, as you say, a failed President then you should be able to contrast his failures with republican successes.
            It would be interesting to see a list of republican accomplishments in contradistinction with President Obama’s alleged failures..

            Reply
          40. itsfun February 9, 2016

            When the President has the power of the veto, it is impossible for the Republicans to get anything they want, without the help of Democrats. The way things are now in Washington being so divided and no one trusting anyone, the only way to get things done (one way or the other) is for one party to control the House, Senate and Presidency. I blame Obama for the terrible attitude in Washington. He has the my way or the highway attitude and that hurts all attempts at a compromise or agreement. When someone tells you he will go around you by using his pen and phone, it tends to piss you off and makes you even more determined to not agree or get along with you.

            Reply
          41. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

            All the Presidents of the United States have had veto power. This is not something new.
            Your reasoning why republicans can’t get anything they want passed is not a result of President Obama’s veto power.

            http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/comparing-obamas-veto-rate-to-other-recent-presidents/

            Reply
          42. itsfun February 9, 2016

            Of course all Presidents have veto power, never said anything else. Republicans cannot get something passed when the President vetoes a bill. They can’t get the votes needed to override a veto because they can’t get enough Democratic votes to override a veto. So just how can they get laws made without enough votes to override a veto?

            Reply
          43. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

            “So just how can they get laws made without enough votes to override a veto?”
            Considering that President Obama has, to date, only used his veto power four times I would suggest that republicans learn HOW to govern before running for office. That way you might improve on your success rate.

            Reply
          44. itsfun February 9, 2016

            You know how laws get made and passed. Are you saying the Republicans should not attempt to make any new laws or changes because the President may veto them? Why even have a House and Senate then? Bills get passed in the Congress by a majority of votes. Not every Senator or Representative is going to be for every bill. That is why we have checks and balances in our government. Its hard to bet a bill passed in both the House and Senate. A bill has to be introduced, then is sent to committee after committee to decide if the bill is good enough to go before the whole body. Then the bill gets sent to the other branch of Congress for the same process. Changes are made and the whole process goes again until both the House and Senate agree on it. This takes a lot of time and effort. If the President doesn’t like the bill, he can veto it. It then goes back to the Congress to make changes to it or to try to get enough votes to override the veto or just forget about it. Its a hard (and should be) process to get a bill passed into law.

            Reply
          45. TheSkalawag929 February 9, 2016

            ” Are you saying the Republicans should not attempt to make any new laws or changes because the President may veto them?”
            No. That is a silly position only you and your fellow republicans would take up and defend.
            “Not every Senator or Representative is going to be for every bill.”
            True. That’s why the art of compromise is so important to governing. It’s an art that you republicans fail to practice and shun as being a sign of weakness.
            Until you republicans learn and begin practicing compromise you will become less and less relevant.

            Reply
          46. itsfun February 9, 2016

            Again I am not a Republican. When you tell someone in a State of the Union address, that I have a pen and a phone and will get what I want, you are issuing a challenge and pissing people off. You are telling the Republicans that you don’t care what they want or like, its going to happen anyway. It is human nature that when someone goes out of their way to piss you off, you are going to fight back. That right there destroys any hope of compromise or bi-partisan cooperation. If you want to talk about lack of compromise, just take a look at dirty Harry and Nancy when they were in charge of the Congress.

            Reply
          47. TheSkalawag929 February 10, 2016

            The President threatened to use two tools in his legal toolbox to motivate republicans in Congress to get on with the actual business of the people that matters to the people rather than the partisan bickering that accomplishes nothing and you are concerned angering republicans?
            You claim not to be a republican but you take every opportunity to bash this President and democrats. I say questionable behavior for someone who claims not to be a republican.
            YOUR lack of, or limited concern with republicans acting more like spoiled children than adults IS what “destroys any hope of compromise or bi-partisan cooperation. ”
            It is more important to you to appease the whinny kids than require that they act like adults.

            Reply
          48. itsfun February 10, 2016

            The President is the whiny kid here. I feel Obama is the one who destroys any hope of compromise or bi-partisan cooperation. Just because someone doesn’t agree Obama, it doesn’t make them whiny kids. The liberals are ones demanding tolerance, but only are tolerant of their own ideas. Anybody that doesn’t cave in to the liberals or their ideas is called intolerant by the liberals, when in fact they are the intolerant ones.

