How Is President Obama Doing So Far ?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:15 am

Thats the question. A simple poll to gauge approval ratings so far.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:27 am

Nomad;1128715 wrote: Thats the question. A simple poll to gauge approval ratings so far.

:(:(:(:(:(:(

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:35 am

oscar;1128742 wrote:

:(:(:(:(:(

What is it that makes you nervous ?

Kindle · Post by **Kindle** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:37 am

I'm on board, but cautious.

I really was relying on his doing exactly what he said he would. Bipartison actions, no lobbyists on his White House Staff. . . . . . I really, really wanted things to be different. After all, he did run on CHANGE.

But,

his cabinet now has 12 lobbyists - Yes it is a great decrease from what has been in the past, but he did not spout decrease, he said NONE.

His cabinet selections are being shown as people who believe themselves above the law. Four choices now have tax problems. This, at a time when we are asked to bail out so many failing ventures.................. The "common people" live into their responsibilities, Washington insiders do not.

The so called "stimulus" bill was created by the House Repuplicans despite President Obama's request for a bipartisan bill.

Comments regarding "I won". "The people elected me to do things differently". Well, that may or may not be true. Many, in fact most, did support a Dems program, but who knows who many (and do not call me a racist) voted for his color? You just have to remember the interviews at the inaguration to wonder if he had been a Republican, would they not have also cast their vote for him?????

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:49 am

Nomad;1128751 wrote: What is it that makes you nervous ?

He's American and he's a President :sneaky::sneaky:

Barman · Post by **Barman** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:52 am

Dunno but his wife is hot.

I thought this quite funny.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:05 am

oscar;1128758 wrote: He's American and he's a President :sneaky::sneaky:

Cant argue with that.

At least hes not an old white guy.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:07 am

oscar;1128758 wrote: He's American and he's a President :sneaky::sneaky:

you hate Americans.......

certainly is a better leader than gb!:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:17 am

Kindle;1128753 wrote: I'm on board, but cautious.

I really was relying on his doing exactly what he said he would. Bipartison actions, no lobbyists on his White House Staff. . . . . . I really, really wanted things to be different. After all, he did run on CHANGE.

But,

his cabinet now has 12 lobbyists - Yes it is a great decrease from what has been in the past, but he did not spout decrease, he said NONE.

His cabinet selections are being shown as people who believe themselves above the law. Four choices now have tax problems. This, at a time when we are asked to bail out so many failing ventures.................. The "common people" live into their responsibilities, Washington insiders do not.

The so called "stimulus" bill was created by the House Repuplicans despite President Obama's request for a bipartisan bill.

Comments regarding "I won". "The people elected me to do things differently". Well, that may or may not be true. Many, in fact most, did support a Dems program, but who knows who many (and do not call me a racist) voted for his color? You just have to remember the interviews at the inaguration to wonder if he had been a Republican, would they not have also cast their vote for him?????

I believe by bringing in opposites it keeps them close and under a watchful eye. Hes commited to bi partisanship and his actions have been aligned with his proclamations.

Hes brought a diversified group on board that is now working as one unit as opposed to us vs them.

Hes been clear and concice in his expectations and hes proving himself as a leader from the start line.

Blacks have traditionally voted Democrat. I cant speculate on what might have happened if he were a Republican.

I think assuming that is unjust and not based on any substantial evience.

Post by **Sunshine** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:25 am

It's all the bail outs that concern me. If the companys that are getting the funds in order to stay open are actually implementing a way to correct the cause for needing for the bail out in the first place, IMO, they will only just get themselfs out of debt for a short time and then it will begin again.

The auto industry here is in dire straits. So many workers are now unemployed and trying to live off of the benifits that are provided for by Unimployment insurance and suplimental pay. I know a few of these people and they are having to sell their homes in order to keep their heads above water. When the income is limited, the economy suffers as well which results in layoffs in the retail markets. It apears to me to be a no win situation. By the way, the housing market is in the pits and home sales are way down. The number of foreclosures is mind boggling!

