I hope Obama watched the 60 Minutes episode tonight on homeless and hungry children

[Cali_Democrat]

America is circling down the drain and it seems as if there's no urgency to do anything about it! A record number of children are descending into poverty and the poverty rate for kids will soon hit 25%.

This is MUST WATCH video, it will absolutely break your heart....

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7371392n&tag=contentMain

Where are the new jobs programs where we spend hundreds of billions of dollars for new public works projects? Where is the additional assistance to the poor and homeless? We also need hundreds of billions of dollars for job training. The last thing we need are cuts to middle class programs. The extension of the Bush tax cuts was such a huge blunder. We needed that money and now it's going to people who are going to use it to spruce-up their yachts!

This problem is so serious that we should consider completely gutting the military and consider diverting all those funds from war spending to public works projects and assistance to the homeless.

Obama should be spending hours upon hours a day discussing these problems and how to solve them. He needs to lay out a plan, point-by-point every day for hours and talk about Republican obstruction. We should see his face on prime time TV several times a week because this is so serious right now.

America is dying and Obama just seems too passive IMO.

[DJ13]

1. This was neg recc'ed?!

What has become of this party?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigwillq]

20. Seriously

It's not that big of a deal if a thread on a message board gets un'recd. Plus you were the first reply to it. A little patience might go a long way before making a comment like yours. Give it time to be seen by more folks. I think it's up to 10 recs or so now. Not bad.

[awoke_in_2003]

73. yes, it happens...

quit bitching about it- good posts will hold their own.

[FirstLight]

3. +100

I agree...if there was EVER a way to ensure re-election (since that seems to be all any politician cares about) it would be doing excatly what you say...
the DOD is the one who needs to make the 'sacrifices' financially
stop wasting money and lives trying to police the planet
especially when our own backyard is lying in ruin and our people on the verge of destitution

why this simple equation escapes him is beyond me
yes we can, hard words to believe now

[ClayZ]

4. K and R

[FirstLight]

5. and another kick

;)

[defendandprotect]

6. When was last time Obama even mentioned the homeless?

[larwdem]

10. NEVER

HE NEVER MENTIONED THE HOMELESS, OR THE POOR!
BUT I CAMPAIONED FOR HIM ANY WAY. I WAS WRONG.

[boppers]

22. Wrong.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/22/96322/obama-administration-vows-to-end.html

[Nedsdag]

44. Whatever!

Next!

[roguevalley]

39. in his grand compromises/quizling moments with the pugs, he

cut WIC funding for food for PREMATURE BABIES to keep fucking tax breaks for bastards. Babies will suffer and die because of this. why should he watch 60 minutes? just reflect and shit, america. don't look over there. yes you can

[midnight]

7. K&R

[PoliticAverse]

8. Very sad. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Unfortunately, he was too busy doing The People's work

Discussing cuts to food stamps with Boehner. Nibbling on damned fine canapes, mmm.

[CakeGrrl]

19. Link, please!

[girl gone mad]

70. I got your link right here.

Obama plays golf with the Wall Street criminals he so admires while this country suffers the effects of his shitty economic and foreign policies. He doesn't deserve a second term. This country needs much better leadership.

[Ignis]

86. Well played.

But it will never be enough to satisfy, of course.

Next you'll be asked to "Prove it!" that the Prez and the Big Boner even spoke to each other during the course of the golf game. Or to prove that the way they ate canapes could be objectively qualified as "nibbling." :eyes:

Meanwhile, some of us have noticed that Rome appears to be on fire. Trivial concerns, surely! Now watch this drive.

[CoffeeCat]

81. Holy crap...

Google.com

Loads and loads of links there.

The Obama Administration has been a disaster for us and a boon for the corporations.

It's an everyday occurrence. And you want links?

[ClarkUSA]

100. That's complete bullshit. FACT: "Obama’s 2011 Budget Increases Welfare Spending to Historic Levels"

It's easy to find facts about President Obama to debunk all the false rhetoric:

Obama’s 2011 Budget Increases Welfare Spending to Historic Levels

It is clear that President Obama is intent on not only continuing the failed war on poverty but expanding and growing the size of the welfare state. President Obama’s 2011 budget will increase spending on welfare programs by 42 percent over President Bush’s last year in office. Total spending on the welfare state (including state spending) will rise to $953 billion in 2011.

Further, the Obama Administration is pursuing a change in the official “poverty measure” that will increase the number of people considered poor in America. If future program eligibility is tied to this measure, the amount of federal tax dollars flowing to programs aimed at helping the poor would dramatically increase.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/03/expanding-the-failed-war-on-poverty-obamas-2011-budget-increases-welfare-spending-to-historic-levels

Learn the facts.

[coalition_unwilling]

126. Just out of curiosity, you're sourcing a report from The Heritage Foundation? Even

were Obama dismantling social programs en masse, the Heritage Foundation would have a self-interest in saying falsely that Obama was increasing spending on social programs.

Now, I have to admit I have not read this report yet and am not sure I should spend any time on it. I'm curious about that $953 billion figure referenced in the first paragraph and what it's based on.

What I do know is that 44 million Americans are currently receiving food stamps and that the national poverty rate has increased dramatically, no matter what has happened to welfare spending. No child in this country should be going to bed hungry. Period, no exceptions. The rich should be taxed at a 90% marginal tax rate until no child goes to bed hungry.