            Reply
          49. TheSkalawag929 February 10, 2016

            “The President is the whiny kid here.” Nope.
            “I feel Obama is the one …” Your feeling are not evidence that supports your claim. It’s not President Obama threatening to and shutting down the federal government or causing the country’s debt rating down.
            And it’s not Liberals who are intolerant. We aren’t the ones calling for the halt of ALL Muslim immigration into the country and other such nonsense.

            Reply
          50. itsfun February 10, 2016

            You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine.

            Reply
          51. TheSkalawag929 February 10, 2016

            “You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine.” That was never in question.
            “19 trillion national debt …”
            You act as though President Obama is responsible for all of the 19 trillion. He’s not.
            If you want to point fingers for reckless spending then you should look at two of YOUR previous REPUBLICAN presidents, St Ronnie and W.
            You are wanting your personal fears to drive the country’s foreign policy. That ain’t gonna’ happen. Get over it.
            And as far as your view of race relations before President Obama that would depend on your perspective. I know there are a number of minorities that would disagree with your premise.

            Reply
          52. itsfun February 10, 2016

            remember when Obama say he would cut the national debt in half? http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/aug/16/americans-prosperity/obama-national-debt-held-accountable-one-term/. How about 07/03/08 when he said adding 4 trillion to the debt was irresponsible and unpatriotic

            Obama says adding $4 trillion to debt is unpatriotic.On July 3, 2008 — the day before Independence Day — Barack Obama said that adding $4 trillion in debt was irresponsible and “unpatriotic. Obama: The proble…youtube.com 00:39 4 years ago.
            https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=what+did+obama+say+about+the+national+debt+before+he+was+elected
            Maybe a debt of 19 trillion is Obama’s fault.

            Reply
          53. TheSkalawag929 February 11, 2016

            If you had bothered to read the conclusion of the article that YOU cited you would have seen it concluded that the statement you refer to is false.
            As to Obama saying that ” adding $4 trillion to debt is unpatriotic” that was a reference to the way Bush had done it over the eight years prior to his administration, where Bush took out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion to over $9 trillion.
            While you claim not to be a republican you show that you are very adept at using republicans’ tactics of lies, misinformation, taking statements out of context and deceptive video editing.

            Reply
          54. itsfun February 11, 2016

            You made my point. I know how much Bush increased the debt. I have never defended him, nor have I ever said he was a good President. The national debt is now over 19 trillion. If Bush was irresponsible or unpatriotic for allowing the national debt to go to 9 or 10 trillion, what does that make Obama for allowing the national debt to go over 19 million.
            Another point is Obama pledged that he would cut the deficit in half in his first 3 years, or he would be a one term President. What ever happened to that pledge? I don’t have to “claim” to be anything. Show me where I just told you a lie or gave misinformation. I gave you the sites I got the info from and you just pulled the ole liberal response of trying discredit the sources or saying I didn’t give you the info, when I gave you the whole site. You are showing yourself to be like many liberals, only believing what the liberals tell you to believe and calling anyone that doesn’t agree with you to be intolerant and liars.

            Reply
          55. TheSkalawag929 February 12, 2016

            Bush was irresponsible or unpatriotic for allowing the national debt to go to 9 or 10 trillion in the manner which he did it.

            ” …what does that make Obama for allowing the national debt to go over 19 million.”
            It makes President Obama responsible for cleaning up his predecessors mess. A mess far greater than he and his new administration anticipated. Many of you appear to think that recovering from such catastrophes is free. It isn’t.

            “Obama pledged …” “Show me where I just told you a lie or gave misinformation.”

            This cite addresses your points specifically. Note the conclusion it comes to. Also note that it is YOUR very own citation that disproves your claim.
            http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/aug/16/americans-prosperity/obama-national-debt-held-accountable-one-term/

            I repeat,” While you claim not to be a republican you show that you are very adept at using republicans’ tactics of lies, misinformation, taking statements out of context and deceptive video editing.” You may play the “pity me card” if you wish but when you’re wrong you’re just wrong.

            Reply
          56. itsfun February 12, 2016

            Lets see Bush was irresponsible and unpatriotic for allowing the national debt get to around 10 trillion, but Obama is patriotic for allowing the national debt get to 19 trillion. Is that what you are saying? In the whole history of the United States the national got to about 10 trillion before Obama. With just 7 plus years the national debt has gotten to 19 trillion under Obama and you blame George Bush. In over 200 years the national debt was 10 trillion, in just 7 years it is now 19 trillion.
            I repeat I couldn’t care less if you believe or don’t believe I am a registered Independent. I have proven with you, that as I said you have no tolerance for the opinion of others and just prove that liberals just ignore the facts and truth. I posted that site to prove to you I do look at both sides of a issue and you want to hold that against me. You are a real piece of work.

