Thread: Woman tells Obama she's exhausted

his smirk was a little out of line IMHO

Originally Posted by lnvanry

his smirk was a little out of line IMHO

I think he was just smiling at her statement of "defending him" I don't think he was being arrogant. Would be nice if his answer wasn't chopped off.

How many vacations has Obama taken now anyway? He's worthless in my opinion. I agree with this lady.

Originally Posted by lnvanry

his smirk was a little out of line IMHO

many people had very unrealistic expectations of what he would accomplish in terms of economic recovery. you would think for a CEO she would have a better grasp of economics. people don't realize how close we are to a depression at least for the bottom 50% of wage earners with families.

Originally Posted by The Situation

Originally Posted by LAM

many people had very unrealistic expectations of what he would accomplish in terms of economic recovery. you would think for a CEO she would have a better grasp of economics. people don't realize how close we are to a depression at least for the bottom 50% of wage earners with families.

couldn't agree more

Originally Posted by vortrit

How many vacations has Obama taken now anyway? He's worthless in my opinion. I agree with this lady.

They all take a lot of vacations. Nothing new here.

Originally Posted by LAM

people don't realize how close we are to a depression at least for the bottom 50% of wage earners with families.

Agree

Originally Posted by LAM

many people had very unrealistic expectations of what he would accomplish in terms of economic recovery. you would think for a CEO she would have a better grasp of economics. people don't realize how close we are to a depression at least for the bottom 50% of wage earners with families.

Sorry.. but if people have unrealistic expectations, then that's Obama's fault. He campaigned on fixing the economy.. he campaigned on changing Washington, he campaigned on ending the stalemate between the parties, he campaigned on working with the other side. All failures.

His stimulus/slush fund/union-payback was promised to keep unemployment under 8%. Fail.

His healthcare overhaul was "paid for" and will save us money... Fail... and 61% in the US want it repealed.

His policies have been immense failures, which is further shown by the announcement this week of the third (out of four) economic team member's resignation & the dramatic losses the Democrats will likely take in the November elections.

Sugar coat it if you want, claim "he needs more time"... but that's not why he won election. Obama failed to deliver on his promises, simple as that.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

Sorry.. but if people have unrealistic expectations, then that's Obama's fault. He campaigned on fixing the economy.. he campaigned on changing Washington, he campaigned on ending the stalemate between the parties, he campaigned on working with the other side. All failures.

His stimulus/slush fund/union-payback was promised to keep unemployment under 8%. Fail.

His healthcare overhaul was "paid for" and will save us money... Fail... and 61% in the US want it repealed.

His policies have been immense failures, which is further shown by the announcement this week of the third (out of four) economic team member's resignation & the dramatic losses the Democrats will likely take in the November elections.

Sugar coat it if you want, claim "he needs more time"... but that's not why he won election. Obama failed to deliver on his promises, simple as that.

you may want to get your "info" from other sources besides Faux News. it sounds like you have paraphrased O'Reily's talking points...

Originally Posted by LAM

you may want to get your "info" from other sources besides Faux News. it sounds like you have paraphrased O'Reily's talking points...

I watch Fox News daily, but rarely O'Reilly.

Whether I did or not though, I don't see how pointing out where I may have gotten my information has any bearing on the points I mentioned. But I get it... you're trying to make Fox News the issue instead of refuting the "info".

Originally Posted by busyLivin

I watch Fox News daily, but rarely O'Reilly.

Whether I did or not though, I don't see how pointing out where I may have gotten my information has any bearing on the points I mentioned. But I get it... you're trying to make Fox News the issue instead of refuting the "info".

Do you have outside sources that corroborate those facts? Forgive me if I don't believe anything that comes out of Fox.

Originally Posted by danzik17

Do you have outside sources that corroborate those facts? Forgive me if I don't believe anything that comes out of Fox.

If you want to challenge his statements then the onus is on you to come up with other numbers refuting that. His posts have been spot on in this thread. the lady was a CFO working her ass off and doesn't feel like she got her votes worth when she wanted "change"

Originally Posted by LAM

you may want to get your "info" from other sources besides Faux News. it sounds like you have paraphrased O'Reily's talking points...

care to counter his talking points or just want to throw up a smoke screen defense?

Originally Posted by bio-chem

If you want to challenge his statements then the onus is on you to come up with other numbers refuting that. His posts have been spot on in this thread. the lady was a CFO working her ass off and doesn't feel like she got her votes worth when she wanted "change"

I'm not disputing the video, I'm disputing his facts sourced from Fox news.

If I quote my facts from theonion.com or Dr. Seuss' "Green Eggs and Ham", is it my responsibility to prove that my sources aren't bullshit or is it yours?

Considering Fox's credibility, those two sources I named might actually provide better information.

Originally Posted by danzik17

Do you have outside sources that corroborate those facts? Forgive me if I don't believe anything that comes out of Fox.

You're just glomming onto the anti-Fox News sentiment. While I accept & understand your distrust in Fox, the points I brought up are well known.

The unemployment rate is 9.6.

61% favoring health care repeal, which is from Rasmussen:

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports™

And do a search for "healthcare premiums going up"

Obama Loses U.S. Investor in Global Poll With Approval Abroad - Bloomberg

More than three-quarters of U.S. investors view Obama as anti-business and are pessimistic about his policies, while a majority outside the U.S. holds a more favorable view, a Bloomberg survey shows.