[Beacool]

11. It was hard to watch, I couldn't stop sobbing.

For the love of God, what has this country become????????

How can so many children go to bed hungry in such a wealthy nation? What is happening, not just in Seminole County, but all over the country is beyond heartbreaking and infuriating.

Why is the US so passive? I have lived in other countries and travel a lot. I have seen protests and national strikes in many countries. I just came back from Europe and in Spain there were sit-ins in every major park to protest the lack of jobs (unemployment there is over 20%).

What will it take for the people to take to the streets and demand that our leaders do something to remedy the economy? The only time they come around is when they're up for reelection. How many times has Obama come to NY trolling for money? He was just here a few days ago to sort of support the gay cause and raise money. The Democrats plan to raise a billion dollars to get Obama reelected. Imagine how many children could be fed with that money? Ditto for the equally obscene amount that the Republicans plan to raise.

Both parties suck, one party may suck a little less than the other, but it's only a question of semantics.

x(

[Scottybeamer70]

12. If he cared as much about hungry children.......

as he does for the bankers and wall street, we wouldn't have a problem
The problem is, he doesn't. He knows his children will never go hungry, so why bother.

[defendandprotect]

13. +1000% ....

we need a humanist in the White House --

We need Sen. Bernie Sanders in the White House --

and two anti-war candidates -- how about Tom Hayden for VP?


Bernie could run on a Dem ticket --

[CakeGrrl]

26. So why isn't Sanders running?

Wouldn't a "true" Progressive be morally bound to right the wrongs of this President's so-called inaction/apathy?

[defendandprotect]

48. Good question ... though he seems to be doing all he can to fight corruption --

and don't see many Democrats joining in --

We have had liberals stand up to fight wrongs and the response has been more

rightwing violence -- something we've done nothing about over 50 years now.

And we continue to allow corporations to enrich themselves at the expense of

the poor and middle class -- and corrupt government.

[tweeternik]

59. Because he'd NEVER win! n/t

[CakeGrrl]

18. If that were the case, why put up with so much hostility from all sides?

Your reasoning makes no sense.

If all he cared about was "I got mine", then he wouldn't bother with the presidency. He could walk away after his first term. Why put up with a hostile press, ingrates, haters and death threats when he could simply live in comfort with his family?

I doubt he's got kickback-type connections or the RW-friendly MSM would be all over that like white on rice.

Yeah, it must be way more fun to listen to people constantly bitch, moan, speculate, second-guess and fabricate instead of hanging it up and living it up.

:eyes:

[Beacool]

24. Oh yeah, poor man.

He sacrificed himself for our sakes.

Please, give it a rest.

:eyes:

[CakeGrrl]

25. Nah, I think I'll continue!

Sorry if it galls you, but that's the reality.

And I'm sure he's not looking for pity. He has a stronger character than that.

He didn't have to run; he and Michelle could've been middle-upper-income wage earners just making theirs.

So setting aside your comment, the point is that if he didn't give a damn about poverty, he could have used his education and skill set to land a private prestige job rather than live under the microscope of the presidency - not to mention the fact that his wife left her own successful corporate role. Seems pretty obvious to me.

[Beacool]

27. No, he didn't have to run.

On that we can agree.

Do you think that he really cares about poverty and the plight of the needy???? I think that Obama cares about Obama. Why else run when he was barely through less than half his first term as senator? He was the least experienced candidate to run for president in 99 years. Besides, he was already doing pretty well financially. The Obamas were worth millions before they even got to the WH thanks to his books. Nothing beats the power trip of being president and the accompanying perks. He'll make even more money when he leaves office.

[CakeGrrl]

29. Yeah, right...

But of course Hillary only had the BEST intentions when she ran, right? And that bad power-tripper Obama had to go and steal it.

As always, we're back to the nitty-gritty.

;-)

[Wait Wut]

58. Heh...

+1 to all of your comments above. Especially, "Nah, I think I'll continue!"

:yourock:

[PragmaticLiberal]

37. I can understand you disagreeing

with a particular policy of President Obama but I don't know why you assume that he only cares about himself.


Also, I'm curious as to how his experience (or lack thereof)factors into anything.

[Beacool]

54. Experience factors into any job one has to accomplish.

If you need surgery, would you go to the medical student or the practiced surgeon?

I don't think that Obama was up to the task at hand and got steamrolled by Congress on issues as important as the stimulus package and healthcare. Someone who was more deft in dealing with Congress (and who was owed plenty of chits) would probably have gotten more out of the Congress critters.

[CakeGrrl]

61. You mean the Healthcare that the Clintons COULD NOT get signed in any way shape or form?

With all their "experience"? And they couldn't make it happen?

Yeah, let's not go there. I'm sure you'll concoct an excuse for them, but I'm predicting it's gonna fail the logic test.

;-)

[Beacool]

63. You still at it?

The 90s were not 2010. A sense of perspective and history would help.

[CakeGrrl]

85. Refer to post 72

Are YOU still at it?

:)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

72. But, wait a minute. The exact same thing happened to Bill Clinton when he got into office.

I'm not sure how old you are or if you remember, but Bill Clinton attempted to pass a stimulus bill and every single Republican voted against that bill. In fact, they did the same thing as they are doing to Obama: calling it a "jobs killer," saying that it would destroy the economy.

And, please, let's not go there on the health care reform bill. That's how we lost BOTH the House and Senate in 1995.

