Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The FILIPINOYS Forum. The Filipinoys Forum is a very friendly, moderately cerebral & fun-centric chill-out all-around forum for Filipinos and friends worldwide. It is your home when you're online. Be part of our online family. We want crazy, passionate, weird, overly-opinionated, funny, eccentric, one-of-a-kind, salt-of-the-earth and not the boring lurking kind of people. If you fit that description, make us happy by registering now! You can freely express yourself here, interact with other members, make friends, debate, discuss, disagree, fraternize, exchange ideas & information, converse in real-time using our Shoutbox, cry, spill your guts and do normal tasks possible in this forum as long as they conform with our general posting guidelines.

Registration is free, easy & quick. Our SPAM & PORN-FREE policies are strictly enforced. Scan the available forums that we currently have and check out some of our members' postings. I'm sure you will find something that you'll like. So do not delay and be a Filipinoys trooper now! There is a warm spot for you here.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. This family-oriented forum is definitely SPAM-FREE.

We hope you enjoy your visit. Don't forget to visit our PORTAL:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/The_Filipinoys_Forum/site/


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Defending President Obama
Topic Started: Nov 3 2010, 07:31 PM (720 Views)
Didjay
Unregistered

It's hard to defend the president these days specially in the light of what happened in the recently concluded election. I emailed a friend of mine and asked him what his thoughts were about the election. I guess I was looking for inspiration or encouragement to get me to vote for people in either party. I'm not into tea-bagging altho' I drink a lot of green tea but that's about it...no politics there. Or perhaps I wanted to vote for any Green Party candidates or anyone who support or has a green program to push. Or maybe I was hoping there was a Green Tea Party I could support...a coalition! :)


But going back to my friend, he sent me this response:


Quote:
 
I truly hope the tea party gets everything they stand for. Going back to the original Constitution will be great for me. I am a rich white college educated male. I can't wait till women take their place and I can round up some free labor from minorities and child labor. I am sick of poor uneducated people having access to things they can't afford like healthcare, roads, police protection, fire protection, education, and food. Our founding fathers were educated white men and didn't include minorities and women as equals for a reason. I just wish more people other than the tea party supporters realized this. Please get rid of every change that wasn't in the original Constitution, no FED police, no FED bank, no civil or womens rights, no child labor laws, no IRS, ..... The list goes on and on. Please Rand Paul do what you promised take us back to the founding principles we all believe in. OK...I was just kidding. If you think I was not, then vote for a Tea Party candidate.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Didjay
Unregistered

CONTINUING from above....


So here we are, me and my friend talking about the President and the Tea Party candidates in an email exchange...He continued on to state the following:


Quote:
 
People are so eager or willing to cry socialism, when they forget how much "socialism" has been incorporated into our country over the last 200 years (and for extremely good reasons). No pure form of government is good, be that socialism or capitalism.


As for the Tea party, I think since they have such religious convinctions, they tend to view the forefathers as infallible God-like men when in reality, they were just a bunch of guys with some pretty @#$% bright ideas to get a country started in a world plagued by oppression, restrictions of freedom and theocracy across the rest of the world. The Founding Fathers were by no means without faults. They were just a better generation of people than we are today. This generation is in no position to judge others.


Do some research & read about the last great depression. Pres Obama SO FAR has averted the one ex-Pres Bush almost created for us. If I were one of the big corporate donors who bankrolled the Republican tide that carried into office more than 50 new Republicans in the House, I would be wary of what you just bought. For no matter your view of Pres Obama, he effectively saved capitalism. And for that, he paid a terrible political price.


Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat?


Here's why: the presidency of George W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power.


As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, OR $148,000 if invested on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77% and 48% respectively.


But markets, though forward-looking, are not considered accurate measurements of the economy, and the Great Recession skewed the Bush numbers. O.K. How about looking at the big financial institutions that keep the motors of capitalism running - banks and auto companies?


The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged.


Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama's political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated.


"An apology is due Barack Obama," wrote The Economist, which had opposed the $86 billion auto bailout. As for Government Motors: after emerging from bankruptcy, it will go public with a new stock offering in just a few weeks, and the United States government, with its 60% share of common stock, stands to make a profit. YES, an industry was saved, and the gov't will probably make money on the deal - one of Obama's signature economic successes. You probably wouldn't believe me, but it's easier now to get a job. A lot of employers use the internet now to list good jobs (with good pay). Stop wasting gas and time driving around. Here's a site that lists all the jobs available in your city. Go to YouGetWork.com
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pinoy-Merican
Unregistered

Good one, Didjay!