It's going to be difficult to fix, what years of mismanagement has caused. Sad thing is that it is not the fault of the employees and they are the ones who are suffering.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:16 am

[quote=Sunshine;1128779]

It's going to be difficult to fix, what years of mismanagement has caused.

Funny thing is the ones that are screaming about the cost are the same ones that were aware of the situation before it fell apart. They were in a position to put the brakes on prior to a disaster. They say it couldnt have been predicted levees wouldnt break but it was predicted and warnings were given. McCain himself had concerns about the banking industry prior to the collapse. He was in a position to engage legislation.

There were all kinds of red flags and warnings being voiced.

Kindle · Post by **Kindle** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:25 am

[QUOTE=Nomad;1128809][quote=Sunshine;1128779]

It's going to be difficult to fix, what years of mismanagement has caused.

Funny thing is the ones that are screaming about the cost are the same ones that were aware of the situation before it fell apart. They were in a position to put the brakes on prior to a disaster. They say it couldnt have been predicted levees wouldnt break but it was predicted and warnings were given. McCain himself had concerns about the banking industry prior to the collapse. He was in a position to engage legislation.

There were all kinds of red flags and warnings being voiced.

That's hindsight now. CHANGE is what Obama ran on and supposely won on. People are now asking: Where's the change?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:36 am

Kindle;1128823 wrote: [quote=Nomad;1128809][quote=Sunshine;1128779]

It's going to be difficult to fix, what years of mismanagement has caused.

That's hindsight now. CHANGE is what Obama ran on and supposely won on. People are now asking: Where's the change?

Wow ! Hes been in for like 3 hrs.

For one he claimed his administration would be transparent.

Hes all over the place. Hes on tv live almost everyday. Hes talking with the news programs.

Thats definitely new and refreshing.

How many democrats were on Bushes administration ?

Thats change.

He going to actually have verbal dialogue with our enemies like it or not. Thats change.

Hes not a pompous paranoid ass. Thats change.

He got to work immediately and hes commanding action. Hes cutting through the bullshit. Thats change.

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:34 pm

Obama Has Be Handed A [ Handie Man's Special ] Plus The Good Old Boy's Aren't Going To Make It Eazyyyyyyyyyy For Him Repubican Are Standing Their ground . Can't You See The Writeing On The Wall's . Anybody Think Obama Going To Clean Up This Mess In 4 Years Are Living In A Dream World . Obama Himself Know Better Then That Himself . That's Why He Say Jump Start . Their No Quick Fix . The Power That Be Mess This Up Wayyyyyyyyyyyyy Before Obama . Keyword Here [ Handie Man's Special ] .

Kindle · Post by **Kindle** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:40 pm

President Obama's inexperience is showing now. He should have shown his leadership when the House began the process of writing the stimulus bill. He could have stoped Nancy from excluding the Republicans in the creation of this bill.

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:22 pm

Kindle;1128917 wrote: President Obama's inexperience is showing now. He should have shown his leadership when the House began the process of writing the stimulus bill. He could have stoped Nancy from excluding the Republicans in the creation of this bill.

From The Door It Wouldn't Matter Who Was Elected , Point The Finger Now To Late So Now Your Going Point The finger At Obama , It Was The So-Called Experience One Who Got Yall In The Mess In The First Place :wah::wah: Stop It :wah: If You Voted For Abama Thinking He Could Fix This Mess In Four Years Or Less That Says Lot About You . :wah::wah:

Keyword Read It Veryyyyyyyyyyyyy Slowly [ Handie Man's Special ]

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 4:48 pm

Stop the train NOW!

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:21 pm

Jester;1129142 wrote: Stop the train NOW!!!

:wah:

Why ?

You already jumped off.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:10 pm

Jester;1129263 wrote: Cause the trains is gonna crash, and take the rest of you with it. Our children will never pay off this spending bill. The socialism that results will destroy america just like it will the EU and just like it did Russia. Spending money on yourself when you have no way to pay it back will break anyone, and we cant just keep printing money...

If this passes, which it will, you can expect more unemployement and massive inflation and that will lead to depression- this bill will encourage depression, not stave of recession.