Stop allowing the outcome of the 2008 primaries cloud your judgement.

[AtomicKitten]

49. In 2008, the Obamas' net worth was $1.3 million mostly from book proceeds.

The Obamas used the book proceeds to pay off their student loans.

For some perspective:

[Beacool]

53. You know perfectly well that the Clintons were the poorest couple to enter the WH in decades.

The financials you quote is the money they made through their books and Bill's speeches after they left the WH.

:shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

55. You took a shot at Obama 2008. I provided the relevant stats.

You didn't mention 1992 in your original post, the one I responded to, nor did I in my response. Why are you moving the goalposts acting like I did?

Btw did you notice both Clinton and McCain 2008 stats listed "houses" and Obama "house?" Indeed the Clintons were relatively poor in 1992 but they're livin' large now. LOL.

[dionysus]

40. now Bea, you stop fightin'! i'll give you something special if you do...

:D

[Beacool]

56. Hi, sweets!!!

I could have used banky last night. I saw the show (if I'm home I always try to watch it), but I didn't see the entire segment. I went later on to watch it online and it broke my heart. It also angered me tremendously. The worst part for me was when he asked the children if they had ever gone hungry and they all raised their hands. The little boy who said that he would try to sleep, but kept waking up because he was so hungry, just about killed me.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THIS COUNTRY???? We are becoming a third world nation when 25% of our children are at the poverty level. When people have to sleep in their cars, when the meal they get in school may be the only food a child eats that day.

What the HELL are our leaders doing about it??? Not talking the usual B.S. when they troll for votes, but actually DOING something to remedy the plight of the ever increasing poor.

Sorry, I didn't mean to rant, but I haven't been as angry at the dismal state of our country as I was last night.

Take care, my friend.

:hug:

[defendandprotect]

50. Another good question ... possibly Obama is a true devotee of corporatism ...

not just the campaign financing end of it?

[tweeternik]

60. Can you possibly really think he doesn't care??? n/t

[glinda]

14. 1 in 4 is in poverty or homeless...unF@^)*^believable.

[defendandprotect]

51. +1000% ---- "1 in 4 Americans" -- !!!

[progressoid]

15. But the banks were going to fail!!

We had to save them!

And that money is gonna trickle down any day now.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

30. while you were being snide in this post

did you stop to consider how many more people would be in poverty or homeless IF the banks had fallen?

[CakeGrrl]

32. I don't understand why people are being ignorant of financial infrastructure

You made the exact point. We can't just think in black and white and say "Banks BAD".

It was explained several times why the bank bailouts occurred.

It reminds me of the incorrect assertion that the President CHOSE to extend the upper-income tax cuts. No, he didn't do it because he wants R's to like him, he did it to keep unemployment benefits extensions from expiring which the GOP was happy to let happen.

[girl gone mad]

71. The bank bailouts were an utter disaster.

Time to stop living in fantasy doomsday what-if land and face the reality of what actually occurred.

[progressoid]

38. I wasn't being snide,

I was being angry.

Do you think that Geithner, Paulson, Bernanke, and the rest of the "laissez faire" capitalists were really thinking about us schlubs at the bottom during the banking crisis? Hell no. We're collateral damage.


But I suppose when the homeless tuck their kids in the back of that '92 Bonneville, they should be happy the whole country isn't in their position.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

16. WOW! This hurts. I work for HUD, and we have a major chronic homelessness

initiative for which the administration has proposed well over 70% increase for FY11 and FY12. The problem is that the president doesn't control the budget. The House does. Of course the Republicans would love nothing else but to have us blame Obama and not them for cutting this budget. It's sad to me. We are trying hard on this but we are beholden to what Congress does.

The Republicans are the *real* enemy!

We are on the same side.

[ClarkUSA]

21. Yes, too many people forget about who controls the pursestrings: the Teabagger House.

It's easy to blame President Obama for something he has no control over when I have yet to hear a plan from anyone that would pass this Congress.

[juajen]

23. I agree, but if he would use the bully pulpit to castigate the republicans

for doing this, we might get somewhere. This needs to be shouted from the rooftops. I have a friend who is sleeping in a wet tent in florida. He just had a stroke a week ago and is still having trouble walking. He's been unemployed for a year, but doesn't want to leave fla for he has connections there and keeps hoping he will work again. I don't think he should even be looking for work. I suggested he go to a shelter; but, he said there were no shelters that didn't stuff "Jesus" down his throat. I felt helpless. He is, at least, getting food stamps and getting a hot meal on a regular basis. There are so many people suffering now, that I believe we are so saturated, we just have stopped hoping something will be done, and we feel helpless. It's so obvious that the republicans are playing this and that unemployment numbers won't go up until a republican is in office. It is for this reason that I continue to support Obama, even though I don't like his strategies. He could play this differently. He needs to be a lot more vocal about what's going on and shout it loudly and clearly. That's why they call it the bully pulpit.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

31. wouldn't help sadly enough

those who don't like him here on DU atleast would be attacking him even for using the bully pulpit along the lines of 'Talk is cheap, we need actions' or 'Ugh, another speech, doesn't he know anything else"

as for the republicans, when have they really listened to him so far?

[great white snark]

34. +1000. It would bring out the "purty speech" brigade.