            Reply
          57. TheSkalawag929 February 12, 2016

            First Bush didn’t allow the debt to reach ten trillion dollars. HE CAUSED IT.
            Yes the President is patriotic for doing what was best for the country at the time.
            He not only cleaned up the catastrophe left by his predecessor he put the country back on solid footing and on a path to recovery. And he did it all the while with republicans promising to fight him tooth and nail even before he took office.
            I look at this way. Whatever President Obama had to spend to help the country recover from eight years of incompetence is the tab George W. Bush ran up and walked out on.

            Reply
          58. itsfun February 12, 2016

            Are you saying Obama didn’t cause the debt to go to 19 trillion?

            Reply
          59. TheSkalawag929 February 13, 2016

            No he didn’t. He just happened to be the one in office when Bush’s bill came due.

            Reply
          60. itsfun February 13, 2016

            I think this article shows that neither party or any person has a monopoly on increasing the national debt.

            U.S. National Debt Hits $17 Trillion: How Did We Get Here?

            TOPICS:daily briefing

            Posted By: Jerry Robinson October 18, 2013

            In 1980, America was the largest creditor nation in all of recorded history. Just over three short decades later, America now stands as the greatest debtor nation in all of world history.

            by Jerry Robinson

            The meteoric rise in America’s national debt has been largely due to something economists call deficit spending. Put simply, deficit spending is an economic term for spending more than you earn. A government that relies upon deficit spending to grow its economy is like a man who pays for his groceries and his rent with a credit card. While this “buy now-pay later” attitude may work for a while, eventually the bill comes due. And when it does, it is often painful.

            Search the pages of economic history and you will be hard-pressed to find another government that has relied so heavily upon deficit spending than the United States of America. Similarly, I cannot think of a constituency that has been more supportive of a government’s out-of-control spending in all of history than the American public.

            Because America enjoys a unique and enviable position in the global economy, our nation has been allowed to delay the inevitable day of reckoning. But the torch of economic supremacy can never remain in the hands of one empire forever. For this reason, we can know with all certainty that America’s day of financial reckoning, which has been decades in the making, is nearer than ever before.

            To help understand the magnitude of our current debt crisis, let us examine an abridged version of the story of America’s national debt from 1980 onward.

            In 1980, Ronald Reagan defeated President Jimmy Carter in the race for the White House. Reagan, who famously quipped “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem”, won in a landslide victory. Ironically, from 1980-1986, the national debt did in just six short years under President Ronald Reagan what it had taken nearly 200 years to do: it doubled to $2 trillion.

            When Reagan’s eight years of massive deficit spending were finally over, the national debt had soared a whopping 184%.

            Reagan would later describe the massive debt increase as the “greatest disappointment” of his presidency. But unfortunately for America, the deficit spending under Reagan was just a warm-up for the coming debt marathon that lay ahead. Today, some 30+ years since the beginning of the “Reagan Revolution,”, the U.S. national debt has risen by over 1600%!

            After Reagan came George Bush Sr. Under the stewardship of President Bush, the national debt grew by a whopping 55% in just four short years. By the end of 1992, the national debt had grown to a total of $4 trillion.

            Then, in 1993, America elected President Bill Clinton. One of the more priceless political memories that I have from that enchanting decade of the 1990’s occurred during a presidential radio address on January 27, 1996. As Clinton was delivering one of his scripted commentaries to the nation, he made what had to be one of the most absurd statements ever uttered from the lips of a modern U.S. politician. While pandering to the masses about overhauling the Federal government so that it “serves better and costs less,” the first baby boomer President audaciously declared: “The era of big government is over.”

            While Clinton’s remarks may now provide us with some much needed side-splitting humor, we do well to remember the context in which his ridiculous statement was made. The 1990’s was a decade of political hope and economic enchantment. Much of the hope of this era was rooted in the sweeping changes occurring in the political landscape; namely, the “Republican Revolution.” The GOP rose to power by making promises to massively reduce the size of government through draconian spending cuts. The details of these spending cuts were graphically portrayed and codified in a brilliant document written by Larry Hunter, Newt Gingrich, and several other GOP leaders, entitled the Contract with America. Through this proposed “Contract,” Republicans promised to demonstrate great “fiscal restraint” and to finally bring the era of “big government” to an end.

            In 1994, with massive public support, the GOP gained majority control of the House of Representatives, which had been dominated by Democrats for nearly four straight decades. One year later, Republicans regained control of the Senate. Change was in the air and a growing sense of political optimism filled the country amid GOP promises to confront a bloated federal government that was ripe for the knife.