About 65% of the budget goes to defense and war debts. About 20% is healthcare for old people. That leaves only the tiniest amount they can change, unless of course they want to try to cut the Military Industrial Complex. It they shut down every agency and fired every federal worker except for the military and MediCare they could only save 20%. So who is going to be brave enough to buck the military brass and defense contractors? War is a very big business!


What needs to be done now is for Obama to sign anything that comes across his desk that's authored by a Republican no matter what it is. Also next time when banks, businesses and people need any kind of help to stay open or to stay in their homes Obama should tell those businesses and people the Republican motto : "Just say No", and let things fall where they may. What gets me is at no time did Republicans tell anyone what they would do, what plans they have to save the country - all they did was badmouth. Let the U.S. auto businesses go under - after all its only 2.5 to 3 million jobs (direct and indirect job losses). This time let Bank of America close their doors - after all I am not banking with them. Let homebuyers keep loosing their homes - after all I rent. People were up in arms about the bailout but how many Americans returned those checks? The Republicans attacked the bailout but not one Republican complained when then President Bush sent a stimulus in the amount of $165 billion to banks in his last year in office to keep the banks open, and oh yes that $165 billion has never been paid back and is now part of the national debt. This is not even counting the Republicans sending major oil companies like Mobil, Exxon, BP, and others $114 billion to upgrade their equipment again - this has never been repaid and is also part of the national debt. Now let's get ready when the Republicans get their wish when business will not need to offer medical benifits or pay into 401k's. I am sure the worker won't mind paying for full medical out of their own pocket for them and their families after all it will only be around $600 a month for a family of 4 so start saving. Also another plan Republicans have is do away with Obama's tax breaks that he had put in place in the amount of $116 billion in tax credits in the last 2 years. If you look up the facts, since Obama got into office you are paying less taxes than in the 50's. Republicans feel the less money businesses like Exxon, Mobil, BP, pay in taxes will be used to create jobs. I wonder what those Oil companies have done with the $380 billion in profits after taxes. One CEO gave his wife a $200 million birthday party. SWELL! Well if we do away with those stupid benifits like workmans comp, overtime, sick leave, vacation pay, paying in part to employees retirement I am sure they will make that $200 million back up in no time. Now they can balance the budget by giving massive tax breaks for the top 2%. I figure if we shovel another $700 billion from the Treasury to the wealthy it will fix the deficit in no time! That along with immense tax breaks to business to outsource a few million more jobs. Remember, if we give money to the top 2% richest Americans, it is not called 'welfare'. We’ll have the good ole US of A back on top in no time!


;-P (retract tongue in cheek) :holigrin:
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Camo-Te
Unregistered

When Bush left office, the American economy was losing jobs at a rate of 700,000 per month and stocks lost nearly half their value.

The Obama stimulus turned around these losses into a gain at a rate of 50,000 per month and nearly doubled stock value.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Santi Leanne
Unregistered

REPUBLICAN BUSH DOUBLED the NATIONAL DEBTS from $18,600 FOR EACH AND EVERY AMERICANS to $35,900. Multipy that by 300 million AMERICANS. Who will pay?

If you want honesty, don't look at the Republicans for that. Republicans honest??? The funniest thing ever uttered! They have been bought, lock, stock and barrel. The hypocrisy and lies from the Right are just astounding. They talk of being fiscally conservative when almost 90% of our National Debt is attributed to the Republicant Supply Siders (Trickle Down, Tax Cuts For The Rich, Voodoo Economics), Ronald Reagan and GW Bush, who are responsible for $12 TRILLION of our $14 Trillion National Debt and every one of our last 5 recessions were under the MISmanagement of a Republicant Administration! The BIGGEST LIE ever told was not about a check in the mail or a squirt in the mouth. THE BIGGEST LIE EVER SOLD IS ...THAT REPUBLICANS ARE GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY!!! :laff: :rollonflr:
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kristina Fay
Unregistered

Sooner or later, conservatives will have to come up with real ideas for making the lives of everyday Americans better. To simply scapegoat the usual targets - rather than to put forth ideas that actually work - fails to deliver anything meaningful. Tax cuts and a balanced budget? Nice, but hardly answers to the multiple problems people face today.