I wonder what it's like to be perpetually dissatisfied. I almost feel sorry for them considering there will be 5 1/2 more years of that bitter, bitter pill.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

66. I don't understand why every time the issue of institutional barriers come up,

all the detractors can suggest is using the "bully pulpit." And yet, when the president does make a speech, the response is that his talk is cheap; we need action!

Problem is, action takes place in the Congress. They can't explain how anything gets passed with a wingnut-controlled House and a Senate that is not--and has never been--filibuster proof.

It's cognitive dissonance at its core, and it's quite baffling.

[mazzarro]

89. Well - Obama use of the pulpit has been more like the MSM addressing an issue

Obama always tries to straddle the middle and never has taken up an issue when it is red-hot to castigate rethuglican wrong doings or bad behavior. He always seek to be bi-partisan in all and every ways. He would rather castigate the liberal-left than right-wing and never the teabaggers - even as they deride him and accuse him of all sorts of hideous crimes. He makes all efforts to disarm the left - always. That is not using the bully pulpit to push democratic goals rather he is seeking to be liked by the right!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

93. That's right, and that's because he's NOT a liberal. He's a centrist.

Only people who want to project onto him what they want him to be, rather than what he is, are the disappointed ones.

Obama was NEVER a liberal. And so the people who are disappointed that he's not a liberal should take some responsibility for not doing their homework.

The guy is not God. No one is never going to agree with a politician on everything he/she does.

[Cali_Democrat]

33. Great post!

Agree 100%. It needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

Obama will gain so much more support if he uses the bully pulpit in a meaningful way to address the poverty situation plaguing this country and attack the teabagger agenda. People will see that he's serious and will surely reelect him.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

65. Can we say *for sure* that he's NOT using the bully pulpit? Just because we don't see him

doesn't mean that he's not. We don't control the Corporate Media which apparently has a love affair with the new "Sarah Palin," Michele Bachmann. The M$M doesn't air Nancy Pelosi's weekly report on jobs, neither does it comment at all on the President Weekly Address. It doesn't cover his town hall meetings that he holds every week while traveling across the country. It doesn't mention anything.

The M$M also doesn't educate the American public, which is one of its jobs as the "Fourth Estate." It is supposed to be an objective arbiter of information. It takes two seconds to tell the American people that the Congress controls all revenue and tax bills. It is the Congress that has the constitutional power to set limitations on the president's proposed budget.

And yet, day after day, we get these columns from Krugmann and other brilliant liberal minds damning the president for something that he doesn't control. It's baffling to me because they should know how government works. They should know that the Democrats have been trying--IN VAIN--to pass jobs bills for several years, but are stymied by the Republicans in the Senate by the filibuster, or in the House by the Speaker and Republicans who control which bills make it onto the House docket.

Again, Democrats need to wake up FAST!! We need to understand just how our government works and be more realistic about what can and cannot be done. It is gridlock, and it's NOT by accident! It is in the Republicans' best political interest to keep the economy right where it is. We blame Obama/the Democrats for our economic woes instead of pointing the finger in the direction of those who have vociferously--AND ADAMANTLY--told us what their #1 goal is: to destroy this president by any means necessary, even if it means tanking the American economy.

We need to be clear about what's going on here. Since many of us refuse to listen to the president, maybe out of our anger at him, it seems that he has directed Biden to come out loudly on this issue and scream from the hilltops. I also see Nany Pelosi assuming a prominent role in the debate.

[Kablooie]

28. He listens too much to his wall street advisors and not enough to the voice of the people.

As long as he sits back and lets his advisors run the country it will ciontinue to collapse.
They only think of their own limited worlds.
The president is supposed to have a wider perspective.

[Rhiannon12866]

35. I did. It was devastating.

And it made my housemate cry. ;(

[avebury]

36. K&R

[Proud Liberal Dem]

41. Do you honestly believe he doesn't care????

:puke:

Good luck trying to sell people on THAT (outside of DU, anyway) while the Republicans are not only COMPLETELY IGNORING the homeless but actively TURNING THE SCREWS on them.

[Cali_Democrat]

42. I never said he doesn't care

But I do sense a lack of urgency on his part when it comes to the jobs crisis and the people it is affecting.

He's treading too carefully. He's gotta really start rocking the boat

[no limit]

43. Can you tell me anything he has done to seriously try to improve the issue?

[great white snark]

45. The stimulus package was the largest expansion of welfare in our country's history.

It also kept millions from sinking below the poverty level.

[no limit]

46. How much of the stimulus package was to help the poor? How much of it was tax breaks?

Since the stimulus package has he done anything else? because even if the stimulus package was helpful it is clear it wasn't nearly enough.

[CakeGrrl]

62. See if there's anything here to your liking

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

And after that, tell us what YOU would do with the Congress that is in place. And don't say that he OPTED to give the rich the tax breaks. That was thanks to the R's being willing to "shoot the hostage" when it came to letting unemployment benefits expire. Maybe if you were a beneficiary of that extension you might see it differently.

[great white snark]

68. Thank you CakeGrrl.

This meme regarding Obama and the poor is getting ridiculous. Could he do more? Of course but let's not act like he didn't make great strides.

[no limit]

77. What would I do? Good question, let me answer that for you

I would push an aggressive liberal agenda using reconciliation, with such policies as the public option (instead of making deals with insurance companies stripping them or making deals with drug companies to not reimport drugs, just to list 2 examples). This is what Bush did, he pushed an aggressive neo-con agenda doing the same thing. And when that wouldn't be possible I would shame the republicans by going after them, instead of trying to make friends with them. Again, what Bush did and the democrats fell right in line eventhough Bush had alot less to work with.