            Ironically, this Republican-led “revolution” led to an increase, not the promised decrease, in government spending.

            Today, not only is the era of “big government” back, it never went away in the first place.

            While the 1980’s and 1990’s witnessed staggering growth in the government sector, nothing could compare to the skyrocketing spending levels that would occur under President George W. Bush in the beginning of the twenty-first century.

            One month after entering office, Bush confidently stated:

            “Many of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened, and I agree. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now, and I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. That is more debt, repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history.”

            Not surprisingly, in Bush’s first term in office, total government spending grew by 33 percent.

            By 2002, America’s national debt stood at a staggering total of $6 trillion.

            From 2002 to 2004, the debt grew by another $1 trillion for a total of $7 trillion.

            By 2005, the total debt reached $8 trillion.

            In 2007, the debt had risen to $9 trillion.

            And in September 2008, the total national debt crossed the $10 trillion mark amid the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

            During George W. Bush’s combined eight years as President, the total national debt increased by an astounding 86%, growing by an average of $662 billion each year he was in office.

            In the wake of the Bush administration, the American public was growing tired of the economic and political status quo. In 2009, a new promise of “change” was in the air. Barack Obama rode this sweeping public demand for “change” right into the White House. Little did the public realize that regardless of which political party is in the White House, you still get the same results.

            One month after entering office, President Barack Obama repeated the same tired mantra:

            “I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay. And that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”

            While the people clapped and danced and thought they had finally found their political savior, President Obama was openly continuing the same destructive economic policies and disastrous foreign policy measures as his predecessors. During his time in office, America’s national debt has skyrocketed from $10.9 trillion to its current level of $17 trillion.

            And as any casual observer can see, America’s national debt is not shrinking — despite the promises made by either political party to reduce the debt.

            Note: The above article is an excerpt from Jerry Robinson’s best-selling book, Bankruptcy of our Nation. You can purchase the book or download a free sample chapter here.

            Reply
          61. TheSkalawag929 February 14, 2016

            “I think this article shows that neither party or any person has a monopoly on increasing the national debt.”
            It was you that would have us believe otherwise and all you had to do is cut and paste the link to the article not the whole article.
            If you want to cut deficit spending increase the country’s income.

            Reply
          62. itsfun February 14, 2016

            How about cutting freebies to cut deficit spending? Raising taxes is not the answer.
            Lets see you criticize me and say I give misinformation, then when I give you a complete article on both sides, you criticize me more. You even bitch about the way I posted the site. You won’t take yes for a answer will you?

            Reply
          63. TheSkalawag929 February 15, 2016

            What is it that YOU mean by freebies and to whom are these “freebies” going?
            “Raising taxes is not the answer.”
            Giving away income you don’t have has proven not to work even more so.
            I have proven that you disseminate misinformation.
            And I only suggested cutting and pasting links as a means of saving time and space not a criticism. Perhaps if you weren’t so busy playing the victim you would have been able to discern that.

            Reply
          64. itsfun February 15, 2016

            The only thing you have proven is you are doing what you accuse me of. I put the whole article on my post, so you couldn’t make up things about my posts.
            Whats wrong with making healthy adults getting welfare do something to earn the welfare? How about not giving free educations, healthcare and housing to illegal immigrants? How about cutting programs that do things like study the sex lives of worms and bugs?

            Reply
          65. TheSkalawag929 February 15, 2016

            “… you are doing what you accuse me of.”

            Which is what?

            Oh for heaven sake let me applaud you for uselessly posting a whole article when a link would do.

            Undocumented immigrants pay taxes every time they buy gas, clothes or new appliances. They also contribute to property taxes—a main source of school funding—when they buy or rent a house, or rent an apartment.

            “Whats wrong with making healthy adults getting welfare do something to earn the welfare?”

            Nothing. That’s why if you check the rules, regulations and laws you will see that that has been addressed.

            “How about cutting programs that do things like study the sex lives of worms and bugs?”

            Why? Because you don’t see or understand the reason for the study? How about finding out the reason for the research before you criticize it?

            Reply
          66. itsfun February 15, 2016

            Sooo its more important to know about the sex life of a bug, then it is to feed and house our poor and homeless.

            Reply
          67. TheSkalawag929 February 15, 2016

            I see that your intentional stubbornness and determination to not understand is insurmountable. So I take my leave of you.