It seems that conservatives ran out of useful ideas long ago, and now must simply repeat ideas from decades ago, while stoking fear and mistrust to get people to listen.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
PepeChino
Unregistered

All of these right wingnuts/Republicans/teabaggers and their kool-aid slurping supporters seem to forget it was the last Republican administration under Georgieboy who created the massive problems facing the nation today. It was the Republicans in the '90's who sought to hamstring a democratically elected President (unlike Bushboy who was 'selected') never mind the cost such distractions caused. It was a Republican administration - Raygun (Reagan) - who did nothing when the US Marines were attacked and killed in Lebanon thereby encouraging Islamic extremists groups - and let us not forget that great Republican Tricky Dick Nixon...and another great Republican, Eisenhower who began the long nightmare of Vietnam...and of course shall we forget the earlier financial collapse, also caused by Republicans? Hey GOP and your ignorant supporters...what in the hell have any of you ever done for this country or it's people?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marko
Unregistered

The Republicans handed Obama a $1.3 trillion bill/debt, and then they’re complaining six months later because the government haven’t paid it all back. :sneer:
Quote Post Goto Top
 
NarcissoC
Unregistered

If a Republican wins the next presidential election, they can get back to the great work that they did under Bush. Watch out you, Democreeps. No more free ride for the lazy stiffs whose jobs we outsourced. No more benefits for those freeloaders who lost their jobs after the deregulated bankers tanked the economy. And by the way, thanks for bailing us out. Remember, It’s not Welfare if it goes to the well off. :rollonflr:
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Remy
Unregistered

Quote:
 
Poll: Latinos 'not pro-Democrat, but rather anti-Republican'

Pilar Marrero reports on the latest ImpreMedia/Latino Decisions poll:

President Barack Obama’s approval rating among Latino voters increased again to 70% after decreasing in mid-2010. But that support does not translate into automatic votes for 2012.

The second part of a poll conducted by impreMedia and Latino Decisions (LD) also reveals that, although Latino voters will not automatically vote for Obama—only 43% are sure they will vote for him next year—doubts about the president and the Democrats are not turning into support for the Republicans....

"I think the most interesting story here is how badly the Republicans are faring with Latinos. It is as if Latinos are not pro-Democrat, but rather anti-Republican," said Gary Segura, a political science professor at Stanford University....

One thing is clear: they do not like Sarah Palin. Asked about their image of the former governor of Alaska, these voters said that it is predominantly negative: 53% unfavorable versus 23% favorable.


One thing is clear; Palin does poorly with every demographic except for old white men. Good luck with that! Women can't stand her and she has nearly none of the support from any minority bloc; young people can see through her folksy schtick and moderates know she's toxic. Run Sarah Run!!!
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chatup
Unregistered

The Repiglicans opposed the bailouts. But look what happened: The Bank of America paid back the bailout.. and $169 billion of the $245 billion of Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) had been paid back. And of course that was paid back with INTEREST...ie A PROFIT!!!! Every job saved by the GM bailout kept positive cash revenue in the form of payroll taxes and profits taxed on the sales OF NEW PRODUCT.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chamba
Unregistered

In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of. - Confucius

Quote:
 
Anti-terrorism success may not help Obama in 2012
From: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama may have a string of counterterrorism successes and earned high marks from the public on foreign policy, but neither is likely to help him hold the White House.
For his administration, this re-election reality is a frustrating bottom line.

When the first-term senator won the presidency, questions lingered about his readiness to handle national security matters. Yet Obama has received wide praise for operations that have killed terrorist leaders, most notably Osama bin Laden in May, and Anwar al-Awlaki on Friday.

Al-Awlaki, an American citizen targeted in the U.S. drone attack, was deemed by the administration as having a "significant operational role" in terrorist plots. They included two nearly catastrophic attacks on U.S.-bound planes, an airliner on Christmas 2009 and cargo planes last year.

Obama also can claim credit for aiding Libyan rebels in ousting Moammar Gadhafi, for supporting other democratic uprisings in the Arab world, for drawing down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for negotiating a new nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia.

But barring unforeseen events, the nation's stubbornly high unemployment rate and turmoil in the financial markets mean people are far more likely to vote next November with the economy foremost in their minds, not the president's record on foreign policy and terrorism.

That's bad news for the administration because people give Obama far higher approval ratings on terrorism than on his handling of the economy.

In fact, Obama's approval rating on terrorism was higher than on any other issue, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll conducted in late August. It showed that 60 percent of those surveyed approved of his handling of terrorism. Just 36 percent approved of his handling of the economy, an all-time low for Obama.
Obama's overall approval rating also fell to an all-time low in the poll, 46 percent.