If I was a democrat with significant majorities in the house and senate I would actually try out a Democratic agenda for a change. Also, a significant factor of my stimulus package wouldn't be made up of tax cuts.

But yes, keep listing those same old "accomplishments" since as you see from the 60 miunutes special they are clearly doing the trick. It just depends on what your definition of "trick" is I guess.

[Mimosa]

99. ^ Exactly. ^ We need policies to bring jobs back to the USA

Obama has not been pro-active to bring back jobs. He appears to ascribe to globalism.

And he does not use the 'bully pulpit'.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

57. The Stimulus, extending unemployment benefits, mortgage foreclosure prevention

I may be missing a few things but he's not ignoring the problem by any stretch of the imagination though he's got a lot on his plate, most of it related the economic disaster he inherited from Bushco.

[no limit]

79. What did he have to give up to get unemployment benefits passed?

He only gave up a trillion dollars in tax cuts for the rich. Why did he have to do this? Because he pissed away his 2010 budget to pass a healthcare reform bill using reconciliation, a bill that didn't include a public option because they swore they could never use reconciliation in the first place until they had no choice because Scott Brown got elected.

Foreclosure prevention? Yes, it helped. But how many people did it actually help? Not that many, probably because almost no money was allocated to this program.

And as I said above, the stimulus, although helpful, wasn't as helpful as it could have been since a significant chunk of it was useless tax cuts for people that didn't need them.

But keep singing that same old song while you pretend everything is okay and if it's not okay Obama has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

82. We can disagree on how good or how bad

or how helpful or unhelpful something was or wasn't that Obama is responsible for but it's not accurate to say that he doesn't care about the problems of homelessness and hunger as some people seem to suggest (if not say outright).

Obama is not totally without blame, responsibility, etc. but the kind of outrage and anger being directed towards Obama always seems wildly out of proportion to his actual offenses not to mention the fact that Republicans are supposed to be "the enemy" here not Obama.

[no limit]

83. I think most rational people can agree he hasn't done enough.

Others on the other hand will never blame Obama for a damn thing.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

87. I don't think that he meant that he would be doing everything alone or unilaterally.

That being said, the final verdict will be in next year and people will get to decide his fate (and the fate of our country). Hopefully, he (or another more superior Democrat) gets another four years IMHO because if we end up with another Republican (mis-)Administration for another 4-8 years, well, there'll be a LOT more homelessness and hunger and it will make the last two years seem like paradise on Earth. I think most rational people can agree on THAT, don't you think? :shrug:

[no limit]

88. Yes, most rational people can agree that republicans are worse.

But if that's where the bar has been set then Jesus, this country is fucked beyond belief.

With a democratic majority that republicans couldn't dream of this country hasn't moved left at all, it has only moved further to the right. And if you think the democrats have nothing to do with that then I have a bridge to sell you.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

90. We didn't have a progressive supermajority in Congress during the last two years

and Republicans were in control of Congress for 12 years (1994-2006), during 6 of which Republicans had control of Congress AND the WH- which dragged the country far to the right with practically no opportunities for the Democrats to apply the brakes. I think that most rational people can agree that it would've been impossible for ANYBODY, even progressive icons like Bernie Sanders and/or Russ Feingold, to take a moderate/DLC-ish Democratic Congress (with Blue Dogs) and move the country hard left in two years time. If you have a hypothetical scenario under which this might've been possible, I would seriously be interested in reading about it.
No particular President is (nor ever will be) perfect and even icons such as Roosevelt and Johnson had their own flaws and fumbles and didn't get everything they wanted either (and were attacked for being to slow and cautious on certain things back in their day as well). Maybe, if we elect enough Republicans and consequently get to the point that our country is completely wrecked, MAYBE people will finally rise up and revolt but is that necessary and/or desirable??? Also, it won't teach Democrats anything, except to just ignore progressives, and that they need to look for votes elsewhere (i.e. conservatives). Keeping a party in power that delivers for its people maybe 50% of the time (while trying to improve it) is better IMHO than ensuring the election of a party that delivers -100% of the time.

[no limit]

91. What major mistakes do you think Obama has made, if any?

I mean mistakes that you actually think he deserves criticism for...not "oh I know he made a mistake here but its not really his fault because the republicans did this, or the blue dogs did that".

Or do you honestly believe Obama has never made any such mistakes and any short falls on his part are all someone else's fault?

I'm genuinely looking forward to your reply.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

94. I'm disappointed in some of his appointments

I would've liked to have seen more new faces with fresh ideas instead a bunch of former Clinton officials (not that I disliked Clinton per se but it just would've been better to get some newer, more progressive people in there). I guess I would've liked to seen a more aggressive dismantling of the "War on Terror" regime and mentality that was built up during the Bushco years. I also can't wait for us to fully get out of Iraq and Afghanistan (which is more realistic now that Bin Laden is dead).

Major mistakes? :shrug: I may have to think about that for awhile. Most of of my disappointments have been with how certain pieces of legislation turned out and I'm unhappy with things like Gitmo still being open but I can't entirely hold him responsible for those given the fact that he has to have the votes in Congress and some of the Democrats in the Congress were really s****y towards him- along with the ENTIRE Republican caucus. That he got through what he did was no small miracle in most cases. I was actually really pleasantly surprised that he decided to stake a lot of political capital on health care reform (and actually got something through) during his first two years even if it wasn't as great as I had hoped it might be (it can and hopefully will be improved upon). Right now, I'm just hoping that President Obama and the Dems can keep the brakes on too much mischief from the Republican Tea Party cult until (hopefully) next year when we can possibly retake the House and also hold the Senate and WH.

