Obama - Has your opinion changed?

Koggit

Koggit

CAGiversary!
Feedback
3 (100%)
We've had a couple of these since he took office. My response has always been "I thought he'd do great when I voted for him, and I've been satisfied so far."


But lately my opinion's started to shift. He's just not getting anything done. I feel like he's far too politically courteous. He wants everything to be bipartisan, he cares too much about pleasing everyone.


Look, yeah, it's hard to get results in Washington, but it's impossible if you're afraid of stepping on some toes. I feel like Obama's exceptionally rational and has a great understanding of what this country needs, but he isn't willing to plow through his opposition to get it done, and in our system, that means it will never get done. He needs to grow some balls and start slapping the GOP around or my 2012 vote is up in the air.
 
He said taxes wouldn't raised for anybody making less than $250,000, yet my brother (who makes around $40-50k) has already been socked for another $700 from the feds.
 
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']He said taxes wouldn't raised for anybody making less than $250,000, yet my brother (who makes around $40-50k) has already been socked for another $700 from the feds.[/QUOTE]


Anecdotal arguments rock! I also got an extra 1,200 back because of a lot of Obama's new tax policies so I guess we are at a stale mate here than eh?
 
No, I was fully aware of his nature and anticipated his attitude. He is a thinking person and I know it is hard for America to accept that.

I have been shocked (God knows why) at the utter reprehensible behavior of the GOP toward him. They are acting like children who don't have any understanding of what it means to have lost. The amount of lying, pettiness, name-calling, whining, hypocrisy, quiet racism coming out of those guys is beyond reproach.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think I'm looking at Thursday too. If nothing comes of it and all the same shit goes down concerning health care then I'll be in the "I like him, but wtf is he doing?" crowd.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Thursday will decide if I agree with you or not.[/QUOTE]

Thursday is a dog-and-pony show. The Democrats will have already decided what they are going to do by then and will be looking for a bipartisan veneer to shield them from the inevitable public backlash should they force through a highly unpopular plan. The Republicans will show up and repeat their talking points. Nothing will be accomplished except for possibly PR victories.

[quote name='gareman']Anecdotal arguments rock! I also got an extra 1,200 back because of a lot of Obama's new tax policies so I guess we are at a stale mate here than eh?[/QUOTE]

No tax increases for ANYONE earning under $250,000, and he presents the fact that someone got their taxes raised who makes less than that amount. What anecdote? He didn't claim that everyone got their taxes increased.
 
Not really. I knew it would be a long, slow process to make any real change and if he got even 10% of his agenda threw during his term he'd be lucky.

I've been disappointed with somethings like extending wire taps and other things on that front, but then again he voted for FISA while he was still in the senate, so know huge surprise.
 
I knew he would be disappointing when I voted for him, but I didn't think he'd be THIS disappointing. "Healthcare reform" was a joke, he sent it out to die. Guantanamo is still open. No help with gay rights. He has gotten absolutely nothing done, but I suppose it is better than the alternative.
 
Dude, I am as pissed as anyone at what happened during healthcare fight (although I still believe something will pull through) but there isn't anything he can technically do to force the senate to get its act together.

As for Guantanamo don't pull a Bob on us, it isn't Obama's fault that Republicans were able to convince people that terrorists have super powers and no mortal jail can contain them.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Thursday is a dog-and-pony show. The Democrats will have already decided what they are going to do by then and will be looking for a bipartisan veneer to shield them from the inevitable public backlash should they force through a highly unpopular plan. The Republicans will show up and repeat their talking points. Nothing will be accomplished except for possibly PR victories.[/QUOTE]

Weren't you one of the folks throwing a fit because the debate wasn't going to be televised? Now it is and you still ain't happy?
 
I agree with usickenme about Obama, that he is a cool and calculating president, with the traits I find most desirable in a leader.

But Congress... Oh my opinion has changed. It went from lazy flange to a hornet's nest. Both sides have a majority of whiny babies, and the change I once believed in goes here to die.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Weren't you one of the folks throwing a fit because the debate wasn't going to be televised? Now it is and you still ain't happy?[/QUOTE]
I believe ellpee is also on record as stating that the window on this has long since closed.
 
I don't follow politics closely (at all), can anyone list what's been accomplished good and bad in the past 13 months?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']


No tax increases for ANYONE earning under $250,000, and he presents the fact that someone got their taxes raised who makes less than that amount. What anecdote? He didn't claim that everyone got their taxes increased.[/QUOTE]


Except he gave no direct causation that his brother's taxes went up because of anything Obama did. My friend's taxes went up because he has a daughter and him and the mother of his child alternate years claiming the daughter as a dependent. My friend doesn't make more than 250k a year and this year his taxes went up is that a sound argument against Obama?
 
I had hope Obama could change things. Gitmo is still there. All of the money funneling into Iraq has been shifted to Afghanistan. All that spying on innocent people like US is still going on. I could mention the economy, but do you want a picture of the Titantic or a B-22 bomber in a flaming tailspin?

