More Obamacare fuckups

[Warriorbird]

Well stated. I was under the impression that Bush bailed out Detroit near the end of his Presidency. No?

You might be right. Either way, either side, I'm sure it would've been done.

[cwolff]

You might be right. Either way, either side, I'm sure it would've been done.

Well stated. I was under the impression that Bush bailed out Detroit near the end of his Presidency. No?

They both did but Bush initiated the bailout in 12/08 on his way out the door and Obama continued it, even loaned more money.

The Romney campaign ran against Obama by blaming him for the bailout and Obama's campaign gave him credit for it but neither side was actually correct.

[Thondalar]

Since I never said that I can only assume that you are asking why I think he governs like a republican.

1) Oil and Natural Gas production
2) Lowers deficit
3) Smaller government
4) Killed OBL and is still going after terrorists as we saw just recently
5) Aggressive monitoring ala patriot act
6) Gave states control of welfare spending

1) According to the EIA (Energy Information Administration[a thing]) US production of oil has fallen by about a billion barrels a year since 1981.
2) Although the deficit is lower today than it was three years ago, it's much higher than it was five years ago. This is typical liberal math, though. Triple the deficit quickly, then reduce it by a little and say "look! We're slashing the deficit!"
3) Hahahahahahahahahaha. 112 new agencies have been created since his first inauguration, more than any other president ever, by a wide margin.
4) Yeah, i'll give him props for this one.
5) I'll also grant that he does this, but...this is a terrible thing.
6) This is either disingenuous or ignorant. The term "welfare" covers about 80 federal programs...and under Obama, federal spending on "welfare" has risen 32%, according to the Congressional Research Service(a thing), to over $740 billion...surpassing Social Security and basic defense spending as the largest single chunk of federal spending.

I know that I'm not a Republican, but...I can pretty safely say that most of this would not a Republican make.

[Jarvan]

Since I never said that I can only assume that you are asking why I think he governs like a republican.

1) Oil and Natural Gas production
2) Lowers deficit
3) Smaller government
4) Killed OBL and is still going after terrorists as we saw just recently
5) Aggressive monitoring ala patriot act
6) Gave states control of welfare spending

1) - Has nothing to do with him. All the increased production is on private land, not public. He couldn't stop it.
2) - Raised taxes, big difference. (He didn't lower the spending, he raised spending, then taxed more.)
3) - Yeah, because ACA makes the government SMALLER. - Moron.
4) - Apparently killing terrorists is a republican thing. Maybe just killing is. Hmm.. we should look back at the wars started, and see who did most of them, huh.
5) - You fucking idiot. Aggressive monitoring of the people would be a big brother type thing, which is most definitely Democratic more then republican. Also, you can't really have 5 and 3 in the same group.
6) - And then he told them to SPEND MORE.

[Warriorbird]

1) - Has nothing to do with him. All the increased production is on private land, not public. He couldn't stop it.
2) - Raised taxes, big difference. (He didn't lower the spending, he raised spending, then taxed more.)
3) - Yeah, because ACA makes the government SMALLER. - Moron.
4) - Apparently killing terrorists is a republican thing. Maybe just killing is. Hmm.. we should look back at the wars started, and see who did most of them, huh.
5) - You fucking idiot. Aggressive monitoring of the people would be a big brother type thing, which is most definitely Democratic more then republican. Also, you can't really have 5 and 3 in the same group.
6) - And then he told them to SPEND MORE.

Aggressive monitoring of the people is an Authoritarian thing. You have the Authoritarian/Libertarian division in both parties.

The person who brought it into modern times (It started with Washington, historically) was Hoover and while a Republican appointee he served under Democrats and Republicans alike.

[cwolff]

Aggressive monitoring of the people is an Authoritarian thing. You have the Authoritarian/Libertarian division in both parties.

The person who brought it into modern times (It started with Washington, historically) was Hoover and while a Republican appointee he served under Democrats and Republicans alike.

Neither one of them is reading for comprehension or responding that way. They're just pushing their personal bias into the conversation we all had earlier.

[Thondalar]

Neither one of them is reading for comprehension or responding that way. They're just pushing their personal bias into the conversation we all had earlier.

No...personal bias is saying Obama is a moderate Republican.

Facts stating the opposite are...facts.

[crb]

It is hard to label some areas, especially in national security, as traits of the left or the right. I've seen people on the left call Obama the most secretive president since Nixon (this is the man who says he he transparent, which makes the hypocrisy so much greater). You could very easily say he has followed a Neocon foreign policy, but of course LBJ and JFK had Neocon foreign policy before the word existed. He has maintained or expanded pretty much all Bush era aspects of the Patriot Act/Surveillance state. Hypocrites all around. I never tire of directing my ire at people who blasted Bush for doing the exact same things (or less) than Obama whilst giving Obama a free pass. The media should largely be ashamed.

Someone traditionally thought of as far left, Dennis Kucinich, and someone traditionally thought of as far right, Ron Paul, are actually pretty close together on a lot of foreign policy or anti terrorism issues. Meanwhile Obama/Bush/Cheney also seem like peas in a pod.

But then if you flip the script and look at other issues, Obama started somewhere between Cheney and Santorum on gay marriage, and is now back on the left on the issue. Economically he is obviously a creature of the left, energy policy puts him squarely on the left.

You'll find most politicians are a mixed bag like that because most politicians are beholden to a variety of special interests that aren't necessarily congruent interests. Rarely do you find a politician that is purely idealistic and who sticks to those ideals.

This is all muddled by the fact that the parties are always changing. Republicans are starting to remember what they used to stand for (freedom, nonintervention, small government, states rights) rather than what they thought they stood for (God, Guns, GI Joe). Democrats as always are open to the highest bidding special interest. Though I do wonder if Obama's foreign policy is changing the Democratic party. Will tolerance of Obama result in acceptance of those types of policies?

[Buckwheet]

So only Dems are open to money from special interests? Riiiiiiight.

[Warriorbird]

So only Dems are open to money from special interests? Riiiiiiight.

I'm going to take a line from free market advocates and suggest that just about everyone responds to money.