As critical as I may be of Obama on some things, I'm nowhere near about ready to dump him overboard and let a Republican back in the WH next year. Overall, I feel like he's done about as good as, if not better, a job as I'd hoped. I don't expect politicians to be perfect and maybe my standards aren't as high as some people's. I just want our leaders to take the country in the right direction and serve the people and, on balance, I think that Obama has.

[no limit]

105. I'm surprised you mentioned your disappointment in Clinton appointments

but not the appointments left over from the Bush administration.

Never the less I'm glad you acknowledge this is a big screw up on the part of Obama. Why do you think he made these mistakes with the appointments? Were they just innocent mistakes?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

106. The cabinet appointments were deliberate AFAIK (anybody saying otherwise?)

My perception is, however, at the time that Obama came into office is that our country was still very much in "crisis mode" and that he felt that he needed to immediately bring in people whom already had lots of experience with the economy or, in Gates' case, managing Iraq & Afghanistan- so that his Administration could "hit the ground running".
I didn't think about the Republican cabinet members. (mostly because I didn't think that they were that bad/objectionable)Gates, Mueller??? LaHood? :shrug: Nothing particularly objectionable about them AFAIK and I don't see what's wrong with including Republicans if they're competent and willing to serve. Gates didn't stand in the way (and encouraged) of repealing DADT and probably kept Bush/Cheney from going after Iran when they were in office. Mueller? I don't know a lot about him but I'm not aware of any real problems with him either. LaHood? Don't know much about him either but I haven't heard of any problems with him.
I don't have a problem with all of Obama's other appointments either- Clinton or otherwise and I also don't think of the appointments as being a "big screw up" but as I stated I wished that he had just gotten some more fresh blood.

[no limit]

107. Oh ok, so I was mistaken.

You said above the president was not perfect, which is obvious. I thought you were then listing ways you thought he wasn't perfect where he made mistakes. But now you are saying he hasn't made any significant mistakes.

So he is perfect then? You must have been mistaken when you said that above.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

109. So

Do I have to choose to believe either that Obama is perfect or that he's a major screw-up? I don't do black-or-white thinking. I (think) I can acknowledge that Obama isn't perfect and, yes, has made mistakes and/or done something that has disappointed me but I can also still support him, feel free to let him know what you want to see them do differently, and support him for re-election. Right? :shrug: Do I need to savage him every time he disappoints me or doesn't do what I think he should do?

[no limit]

110. You seem to have mistaken the idea that if you believe someone has made some major mistakes

they are major screw ups. I never said that, this is the conclusion you came to.

You said above Obama is not perfect. Yet you can't name a single significant mistake he has made? Where you said he made mistakes you quickly justified them and implied they aren't really his fault or they aren't really that bad.

That would imply that you think he is pretty much perfect.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

112. I wouldn't be a supporter of him

if I didn't believe he was doing an overall good job. Perfect? No, Obama isn't perfect. Neither was Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt, et. al. They all had their flaws and foibles but nobody could honestly say that our country is worse off for having had any of them for POTUS and Johnson and Roosevelt, in particular, were responsible for some important achievements in terms of creating the social safety net.

Obama's major mistakes? Like what? He's been aggressive on the anti-terrorism front and we haven't suffered any 9/11-level attacks, he hasn't invaded/occupied another country under false/misleading pretenses, he didn't fill up his cabinet/government agencies with a bunch of incompetent cronies and crooks, and he isn't messing around with interns.
So far, Obama hasn't made any serious foreign policy blunders, he reads his PDBs, Bin Laden is finally dead and buried, he got health care reform legislation signed into law, he got financial reform with a CSB and Elizabeth Warren to set things up, pushed through a stimulus plan to help jumpstart the economy, helped save the auto industry. Deciding what his "major mistakes" are is pretty subjective and hard to prove, particular since he's still in office.

What might be considered major mistakes if they were to happen in the future? Well, if he were to endorse the Ryan budget, cut Medicare and/or Social Security benefits-I'd consider those major mistakes (though I don't think he would agree to any of them).

:shrug:

[no limit]

113. But this is absolutely absurd to me. You say he isn't perfect but you can't name a major mistake

let me give you some major mistakes I think he made and see what you think.

- He thinks equal rights for all should be a states issue. History will look down on him for that.

- He could have passed a public option using reconciliation but chose not to

- He made a deal with big pharma that he would leave them out of HCR if they supported HCR.

- He refuses at almost every turn to truly go after republicans instead going the bipartisanship route. While he was trying to extend a hand of friendship to republicans they were saying he was trying to kill grandma

- I don't think he should have increased our troop presence in Afghanistan and he should be getting out much faster than he is

- I don't like being strip searched or groped when I fly

- I hate the fact that the same assholes that got us in to the mess we are in are now a major part of this administration

These are just off the top of my head. Do you consider any of these major mistakes on his part or are they someone else's fault?