IF McCain had been elected, he would be dead now from "natural" causes or, possibly, Murthaed. Palin would have taken offense to Putin referring her as a "retard" and either mykevermin and me would be marching on the Eastern hemisphere or I'd be playing Fallout 0 in real life.
 
[quote name='gareman']Except he gave no direct causation that his brother's taxes went up because of anything Obama did. My friend's taxes went up because he has a daughter and him and the mother of his child alternate years claiming the daughter as a dependent. My friend doesn't make more than 250k a year and this year his taxes went up is that a sound argument against Obama?[/QUOTE]

Actually I have two supporting tidbits.

1) Said brother made less in 2009 than he did in 2008.
2) Said brother now gets to claim his son as a dependent for the first time ever.

Result: Taxes are $700 higher for 2009 than they were for 2008. In the old days I suppose you could blame Congress, but wait, didn't the democrats have a majority?

[quote name='gareman']Anecdotal arguments rock! I also got an extra 1,200 back because of a lot of Obama's new tax policies so I guess we are at a stale mate here than eh?[/QUOTE]

Somebody's robbing Peter to pay Paul, but you expected that right?
 
Everyone gave me a ton of shit for voting for Hillary in the primary, but honestly I feel I made the right decision. I still feel that she would have been a better president and done more to get shit moving in the right direction. Obama's problem is that he didn't do enough shit in his first 100 days to move forward with a strong presidency. He should have showed people that he was the change guy from the start.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']Everyone gave me a ton of shit for voting for Hillary in the primary, but honestly I feel I made the right decision. I still feel that she would have been a better president and done more to get shit moving in the right direction. Obama's problem is that he didn't do enough shit in his first 100 days to move forward with a strong presidency. He should have showed people that he was the change guy from the start.[/QUOTE]

I would have voted for Hillary if my primary had taken place earlier. But by the time the Rhode Island primary came along, she was already beginning her full-blown implosion mode where she really looked like an ass.
 
Much more-so now than during the primaries, I'm glad she isn't president, in hindsight I definitely think the dems made the right choice favoring Obama... I suspect she'd have shown more balls when it came to health care but she just doesn't seem calm enough for the job
 
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']Actually I have two supporting tidbits.

1) Said brother made less in 2009 than he did in 2008.
2) Said brother now gets to claim his son as a dependent for the first time ever.

Result: Taxes are $700 higher for 2009 than they were for 2008. In the old days I suppose you could blame Congress, but wait, didn't the democrats have a majority?[/QUOTE]

do you not realize your argument is flawed or do you realize and not care?

find out (and explain) why he paid more. taxes depend on a lot of different factors, it's more likely that it was due to a change in brother's life (or type of income) than it was due to change in federal tax rates. without showing any evidence that it's the latter, everyone's gonna assume it's the former and consider your point moot, because the fed income tax rate was lowered.

the accurate way to gauge the effect of obama's changes would be to tally what he would've owed with this year's IRS filing under last year's rates. if he filed last year what he filed this year, i'm willing to bet he'd have been taxed more than he was this year.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Weren't you one of the folks throwing a fit because the debate wasn't going to be televised? Now it is and you still ain't happy?[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't say I "threw a fit," but yes, it's always disappointing to see promises broken. And this isn't the real debate that's going to be televised. The debate that matters has been happening behind closed doors with Obama/Emanuel/Reid/Pelosi/etc for weeks on how to reconcile the House/Senate bills and pass them. Like I said, Thursday will be merely a recitation of talking points by both sides, more or less talking past each other. I would be shocked to hear differently.
 
[quote name='gareman']Except he gave no direct causation that his brother's taxes went up because of anything Obama did. My friend's taxes went up because he has a daughter and him and the mother of his child alternate years claiming the daughter as a dependent. My friend doesn't make more than 250k a year and this year his taxes went up is that a sound argument against Obama?[/QUOTE]

Perhaps he could elaborate.

EDIT: d'oh, he did elaborate.
 
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']He said taxes wouldn't raised for anybody making less than $250,000, yet my brother (who makes around $40-50k) has already been socked for another $700 from the feds.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']1) Said brother made less in 2009 than he did in 2008.
2) Said brother now gets to claim his son as a dependent for the first time ever.
[/quote]
The child tax credit is worth $1000, but he only paid $2,500 on $40k in '08 anyway. In order for him to have to pay $700 more in '09, he would have to have an additional liability of $1,700, or 68% of his total tax liability on $40k.

Not to mention the stimulus tax cut that Obama signed. That money musta just plum walked the fuck out the door.

Either there is an income that he isn't copping to or he dipped into tax deferred accounts, both of which have nothing to do with the feds. There's no way on this earth his taxes have gone up year over year if he makes that money *and* got a dependent.

Impossible.
 
@elprincipe
thats not really fair, gareman posted that before Indigo posted that second bit. Although I'm not sure I don't see a direct correlation with anything Obama did.
 
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']Actually I have two supporting tidbits.

1) Said brother made less in 2009 than he did in 2008.
2) Said brother now gets to claim his son as a dependent for the first time ever.

Result: Taxes are $700 higher for 2009 than they were for 2008. In the old days I suppose you could blame Congress, but wait, didn't the democrats have a majority?