            You have proven Samuel Clemens right.

            http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/539027-never-argue-with-stupid-people-they-will-drag-you-down

            Reply
          68. itsfun February 11, 2016

            Did Obama or did he not say adding 4 trillion to the national debt is irresponsible? Show me where that is a lie or misinformation.

            Reply
          69. TheSkalawag929 February 12, 2016

            What is wrong with you don’t you read the comment before responding to it?
            I did not deny that President Obama made the statement. I just put it in context highlighting two of the tactics that REPUBLICANS love to use, taking comments out of context and deceptive video editing.
            For me it’s not adding four trillion to the national debt that is irresponsible or unpatriotic. It’s the reason for adding that much to the debt.
            Financing two wars and tax cuts on the country’s credit card IS irresponsible and unpatriotic.
            HAVING to use the same credit card to finance cleaning up the inherited mess is necessary not free.

            “Show me where that is a lie or misinformation.”
            Check out YOUR very own citation above for your proof.

            Reply
          70. itsfun February 12, 2016

            President Bush went before Congress and got their blessing for going into Iran. How many committee meetings and funding options do you think President Roosevelt had before asking for war after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor? Wars are terrible and always will be, but cannot be helped if we want to keep our freedoms. You want to give Obama a free pass for the huge national debt. His idea of fixing the problem was to borrow our way into prosperity. Now he want to tax us into prosperity.

            Reply
          71. TheSkalawag929 February 12, 2016

            “President Bush went before Congress and got their blessing for going into Iran.”
            President Bush LIED us into the IRAQ war.

            You don’t need a bunch of meeting to declare war when a COUNTRY sneak attacks you. Yes wars are and always will be terrible but not ALL wars are inevitable.

            I’m not giving President Obama a “free pass”. I’m just pointing out the difference in the reasons for the spending.

            Reply
          72. itsfun February 11, 2016

            You are making my point. I know Obama was talking about the national debt growing under Bush. He said it was irresponsible and unpatriotic. How would he describe the national debt growing to 19 trillion under his watch. Would he call that being responsible and being patriotic? I have never said Bush was a good President, nor have I ever defend his terrible spending.

            Did or did not Obama say that about the national debt? How is that misinformation or lies? How is repeating what Obama said being misleading or taking statement out of context. Words mean something even though you don’t seem to believe that.

            I can claim to be anything I want to be. I am a independent whether you believe it or like it.
            Like I said before liberals are not tolerant of others and when something is shown to them, they just discredit the source.

            Reply
          73. TheSkalawag929 February 12, 2016

            ” How would he describe the national debt growing to 19 trillion under his watch. ”

            I would say that President Obama as well as a large number of other Americans would say that to do nothing, ignore or otherwise evade the cost for the clean up made by the previous administration would be irresponsible and unpatriotic.

            To my mind it’s not simply spending that should be judged as being responsible or patriotic but the reason for the spending.

            Reply
          74. itsfun February 12, 2016

            How can anyone say that increasing debt is cleaning up debt? How about stopping deficit spending for one thing?

            Reply
          75. TheSkalawag929 February 12, 2016

            “How can anyone say that increasing debt is cleaning up debt?”
            I don’t know where you are hearing that from but I know it’s not me saying it.

            “How about stopping deficit spending for one thing?”
            How about increasing revenue? Just because you cut spending for something it doesn’t mean the need for it somehow magically disappears.

            Reply
          76. itsfun February 12, 2016

            Then what happened to make the debt go to 19 trillion. You have said Obama had to do whatever to clean up the mess. If he didn’t spend the money cleaning up the mess, then what did he spend it on?

            Reply
          77. TheSkalawag929 February 13, 2016

            He did spend the money on cleaning up Bush’s mess.

            Reply
          78. rozyredtoes February 9, 2016

            Why do you reply to this idiot? She is a authentic moron with a degree in stupid. Her stubbed toe is so ugly it scared her camel away and there are no more humps for her. The closest she comes to ecstasy is when she eats a banana.

            Reply
          79. itsfun February 9, 2016

            You are right, I am through responding or even reading any of her posts.

            Reply
          80. David February 10, 2016

            True! Eleanore is an angry, bitter recluse who is holed up somewhere in New Jersey. She hates men and hates anyone who has made a success of their lives.

            Reply
          81. rozyredtoes February 10, 2016

            Her camel ran away and took his toe with him. Now when she needs a hump all she can do is cry.

            Reply
          82. rozyredtoes February 9, 2016

            Hey! sore toe, do you know why Halliburton was hired without bids. I bet you don’t because you really don’t know squat about much of anything. Those two clowns were not successful because they had you on their side. If you had been Clintons intern there would not have been an under the desk vacuum scandal. He would probably have headed for the nearest leather bar.