[defendandprotect]

52. We have to let Obama's actions speak for what he believes ....

and I don't think I've ever heard him even speak of the homeless --

but certainly this is the Obama who was recommending cuts in subsidies

for home heating costs for the elderly -- while agreeing to extending

the tax cuts for the rich --

Sad to say -- we we always know where Obama stands on the rich and corporations!!

Sad, indeed --

[inna]

80. If he does care, he certainly hides it well. nt

[paparush]

47. When one party is willing to keep millions out of work in order to put one man out of a job...

We, the 'Common' people are simply fucked.

[Jakes Progress]

64. Sure they're hungry. But they need to just be patient.

We need to wait until all the republicans grow hearts. Til then, we just wait. And wait.

[girl gone mad]

67. k & r

[treestar]

69. What do you mean, passive?

What do you suppose is to be done that could not have been done before? What do you suppose the President does all day? Are you even aware of it? You're actually just using poor hungry children to slam the President - as if no one could do anything but sit and wait for the President to do something. Why be fixated on the President over this issue? Some people are just obsessed with him, like he's some kind of god.

[Cali_Democrat]

75. For example....what did Obama do today?

Did he spend hours today discussing the homeless and the jobs crisis plaguing this country? Did he go on TV and lay out a point-by-point plan to fight hunger and homelessness? Did he discuss and propose hundreds billions of dollars in new funding for education, poverty and job training? Did he propose diverting billions from the military to the poor, homeless and jobless?

He should be on TV every day for hours on end discussing this.

If he didn't, then he's not doing enough IMO. That's how serious this problem is.

[ChiciB1]

74. That Was Too Awful For Words!!! I Live In Florida & Have Seen Many Things Up Close

AND PERSONAL! I know FOUR families who have lost their homes just on the street I live on. Certainly it's NOT only Florida but everywhere, still we have a Governor (that's what he's called politically) who is hacking away at anything and everything as I write!

What is even worse, too many people are in denial and I myself live in the 2nd or 3rd richest county in this state in per capita income! I AM NOT in that category as we too have felt the crunch. But there are so many rich people who live right up the road with HUGE mansions on the beach.

Yes, I live very close to the beach, but our community is far far less wealthy, but it's a great place to live. Much smaller homes with many friendly people close by. But I've lived in this home for 26 years and have seen things going on that I have never seen before. My heart breaks and I constantly feel helpless in this very, very RED county.

Vern Buchanan is my Congress Critter and he's just ANOTHER Floridian crook. And yet, I've seen him on the National news spouting crap and simply don't understand why! Perhaps it's because of Joey Scar... I just don't know, but it sickens me!

This is tragic and so many of us KNOW our voices will never be heard. Believe me, I've tried and tried. I've given money to people who have nothing, but now I no longer have extra to give. So I simply ask WHY, but there are no good answers given!!!

[FiveGoodMen]

76. He would only watch that to pick up tips on more 'shared' sacrifices to dump on them

[Whisp]

78. I'm sure he is totally ignorant of what is going on. unrec.

[Hepburn]

84. But... but... but...

...tax breaks for the wealthy will lead to these children being feed! Trickle down food, right???

:sarcasm:

[emsimon33]

92. Obama's children aren't hungry so why would he care?

There are no blue state children and there are no red state children, there are just children who can't vote and who lack the $billions to attract Obama's attention. If they starve, so what? If their parents starve, so what? If their grandparents, starve, so what? Starving people lack the money to buy food and so lack the money to buy Obama's attention.

[Beacool]

95. Starving people lack the money to make campaign donations.

Therefore, they are invisible.

;(

[ClarkUSA]

97. That explains why President Clinton never ended poverty even when he ran a $2 trillion surplus.

But he did get to repeal Glass-Steagall on behalf of Wall Street Republicans and The Chamber of Commerce before he left office.

[CakeGrrl]

101. Thank you for putting the brakes on the

"Obama's the meanest, poor-hating president EVER" crazy train.

Unbelievable.

(Well not really. ;-))

[ClarkUSA]

102. lol

:fistbump:

[Beacool]

104. I never said that.

What I objected to was your inference that the man sacrificed himself by becoming president. Please, the guy loves the power and it shows. They all do, he's no exception.

:eyes:

[Beacool]

103. Chip on the shoulder?

I wasn't referring to Obama necessarily. I was referring to ALL politicians.

Keep beating the Clinton drum, but it's a moot point. Ask people on the street if they would like to go back to the 90s and most of them would jump at the chance. Clinton may have been flawed, but the 90s were good times for this country.

;-)

[ClarkUSA]

120. Why would I have a "chip on my shoulder?" I was merely agreeing with your assessment...

... by giving an apt example.

[Ignis]

117. Why are you so focused on labasting former President Clinton?

:shrug:

He can't primary Obama, so why direct so much ire against the man?

[ClarkUSA]

121. "labasting"? I made an observation based on Beacool's statement.

[Ignis]

130. You seem to make that same "observation" often.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x697958#697969

Why is that? :shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

96. Yeah, and the Clintons' child was never hungry so that's why DINO Bill "reformed" welfare, right?

[no limit]

115. Wait...wait...wait. Wait just a fucking second. Did you really just call Clinton a DINO?

You really don't see any irony in that?

In what ways do you think Obama is more liberal than Clinton?

[ClarkUSA]

119. Yup. Actually, I should've said DINO DLC Bill, the guy who wants Paul Ryan to call him.

DINO DLC Bill = The guy who bemoaned "do nothing" Democrats at a right-wing venue calling for cuts to Medicare and SS.