The re-election picture gets even gloomier given that 92 percent of those questioned said the economy was an extremely or very important issue. By comparison, 73 percent put the same emphasis on terrorism, but even they're divided over whether Obama should be re-elected.

It's also unclear whether the killing of al-Awlaki will bring Obama any new political support. The fiery American-born cleric had a hand in several high-profile terror attempts on the U.S., but his name is hardly as familiar to most Americans as bin Laden.

Obama's orders for U.S. special forces to kill bin Laden during a raid on his Pakistani compound did give the president's approval rating a bump. But it proved fleeting, further evidence of the secondary role of terrorism for voters.

"It's not 2004," said Rick Nelson, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "This isn't the primary issue facing the United States. The primary issue is the economy and jobs. That issue is going to overshadow anything we do overseas."

The joint CIA-U.S. military airstrike that targeted al-Awlaki and killed a second American citizen wasn't without controversy.

The attack apparently was the first time a U.S. citizen was tracked and executed based on secret intelligence and the president's say-so, raising questions about the reach of presidents' powers.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a GOP presidential contender, called it an "assassination" and said Americans should not casually accept such violence against U.S. citizens, even those with strong ties to terrorism.

But most other top Republicans running for Obama's job saw little downside in praising the president for his role.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry congratulated Obama, along with the military and intelligence agencies, for "aggressive anti-terror policies." Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney commended the president for his efforts to keep Americans safe and said al-Awlaki's death was a "major victory" in the terrorism fight.

With the first nominating contests about three months away, foreign policy and terrorism have been virtually absent from the Republican race. When the issues have arisen, most GOP contenders have tried to portray the president as a weak leader. It's a sentiment they hope taps into voters' frustration with the economy.
Bruce Jones, an expert on transnational threats, said Obama's success against terrorist leaders may help counter that GOP strategy.

"At the very least, it takes away from the critics the idea that he can't lead, that he doesn't understand those kinds of issues," said Jones, also a senior foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank.

Beyond the counterterrorism efforts, Obama aides say they believe the president will get credit come Election Day for his foreign policy achievements in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, as well as for his support of other democratic uprisings throughout the Arab world. They say the president has boosted U.S. standing in the world, making it easier to get international backing for his policies, rather than having to go it alone.
But there is some concern among Obama backers that the one foreign policy issue most likely to find a place in the 2012 campaign is one that has achieved little success: securing peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Republicans and some Jewish voters paint him as anti-Israel, while much of the world disagrees with his opposition to Palestinian efforts to seek statehood recognition at the United Nations.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pepe Quirino
Unregistered

I like what a friend sent me in the mail:
Quote:
 
Personally I like Obama and I find him to be very competent as president. Politics is politics, however, therefore competency need not translate into a second term. I thought that the second Bush was massively incompetent and that any warm body could defeat him for his second term….boy was I wrong on that.

The first Bush, I understand from analysts years after his first term, was right about the economy, i.e. it was on its way to recovery and it was best to leave it alone. But remember the battle cry then: "It's the economy, stupid!"

Obama led the effort to keep the US (and arguably the World) economy from falling off the precipice. He was not a spectator. He quickly grasped the gist of the problem and acted to prevent the economy’s collapse even before he was elected president. He was the acknowledged leader even when he was still candidate Obama. The collapse was in Sept. '08, way before the elections. I read about this in the book The Promise by Jonathan Alter.

My wife and I were paying over $1,300 a month for our individual insurance policy because we are self-employed so I was following closely the health care debate. The Democrats were ready to concede defeat after a long long struggle against the Republicans who wanted America to keep the status quo. Obama resurrected it and together with Pelosi got it passed. Even Pelosi, a big fan and admirer of Obama, had given up on it.

I always was against the war in Iraq and I am happy with Obama’s decision to wind it down….although sadly it will be forever before the cost of our involvement there becomes reasonable. Damn Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and those other war hawks for pushing the country unnecessarily into so much debt because of the 2 wars, not to mention the loss of American lives and other lives. The war against Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

I disagreed with Obama’s decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan. With the death of Bin Laden, all the more it is necessary for us to wind down our involvement there. But again even as we wind down, the cost will be heavy for years to come. Obama did continue what Bush began in the area of Intelligence and the coordination of the different agencies with regard to Homeland Security….that is why we found Bin Laden and many other top Al Qaeda leaders. That is costing us a hell of a lot of money too, but it is necessary. At least with that expense we are not rebuilding nations, but directly protecting our own.