            Reply
          83. David February 10, 2016

            Eleanore!!!!! The shame is people like you buying into the tax and spend schemes of the Demorats. This country wasn’t built handing out largess to the lazy.

            Reply
        2. Independent1 February 8, 2016

          Wow!! The lies just roll off your tongue!! What a load of garbage: Given all the tax loop holes and the fact that in any given year, 200 of the fortune 500 companies in America PAY ZERO in taxes, you have THE NERVE to say we have the highest corporate taxes in the world???? You are a pathological lying fool!!

          Reply
          1. David February 10, 2016

            Look at the tax rates, Einstein.

            Reply
          2. Independent1 February 10, 2016

            Tax rates mean nothing dummy. Virtually no other major country has all the convoluted tax code of the U.S. with all its deductions, exemptions, credits and other loopholes like carry-forwards and more!! I’ll guarantee you Mitt Romney who earns millions so years where he paid zero or close to zero in taxes.

            Multi-millionaires have a 39.6% Max rate but the average income tax paid in 2014 by multi-millionaires was 20.4% – virtually half the max rate. And for filers earning 50-100,000, the average rate actually paid was 8.7% and for people earning under 50,000 who actually owed taxes, the actual rate paid was 4.7%.

            So the U.S, max rates are totally meaningless in comparing U.S taxes, to other countries. People in the U.S, who are paying anywhere near the max rate, or even 2/3s to 3/4s of it are obviously novices at paying their taxes and should get help in filing from an accountant or other tax professional!!!!!!!

            Reply
          3. David February 11, 2016

            Please provide your source for those numbers.

            Reply
          4. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            My source for those actual tax rates paid by income was the IRS!!!
            And a somewhat interesting fact from the IRS data is that people earning 1-2 million actually paid a higher net rate (24.3%) than those earning more than that because higher earners are earning more that is subject to the capital gains rate of 15% than those earning less.

            Reply
          5. David February 12, 2016

            Where/what IRS publication are you referring to?

            Reply
        3. jmprint February 8, 2016

          Itsfun, if you don’t own a company and never have, how do you know?

          Reply
          1. rozyredtoes February 9, 2016

            How do you know what?

            Reply
        4. jmprint February 8, 2016

          Minimum wage should be at $18.00 an hour plus. Corporation cause the inflation.

          Reply
          1. itsfun February 8, 2016

            Do you really believe a person should be paid 36,000 a year for flipping burgers? With that kind of pay, the minimum wage jobs would all be taken by college grads.

            Reply
          2. ralphkr February 8, 2016

            Hey, itsfun, from personal observation over the decades I have observed a lot of minimum wage jobs held by college grads.

            Reply
          3. itsfun February 8, 2016

            I am sure you are right. I know a fellow that got his marketing degree in only 3 years and he went to work as counter help at a bowling center. He loved and still loves it. Anytime you can say you love your work, that is a huge advantage for one.

            Reply
          4. rozyredtoes February 9, 2016

            To get a job in marketing you need something to market and if the average working person has little money they are not able to buy the stuff that is being marketed. So no job for Mr marketing person. Why is it so hard for these idiots to understand it takes money to make money . We have a country full of people with educations that have no dollar value. Well let me digress, student loans made the education industry a fortune. Everybody wants to carry a briefcase but nobody wants to drive a nail. They can take their briefcases and live in a tent if they can find someone who will make them a tent.

            Reply
          5. itsfun February 11, 2016

            Companies have marketing divisions, this guy just choose to stay in the bowling center, because he loves that kind of work. At age 66 he is still working there.

            Reply
          6. hicusdicus February 11, 2016

            The only thing most college degrees are good for is a huge student loan. Life is short., if one finds something they love they should do it

            Reply
          7. itsfun February 11, 2016

            I couldn’t agree more.

            Reply
          8. rozyredtoes February 9, 2016

            Government printing printing presses cause inflation. Corporations create millions of jobs. What is wrong with you? You could not possibly that ignorant.

            Reply
          9. David February 10, 2016

            Yes, he can!

            Reply
        5. David February 10, 2016

          C’mon itsfun….don’t you know it is Bush’s fault that the national debt is now over 19 billion?

          Reply
          1. itsfun February 10, 2016

            yep and he called ISIS the JV and he drew a red line.