DINO DLC Bill = The guy who invented torture aka. extraordinary rendition.

DINO DLC Bill = The guy who approved of anti-LGBT ads in 1996.

DINO DLC Bill = The guy who is proud of his welfare "reform".

DINO DLC Bill = The guy who happily repealed Glass-Steagall.

DINO DLC Bill = The guy who deregulated the media, to Rupert Murdoch's benefit.

DINO DLC Bill = The guy who pushed through NAFTA.

President Obama, on the other hand, does not want to cut Medicare, has ended the practice of extraordinary rendition, successfully pushed for DADT repeal, saved the auto industry and re-regulated Wall Street and the banking industry and much more, all in less than two years under the worst economy since the Great Depression. Oh and he rejected all overtures from the DLC while still a Senator.

There is no contest as to who is more liberal, policy-wise.

[no limit]

128. So if any cuts under Obama take place to social security/medicare you would agree he is a DINO?

You would agree that if Obama continues torture aka extraordinary rendition he is a DINO?

You would agree that if Obama thinks equal rights for people are a state issue he is a DINO?

You would agree that if welfare spending gets cut under Obama he is a DINO?

You would agree that if Obama doesn't close the loop holes Glass-Steagall created he is a DINO?

You would agree that if Obama doesn't regulate the media he is a DINO?

You would agree that if Obama is for "free trade" he is a DINO?


Your blantant hypocrisy is fucking unbelievable.

[ClarkUSA]

98. "Obama’s 2011 Budget Increases Welfare Spending to Historic Levels"

Obama’s 2011 Budget Increases Welfare Spending to Historic Levels

It is clear that President Obama is intent on not only continuing the failed war on poverty but expanding and growing the size of the welfare state. President Obama’s 2011 budget will increase spending on welfare programs by 42 percent over President Bush’s last year in office. Total spending on the welfare state (including state spending) will rise to $953 billion in 2011.

Further, the Obama Administration is pursuing a change in the official “poverty measure” that will increase the number of people considered poor in America. If future program eligibility is tied to this measure, the amount of federal tax dollars flowing to programs aimed at helping the poor would dramatically increase.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/03/expanding-the-failed-war-on-poverty-obamas-2011-budget-increases-welfare-spending-to-historic-levels

Go picket the Teabagger House. Demand they pass his budget plan. President Obama doesn't control the pursestrings; Congress does.

[no limit]

108. Holy shit, did you just use the heritage foundation to try and make your point?

Also, you know the article you linked to is almost a year and a half old and this budget has long been taken off the table by Obama, right?

[great white snark]

111. Do you dispute the numbers?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=23&ved=0CCYQFjACOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usgovernmentspending.com%2Fwelfare_budget_2011_4.html&ei=HCQKTsKtHYq6tgfcn6CGAQ&usg=AFQjCNFSijaVu9FBsSeS1TJTSoxeOLN0gQ&sig2=bGhEFOBPRMdpyO5SYm_lJw

[no limit]

114. The link you posted shows welfare spending going down, not up. So what is your point?

Let me also point out that while welfare spending decreases defense spending increases.

Yeah, he is truly doing a bang up job in this area. :eyes:

[great white snark]

116. We're addressing helping the poor not defense spending. That is a point.

Another point is that spending on welfare is the highest it has ever been. So is funding to free clinics, food banks and many other organizations that help the poor.

[no limit]

118. The point is welfare spending is going down, totally contrary to what was posted

from the heritage foundation. I know we aren't talking about defense spending, but to ignore it as if it doesn't exist is absurd. The fact is that as welfare spending gets cut defense spending increases. And this is from Democratic policies.

[ClarkUSA]

122. The Heritage Foundation bemoaned Pres. Obama's 2011 budget plans to hugely increase welfare spending

Their information is correct even if their perspective is fucked.

President Obama's 2011 budget plan proves that he cares very much about the poor, debunking false memes perpetrated by some people that insist otherwise... without a shred of proof, I might add.

[no limit]

127. So it was all the heritage foundation's fault? They killed Obama's budget?

Well if that true then why do you have that image in the signature? If a conservative think tank has such great power then clearly I don't need to "chill the fuck out" since the president clearly doesn't have this.

[Hippo_Tron]

125. Statements like "largest in history" from the Heritage Foundation don't take inflation into account

It's by that same method that the Heritage Foundation gets "Obama wants to enact the largest tax increase in history".

[ProSense]

123. The President

does have an initiative to address homelessness if anyone is really interested.

[ClarkUSA]

124. Thanks, I was looking for information on Pres. Obama's homelessness initiative.

Four excellent initiatives by the Obama administration:

1. WH: Partnership for Sustainable Communities Marks Two Trailblazing Years

2. How Obama is shoring up federal authority over Medicaid

3. N.L.R.B. Rules Would Streamline Unionizing

4. A Progress Report on the Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=697458&mesg_id=697458

Obama supporters are always interested in facts. Bookmarked.

[no limit]

129. Are you ever capable of providing anything more than just links?

Yes, I'm interested. Please outline what Obama has done to help fight homelessness. This outline doesn't have to be long, but if all you can do is post a link to a post of yours with more links to a white house blog that doesn't really deal with the homelessness issue then you don't have a case.

It always amazes me how you come up with these bullshit, cookie cutter responses to any threads such as this one. I'm actually shocked how long it took you this time around.