Its an emergency measure put in place to keep thousands of Americans working which will stimulate the economy. The economy will die (which clearly it hasnt as evidenced by all the cars you see on the freeway on their way to work every morning)

If people have jobs the machine keeps rolling. How can the machine function when everyone is collecting welfare ?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:38 pm

Jester;1129318 wrote: Please tell me how this Bill is going to keep people working and to what end? Please tell me how this Bill is going to create jobs, or even keep pace with the growing need for jobs?

As I stated in the other thread industries rely on other industries and workers rely on the jobs the industries provide.

Its not speculation, its fact. Companies are folding because the economy is strapped.

Bank of America the largest bank in the world (I think) is struggling. What do you think happens when they fold ?

The economy will become a vast wasteland for real.

Everyone will suffer. EVERYONE.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:52 pm

Jester;1129333 wrote: There are hundreds of companies that did not borrow, and or speculate with those bad banks and they are waiting the wings to own vast amounts of these folding companies, let them fold and be bought out and lets start over.

Not every bank is gonna shut down, the money will change hands, and fewer will be in control but someone has to control the money, I dont want that to be a socialized government, that will kill every entrepanuer in the US. Do you want to be the owenr of or work for a private company competing with a government string controlled industry? The government will just pass laws that allow thier comanies to flourish- it means the end of private industry, creativity, competition... you will KILL the american market. Its called monopoly and when the government controlls every market it will ruin any chance of a free market.

No. I completely disagree. In my mind thats really extremist thinking.

Capitalism isnt going away. And Obama is only asking for caps on the companies that are close to collapsing, not the ones that just need a boost. Its our money hes giving them so he damn sure better hold them accountable. It would be mind blowing if they werent.

If the small banks cant borrow from the Banks of America then yes it will all cave in.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:54 pm

Jester;1129338 wrote: And pish posh on the 'collapseing economies', I dont believe it at all, its a scare tactic to advance the huge socialized agenda of the democrats...

If all of the american car companies folded tomorrow, there would be expansion by the imports, it woudlnt take long. Most of those jobs would be absorbed unless of course those foolish union workers refuse to give up thier jobs and stand at picket lines crying foul.

Jester ! The imports are suffering too.

Theyre in the same boat as we are.

Its all connected !

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:09 pm

Jester;1129349 wrote: But bud if there wasnt an glut of car companies on the market we woudlnt be in this situation would we, with only the imports left (god forbid) then the market share might be viable.

I say instead of bailing out domestic companies lets ban imports cars, and give the edge to our markets. Now theres an idea.

We ban imports and they ban farmers products and our other exports. The world doesnt survive like that.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:21 pm

Jester;1129357 wrote: Well at some point we need to take care of our own first...

Thats my whole point Jest.

Kindle · Post by **Kindle** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:22 am

[QUOTE=Jester;1129263]...... and we cant just keep printing money... QUOTE]

The US does not print the money it needs, it borrows it --- from China, India, Russia.......

The problem that concerns many Americans with this is that these countries don't like us very much.

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:46 am

Senators Seek Stimulus Cuts as Obama Warns of Economic â€œCatastropheâ€

Senators Seek Stimulus Cuts as Obama Warns of Economic â€œCatastropheâ€

A bipartisan group of senators is seeking to cut at least $80 billion from President Obamaâ€™s $900 billion economic stimulus plan. Most of the cuts would come to education spending, including $40 billion for state programs. President Obama, meanwhile, has intensified his push for Senate approval. Speaking before Energy Department employees, Obama warned of â€œcatastropheâ€ if the stimulus bill isnâ€™t passed.

President Obama: â€œIf we do not move swiftly to sign the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law, an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with catastrophe. This is not my assessment. This is not Nancy Pelosiâ€™s assessment. This is the assessment of the best economists in the country."

Obama Signs Child Health Insurance Expansion

Obama, meanwhile, has signed into law an expansion of government health insurance for low-income children, following congressional approval last month. The $33 billion expansion of the State Childrenâ€™s Health Insurance Program will be funded in part by a tax increase on cigarette packs. Former President George W. Bush twice vetoed similar measures.