            Reply
          2. David February 10, 2016

            Yeah…and it is also Trump who is helping ISIS recruit…

            Reply
    6. Robert Eckert February 8, 2016

      Iran has, actually, stopped creating an atom bomb. They have shut down most of their centrifuges, poured concrete into the plant to disable it, and sent most of the enriched fuel they had already made out of the country. I know it pains you to admit it when things go well, but the world is not actually heading for disaster.

      Reply
      1. itsfun February 8, 2016

        Iran financed North Korea in its latest rocket. Now Iran has the capability to hit our east coast with a bomb and North Korea has the capability to hit our west coast. They proved that yesterday when they flew that satellite over the stadium the Super Bowl was held in one hour after the game was over.

        Reply
        1. Robert Eckert February 8, 2016

          “Iran financed North Korea in its latest rocket.” Says who?

          Reply
          1. itsfun February 8, 2016

            Saw it on 2 different news shows this morning.

            Reply
          2. Robert Eckert February 8, 2016

            Which?

            Reply
          3. Independent1 February 9, 2016

            Most likely a made up news item by Faux News!!

            Reply
      2. David February 10, 2016

        Where did you hear that garbage? Apparently you aren’t aware that Iran is now experimenting with long range ICBMs. Must be the religion of peace again.

        Reply
        1. Robert Eckert February 10, 2016

          From the international inspectors. Missile tests unfortunately were not part of the bargain, which is why the US still has some sanctions against Iran pending a deal on that. On the nuclear deal, however, Iran has complied.

          Reply
          1. David February 12, 2016

            The cite for that about the “international inspectors”?

            Reply
          2. Robert Eckert February 12, 2016

            It made the papers and everything. It was in fact a Big Fucking Deal, as Joe Biden would put it. Do you pay absolutely zero attention to the news, and yet troll news sites? https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=iran+nuclear+deal+compliance

            Reply
  8. I of John February 8, 2016

    As far as domestic poltitics is concerened, Obama has been the sharpest tactician that has held office in many decades. Bill Clinton has nothing on this man. He has always been many steps ahead of everyone including those in his own party. Everytime people start discounting him, I look for his end game and I am rarely disappointed.

    Reply
  9. charleo1 February 8, 2016

    The legacy of President Barack Obama is secure. From the beginning, says David Remneck, reporting on Obama for the New Yorker magazine: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/01/27/going-the-distance-david-remnick Obama was determined to not be just another picture on the wall. A Millard Fillmore.
    And just as great challenges may create great Presidents, if they are able to rise to the occasion. It’s clear the failures of his immediate predecessor were transformed into the kind of watershed moments, opportunities, if you will, that have given us such Presidents as Lincoln, FDR, and now, Barack Obama. To paraphrase, there are no small problems that reach the Oval Office, only small Presidents.

    For all his impressive accomplishments, and there are a lot more than we remember. They become even more impressive, when considering the unprecedented backroom meeting on the eve of his inauguration, and the traitorous vows by the losing Party to obstruct his every initiative. The fact Obama was able to accomplish anything as President, is a testament to the will, and fortitude of this charismatic, and inspirational public servant. The, “No Drama, Obama.” History will confirm, thru economic crisis, war, threat of terror, revolutions, and extremist elements within the domestic body politic. President Obama has presented a face of calm reassurance, and rational common sense. HIs message throughout, “Yes we can!”

    And yet, the Obama Presidency will not end without it’s bittersweetness. The nagging sense of what might have been. What progress may have been made. That problems remain that cry out for solutions, and resolving that might have been addressed, but for the disastrous 2010 mid term elections. In which he lost his House Majority, his Speaker, and perhaps who knows what dreams he might have once dared hope for, for his remaining time as President. Always a case of so much to do, so little time in which to do it. And now what? Lesser Presidents, hotter blooded men, myself among them I’m sure, might have allowed themselves bitterness, anger, even despair. And why not? All of those emotions would have been absolutely justified. Barack Obama is not one of those men, or Presidents.

    “I just keep plugging along.” He once relayed in one of his interviews. Indeed, his Presidency in retrospect may be remembered for the disasters he has been able to avert as President, as much as those his policies were able to unravel. Averting a war with Iran would count heavily in this category. As well as by executive order, lifting the fear of imminent deportation for thousands of Dreamers. Children many of them, who had been living the unjust fear of just never knowing from one day to the next, when they might be taken up and expelled from the only home they’ve ever known. He took the heat, but this is powerful stuff these kids, and many generations to come will never forget. That this United States President cared deeply about them, and all people. And if we think about it, when all is summed, and tallied, said and written, what better legacy can a President leave?