I am pleased that Obama led the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't tell."

If Obama looks ineffective against the economic crisis we have to remember that Congress is a partner in the battle. If the economy improves, guess who will sit in the White House in 2012? The incumbent! So while the American electorate chose to give us a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, they also weakened Obama’s ability to pursue his policies to fix the economy.

Now we have been through economic crises before…but when was the last time we had one as severe as the Great Financial Crisis of Sept. '08? Never! But because we survived it, i.e. the economy did not collapse, we think that it was just another recession that any good president can fix in 2 years. I believe that is wrong.

I am happy that Obama has kept the focus on jobs jobs jobs….not deficit deficit deficit. The Republicans want to focus on reduced government spending which will reduce aggregate demand for goods and services which will cause business to further cut jobs because of reduced demand which will worsen the unemployment picture which will create greater dissatisfaction with Obama which will hopefully lead to a Republican victory for the White House in 2012. I have said for the past so many years that if we end the 2 wars we can save about $1 billion a day…where was the talk about reduced spending when the Republican led White House decided to form the "Coalition of the Willing" and commit our taxpayer money to a super expensive and unnecessary war for years and years to come (even if the war were to end today!)?

Republicans have made it clear to me that their thinking is "It is control of the White House, stupid, not the economy!" that they care about. But I don’t think the majority of the American electorate will see that. They did not see in Bush after 1 term what they did see after 2 terms. The US electorate is not very smart.

But Obama appears to have taken the gloves off and is trying to make it more clear to the electorate what certain teammates in the Team Government USA are doing to avoid a victory for the American people in the area of the economy. He has gone on to campaign mode which the Republicans it seems never got out of since McCain and Palin were running. And all of this at the expense of the American people.

CV

I agree completely what CV wrote above.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chamba
Unregistered

Someone emailed me this:
Quote:
 
I was a supporter of Republicans Nelson Rockefeller, Bob Goodell, John Lindsay, Jacob Javitz of New York and Charles Percy of Illinois because they exhibited strong humanist values and played fair. They realized that you can't sink one end of the boat (the poor and the middle classes with massive tax cuts for the very wealthy and expect the whole boat to stay afloat in addition to destroying Social Security and Medicare for the elderly.

But those humanist days of yore are long gone, replaced with the racist "Southern Strategy" executed by the Reagan and Bush Neocons that have destroyed the country and the middle classes.

I recently viewed a Republican debate and witnessed with horror Ron Paul being questioned about what he would do to help a dying 30 year old without health insurance and can't get treatment. He said that with "Freedom", one has the freedom to die! As the country reeled in revulsion, the camera panned to the Republican audience who were shouting, "Die, die, die!" This is not the America I came to and admired. THIS IS THE NEW REPUBLICAN AMERICA WITH TEA PARTY IGNORAMUSES AND CHRISTIAN CREATIONIST FUNDAMENTALISTS SPEARHEADING THE PARTY COLLUDING WITH THE WEALTHIEST OIL, INSURANCE, AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES TO SCREW AVERAGE AMERICANS. IT IS THE MOST UNCHRISTIAN PARTY IN AMERICA TODAY.

YOU MAY NOT BE LIKE THEM BUT IF YOU JOIN THEIR PARTY AND VOTE FOR THEIR CANDIDATES WHO ESPOUSE SUCH VALUES, THEN YOU HAVE MADE YOUR BED. IF YOU BUY THE PARTY AND ITS PLATFORM, THAT'S WHO YOU ARE. BUT I SINCERELY HOPE NOT!

Amen to that.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carl Reynel
Unregistered

Obama didn't bail out the banks. Georgie Bush did that. Does the name Hank Paulson ring a bell? Remember John McCain wanting to postpone his campaign to run back to DC? Bush/Paulson GAVE the banks $800 Billion of taxpayer money (TARP), unconditionally, asking nothing in return, no demands, no stipulations. Not a loan, a gift. The banks then laughed in our faces while they rewarded themselves big bonuses and raises to management. Now they sit on $2 Trillion while entrepeneurs and small businesses can't get the loans/capital needed to expand and hire new workers thus putting people back to work.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics, Government Affairs and Social Issues · Next Topic »
Add Reply


Get your own Chat Box! Go Large!
Edited by Cory, Apr 29 2014, 09:02 PM.