Probe: Govt. Bailout Exceeded Market Value of Firmsâ€™ Stocks, Assets

A congressional investigation has found the Bush administration overpaid tens of billions of dollars in its purchase of bank stocks and assets under the Wall Street bailout. The Congressional Oversight Panel says the government received assets with a market value worth at least $78 billion less than what it invested. That translates to a roughly thirty-cent loss for every dollar the government spent.

Jobless Benefits at 26-Year High

The number of American workers filing for new unemployment benefits has hit a twenty-six-year high. Claims for state unemployment insurance rose by 35,000 last week, to 626,000.

Madoff Whistleblower Faults SEC for Ignoring Warnings

The key whistleblower in the Bernie Madoff fraud case has criticized government regulators for ignoring repeated warnings. Harry Markopolos told lawmakers he began warning Securities and Exchange Commission officials about Madoff in 2000. Markopolos said the SEC didnâ€™t take action in large part because of incompetence and deference to financial interests. He said, â€œI gift-wrapped and delivered the largest Ponzi scheme to them.â€ Markopolos also criticized the Wall Street Journal for failing to pick up the story. He said Wall Street Journal editors apparently refused to let a senior reporter follow the story after Markopolos had tipped him off.

For More Information / Facts Go To Democracy Now.org

pinkchick · Post by **pinkchick** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:19 am

I'm watching President Obama with interest

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:30 am

I find it interesting (well - infuriating might be a better word) that as my rights as a smoker decrease, I am expected to pay for programs that my children and I will probably never use.

Do you really need to add another .62 to every pack of cigarettes? Seems to me that a .01 or .02 tax on something that EVERYONE uses would hurt less and make more money.

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:36 pm

LilacDragon;1129603 wrote: I find it interesting (well - infuriating might be a better word) that as my rights as a smoker decrease, I am expected to pay for programs that my children and I will probably never use.

Do you really need to add another .62 to every pack of cigarettes? Seems to me that a .01 or .02 tax on something that EVERYONE uses would hurt less and make more money.

Almost Everything One Buy As Today / Yesterday / 8 Years Ago Etc Has Some Fourm Of Tax On It . Any Way They Know They Can Sell Cigarettes $ 10 . 00 A Pack And People Will Still Buy Them , Because They Can't Help Themselves .

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:11 am

pinkchick;1129542 wrote: I'm watching President Obama with binoculars

Thats a little creepy and you could get into trouble.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:14 am

LilacDragon;1129603 wrote: I find it interesting (well - infuriating might be a better word) that as my rights as a smoker decrease, I am expected to pay for programs that my children and I will probably never use.

Do you really need to add another .62 to every pack of cigarettes? Seems to me that a .01 or .02 tax on something that EVERYONE uses would hurt less and make more money.

Taxpayers subsidize health care. Smokers and their illnesses are one of the biggest drains on the system.

Non smokers would probably rather not have to pay for your lung cancer.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:54 am

Nomad;1136172 wrote: Taxpayers subsidize health care. Smokers and their illnesses are one of the biggest drains on the system.

Non smokers would probably rather not have to pay for your lung cancer.

Thanks for that Nomad.

Do you happen to have some figures to support your little theory? And could you please include the numbers for the money spent on illegal aliens and welfare moms. Seems to me that is a bit larger number then all of the smokers.

In the last 10 years - I have called in sick to work exactly 0 times. Far fewer then my NON smoking counterparts. My children AND pets are healthy also.

Smoking is not a requirement for lung cancer either - just a couple of years ago Christopher Reeve's wife passed away from lung cancer and she had never smoked a day in her life.

I pay my taxes - and usually do so without complaint - but I am disgusted that while my privileges dwindle and I am allowed to smoke in fewer and fewer places, the government is perfectly happy to take yet more of my money to pay for something that I don't take advantage of.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:57 am

LilacDragon;1136222 wrote: Thanks for that Nomad.

Do you happen to have some figures to support your little theory? And could you please include the numbers for the money spent on illegal aliens and welfare moms. Seems to me that is a bit larger number then all of the smokers.