    Reply
    1. 11thStPopulist February 8, 2016

      Obama’s favorability is at 50% despite widespread ugly politics and bigotry. The obstructionist congress, by contrast, is at 9%.

      Reply
      1. MVH1 February 9, 2016

        And those numbers haven’t slowed Congress down one bit. Cretins.

        Reply
      2. Independent1 February 9, 2016

        And about 37% of that 50% are the 37% of Americans who are Republicans and hate him. So only about 13% of the 63% of nonRepublican Americans don’t think he’s doing a good job.

        Reply
    2. Independent1 February 8, 2016

      Great post!! Thanks for posting it!! I’m very confident that there are millions of Americans who would willingly say “Thank you president Obama for all you’ve tried so hard to do for us!! And for the many better things you have brought into our lives!!

      Reply
    3. jam February 8, 2016

      Wonderful post…..you, Elinor and irish granny are on a ROLL!
      I love it.

      Reply
  10. FF February 8, 2016

    Charleo 1

    One of the most eloquent posts I’ve read in a long time. Well done.

    Reply
  11. Eleanore Whitaker February 8, 2016

    It should have surprised no one that from humble beginnings come great men and great things. The idea that privilege is the precourser of genius or prestige falls flat when the simplest of men can run rings around the privileged snobs with noses so high in the air a good rain storm would meaning drowning.

    President Obama is an achiever because it is his nature to enjoy reaching goals. He is a master strategist because he is sensitive to those with preconceived notions of his capabilities.

    He achieves where the privileged fail because he keeps his eye on the goal. Not on the money.

    Reply
    1. 11thStPopulist February 8, 2016

      You are right about Pres. Obama. He is humble so we need to tout his accomplishments. He is a big contrast from the narcissism of Donald Trump. However, Marco Rubio (mini-Trump) also comes from humble circumstances and is devoid of either accomplishments or ideas.

      Reply
      1. Eleanore Whitaker February 8, 2016

        Ironically, his bi-racial status taught him something so few of us could ever learn: That some men in this world are just hateful human beings to their core. All he had to do to prove that was the disgusting names he was called by men who purport to be educated.

        Reply
        1. jam February 8, 2016

          You are one smart, informed lady! Thank you for your continuing great posts.

          Reply
          1. Eleanore Whitaker February 8, 2016

            Awww…thank you. I try to post from the most reliable and unbiased resources..often, the proverbial “horse’s mouth” when possible.

            Reply
          2. rozyredtoes February 10, 2016

            You are talking about the wrong end of the horse. I know its your favorite end but it is still the wrong end.

            Reply
        2. rozyredtoes February 10, 2016

          Were these the men that taught you how to reply? They taught you well and now you are upstaging them.

          Reply
      2. MVH1 February 9, 2016

        Or integrity or honor or smarts or decency and not all that bright either, Poor Little Robot Man.

        Reply
    2. Irishgrammy February 8, 2016

      A terrific comment Eleanore! I can only think of two men who came from privileged upbringings that considered as their first concern the vast middle class, the poor and the least served in this country and that was FDR and JFK. Have always believed poverty and adversity will make you or break you, it can go either way…….I fear with a man like Rubio, there are already indications he will go down the dark path with money issues he has had, an arrogance of feeling he need not do the “hard” work of taking his job seriously and simply showing up

      Reply
    3. Dominick Vila February 9, 2016

      Great post! Needless to say, it is precisely because of his achievements, determination, and vision, that his detractors continue to deny his accomplishments and what he has done to save our economy, keep U.S. military casualties down to a minimum, and elevate our moral and leadership standings in the world.

      Reply
  12. Eleanore Whitaker February 8, 2016

    There are some men and women in this country who fed at the federal trough in the Republican states for so long, having to pay for what they want is now a nightmare.

    They lie and say “Bad Obama” while forgetting the infamous words of Mutton Chops McConnell in March 2009, plastered all over the media, “We will GET RID of Obama.” He didn’t did he? Anymore than the ole Mutton Chops KY Bourbon boy was ever going to stop the ACA from passing. As for Tan Man…he is as gone as Eric Cantor..the Koch boy suck up.

    Reply
  13. Karen Christie February 19, 2016

    Republicans would call #5 a HUGE fail! Females are NOT being punished for having sex!

    Reply
  14. cortney artman October 16, 2016

    My business partners needed to fill out WI SBD-5204-E a few days ago and were informed about a great service that has an online forms library . If you require WI SBD-5204-E too , here’s https://goo.gl/btMfKO

    Reply
  15. COURTNEY KLEE November 10, 2016

    Good article, Thanks!

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.