Originally Posted by LAM

many people had very unrealistic expectations of what he would accomplish in terms of economic recovery. you would think for a CEO she would have a better grasp of economics. people don't realize how close we are to a depression at least for the bottom 50% of wage earners with families.

What could she possibly be CEO of and still be a member of the middle class?

mid term elections in november hopeing obama falls on his nappy face

Both candidates campaigned on fixing the economy and we would be no further along if McCain won. We are looking at no less than a decade to fix this and, unfortunately, unless there is a complete change in how we do business, double it. We are trained to accumulate debt and buy things we can't afford, that is the American Dream. Why are we surprised a system like this went tits up?

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Both candidates campaigned on fixing the economy and we would be no further along if McCain won.

It really doesn't matter. I won't get into the semantics of who would have done what differently, but the point here is that Obama's the President & people elected him to do the job. He didn't.

He dug his own grave. He was vaulted to power out of obscurity on an impossible feat of meeting expectations that were ridiculous to begin with. He voluntarily rode that wave with his "Hope" message & silly rainbow logo & was grossly arrogant in the process. He set the standard of the "stimulus" that failed. He set the standard of change in Washington & ending it's gridlock that was never realized. From the start he never reached across the aisle.. responding to republican objections with "We won".

Republicans are being branded as the "party of no", but it's bullshit.. the two sides have drastically different viewpoints on how to deal with the recession, and the Democrats with their majorities weren't compelled to work together, blocking them out of talks behind the closed doors Obama swore would end that involved paying off states & unions.

I know both sides play this power game, but it doesn't matter: The democrats are in control & when things go bad the party in control suffers.

George Bush SR's "READ MY LIPS" bit him in the ass. Same thing's happening now to Obama. He didn't deliver on campaign promises.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

What could she possibly be CEO of and still be a member of the middle class?

CFO, and there are plenty of mid-size companies that would pay their CFO's middle income status

Originally Posted by busyLivin

The democrats are in control & when things go bad the party in control suffers.

And they've been in charge long before Obama, they were just waiting on pins and needles for him to sign all their ridiculous ideas into law. It was so easy to blame Bush when he was only 1/3 of the gov't

you could atleast post his reply

Originally Posted by busyLivin

It really doesn't matter. I won't get into the semantics of who would have done what differently, but the point here is that Obama's the President & people elected him to do the job. He didn't.

He dug his own grave. He was vaulted to power out of obscurity on an impossible feat of meeting expectations that were ridiculous to begin with. He voluntarily rode that wave with his "Hope" message & silly rainbow logo & was grossly arrogant in the process. He set the standard of the "stimulus" that failed. He set the standard of change in Washington & ending it's gridlock that was never realized. From the start he never reached across the aisle.. responding to republican objections with "We won".

Republicans are being branded as the "party of no", but it's bullshit.. the two sides have drastically different viewpoints on how to deal with the recession, and the Democrats with their majorities weren't compelled to work together, blocking them out of talks behind the closed doors Obama swore would end that involved paying off states & unions.

I know both sides play this power game, but it doesn't matter: The democrats are in control & when things go bad the party in control suffers.

George Bush SR's "READ MY LIPS" bit him in the ass. Same thing's happening now to Obama. He didn't deliver on campaign promises.

Oh, I 100% agree, i wasn't directing that at you or stating it politically. I just think people in general are completely out of touch with reality. At the end of the day, Clinton, Bush, and Obama are not at fault, we all are.

I like to think that I am a financial conservative/social liberal, but I am beginning to lean away from the GOP in the financial system despite believing the bullshit for years. This economy is built on middle class spending. The exuberantly rich are actually a drag on our economy for the simple fact that they use a large portion of their money to make more money. This does nothing for our economy, the people making $50,000 a year who spend $45,000 of it are more of a benefit to our economy than the people who make $250,000 that spends $90,000 because that $250k person is going to eventually take more out of the pot by investing and making more of the total money. This allows companies to do more, but eventually the system fails because about 98x more people are spending $45k a year than those spending $90k and when those people who spend their money lose their job the economy tanks. I've said it before, are you going to sell more Ipods to 99% of the population or 1%? Keep in mind that the top 1% have 42.7% of the wealth. What do you think is going to happen when 10% of the people in the bottom 99% have no job? Do you really think that is a formula for growth of a financial system? If the people who benefited most from the Bush tax cuts were actually spending that tax savings on products and services at a similar rate as the 99% would we be in this mess? If they were, based on trickle-down theory, small businesses wouldn't be laying people off left and right right now. Based on trickle-down theory we should be in a boom right now. Sure, the housing bubble was a major problem, but this was happening whether we liked it or not, the housing bubble just made it happen sooner by forcing a large chunk of financially irresponsible people in to bankruptcy and, therefore, lowering their spending on shit they don't need. Does anyone know what would happen to our economy if that 99% spent money on only what they needed for 6 months? It would be fiscal armageddon.

Originally Posted by MyK 3.0

you could atleast post his reply

Just more side-step babble

I'm just remembering Lisa Lampanelli's HBO special when she was talking about Obama...

"That's all we need is another black man asking us for change..."