In the last 10 years - I have called in sick to work exactly 0 times. Far fewer then my NON smoking counterparts. My children AND pets are healthy also.

Smoking is not a requirement for lung cancer either - just a couple of years ago Christopher Reeve's wife passed away from lung cancer and she had never smoked a day in her life.

I pay my taxes - and usually do so without complaint - but I am disgusted that while my privileges dwindle and I am allowed to smoke in fewer and fewer places, the government is perfectly happy to take yet more of my money to pay for something that I don't take advantage of.

Thats not a personal attack, blunt and factual but not an attack. Ill find some figures for you.

And what do illegal aliens and Mr. Reeves wife have to do with smokers burdens on taxpayers ?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:59 am

Five years after all current smokers who receive Medicaid benefits quit smoking, program expenditures would be an estimated $9.7 billion lower, according to a new report by researchers at RTI International.

The report, funded by the American Legacy Foundation, found that Medicaid expenditures attributable to current smokers account for 5.6 percent of total national Medicaid expenditures.

"Reducing the number of smokers in the United States could save taxpayers billions of dollars in Medicaid costs," said Justin Trogdon, Ph.D., an RTI health economist. "Policy makers looking for ways to reduce health care costs in America would be wise to look at areas of health behaviors that both improve health and reduce health care costs."

According to the research, New York smokers top the list, costing Medicaid $1.5 billion each year. Wyoming had the least Medicaid expenditures due to current smokers, but they still cost the program $15 million each year. The report showed that North Carolinians who smoke cost Medicaid $294 million each year.

The researchers also looked at the cost of Medicaid over the lifetime of 24-year-old smokers because nearly all smokers begin smoking before age 24.

"The benefits of preventing smoking initiation accrue over a longer time horizon," Trogdon said. "Life-cycle estimates are important in gauging the long-term impact of youth smoking prevention on state Medicaid programs. These estimates take into account the differences in life expectancy for smokers and nonsmokers as well as payments into the Medicaid system by smokers."

"This study underscores the need for strong and effective smoking prevention and cessation campaigns," said Cheryl G. Healton, Dr. PH, president and CEO of the American Legacy Foundation. "We hope that this report will serve as a tool for states to use when setting both long- and short-term goals for reducing Medicaid expenditures associated with tobacco use."

Women smokers more costly

The results showed that, over the course of their lifetime, today's 24-year-old smokers will cost Medicaid almost $1 billion. However, most of those costs are due to female smokers, not males.

The researchers found that over the course of their lifetime, tax payments by young male smokers make up for most of their extra Medicaid expenditures from smoking, but the expenditures for female smokers cost Medicaid about $1,300 per person.

This impact is highest in Texas, where the lifetime costs of 24-year old smokers to Medicaid is estimated to be $125 million. In North Carolina, those costs are expected to reach almost $37 million.

"The lifetime costs of young smokers are for one cohort of 24-year-olds," Trogdon said. "Every year a new group of young people will turn 24. Based on these findings, preventing and reducing youth smoking, especially among females, could lower Medicaid costs by billions of dollars."

The research is based on data from the 2000 through 2004 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:05 am

Interesting.

Would LOVE to see the numbers for money spent on illegals in this country.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:11 am

LilacDragon;1136242 wrote: Interesting.

Would LOVE to see the numbers for money spent on illegals in this country.

Thats a deflection from the conversation. Two entirely seperate issues.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:18 am

Nomad;1136172 wrote: Taxpayers subsidize health care. Smokers and their illnesses are one of the biggest drains on the system.

Non smokers would probably rather not have to pay for your lung cancer.

When you make this statement it is NOT a deflection of the conversation and it is pertinent to the conversation.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:34 am

LilacDragon;1136270 wrote: When you make this statement it is NOT a deflection of the conversation and it is pertinent to the conversation.

Unless were talking about illegal aliens that smoke.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:44 am

LilacDragon;1136242 wrote: Interesting.

Would LOVE to see the numbers for money spent on illegals in this country.

Immigration Counters.com - Live Counters, News, Resources, Facts