Somebody's robbing Peter to pay Paul, but you expected that right?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, there is something off about that. As Koggit mentioned above. There is no way the only variables is that he made LESS and now has a dependent...and had to pay more. That makes no sense whatsoever. I am willing to bet he had something he's not accounting for perhaps tax credits last year and not this year or someone screwed up his taxes this year or last year.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I wouldn't say I "threw a fit," but yes, it's always disappointing to see promises broken. And this isn't the real debate that's going to be televised. The debate that matters has been happening behind closed doors with Obama/Emanuel/Reid/Pelosi/etc for weeks on how to reconcile the House/Senate bills and pass them. Like I said, Thursday will be merely a recitation of talking points by both sides, more or less talking past each other. I would be shocked to hear differently.[/QUOTE]

You are so full of it.

Always have been always will be.

Obama can't force Republicans to not act like spoiled children.
 
I voted for Hillary Clinton via write-in in the general election, so my opinion of Obama(never had one)hasn't changed.

Now if he could actually get universal health care somehow passed(not with the fuckin' greedmongers in Congress who're in the back pockets of the insurance companies:roll:)where I wouldn't have to pay a damn dime to see a doctor, THEN I might get an opinion on him.

Till then, my opinion bout the system in the US as a whole is this:)razz:), followed by a big ol' thumbs down.
 
Before he took office I thought
23st76b.gif

My opinion hasn't had reason to change much. Same movie, different actors.

Then again, I'm one of those nutters that believes nothing will get better until we do things like cut Federal spending by 50%. Anything less than that is more of the same.

I also have to throw my hat in the circle with those that say if Obama was really a man of principle that truly believed he knew what was best for the country, he wouldn't care about bipartisanship. Doing what you believe is right doesn't get filtered by popularity - that's what a leader is. This only reinforces that reelection is more important than his principles.
 
If a President stood on principle, he would never sign a single bill, because not one of them is going to be just what he wants. Its going to be loaded down/sabotaged with crap from the other party or from moderates in your own party.

I can get on board that everything is more of the same, but until we repeal the Reagan tax cuts.

What if one of your principles that you campaigned on WAS bipartisanship? Then he is different in that he is a remarkable fool for wanting to work with the other side. When he campaigned on it, I wanted that part to be a lie, as its supposed to be. I'm disappointed that he didnt lie to us.
 
I get the leader thing, but Congress is supposed to pass legislation and it's supposed to be a democracy here. His job as a leader should be to frame the legislation, and present his ideas to both Congress and the people. There's supposed to be bipartisanship and compromise as it's supposed to be a conversation between reasonable individuals.

Maybe that's idealistic, but I'm not going to blame the president for Congress' problems. He needs to take a more active role, which is hopefully what this thing on Thursday will involve, but he shouldn't be shoving things down other people's throats because he personally believes in them. I don't think that's what a person with principles does.
 
I also meant Congress. For the first time in a long time, the majority of power in Washington all held the same ideology. And not only did they get nothing done, but they all still blame the minority party for not being able to pass what they wanted.

It makes no sense when one dilutes oneself for a moment into thinking these politicians really believe they know what's best for the country and want to get it done.

It makes perfect sense when you think about reelections.
 
My views on Obama have naturally changed since going in I didn't really have much of an opinion ;) Going into the elections/coming out of the elections I voted for him because I had hope he MIGHT change things. Might is the keyword there though, I had hope that he just might be different...just might be sincere. That said while I had that hope I didnt expect anything, I knew chances are he would end up being just another politician...but knew he was a better shot at being genuine then anyone but Ron Paul.

Now my opinion on the man is still conflicted. He is either a master chess player who is perfect at pretending he cares and is trying but really is just another big corporate interests owned politician....or he does really care and really is trying....but as others have said is just too damn much of a bipartisan/cant we all get alone/hope sap.

Either way its not a good thing to be. If he does honestly care about the American people and does honestly want to change things then its time he comes out with some fire. Bring some anger to the table, get the American people riled up about things the way Republicans do...just unlike the Republicans do it by telling the truth! Tell the American people the hard truths they dont want to hear but need to hear, hold debates and use that big brain to freaking dominate your opponets who talk from their ass...and just in general as I said right off the bat....tell the truth.

As for the tax situation im calling BS on your brother paying more less something big changed for the worse. I was just talking with several family members that make around that amount about how everyone got more back this year. So I question that he either filed his taxes properly or that he is telling the truth(or that you are).
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Perhaps we are headed into a mode of constant campaigning for our government. Nothing will get done and nothing will change.[/QUOTE]

We're definitely their, the 24 hour news cycle all about assures that.

It's near impossible to get anything done without a gigantic super majority.

You need 60 votes to get anything through the senate, and that's hard without a giant majority as there will always be contrary people in each party that object to each bill (i.e. the blue dogs for the dems) etc.

And with the constant election cycle, they aren't willing to try to ram stuff through with reconciliation etc. as they don't want to risk the fallout.

The system is just set up to make change nearly impossible. It's good from the standpoint of having a stable system of government and laws etc. It's bad as it makes it hard to make changes as the world changes.
 
[quote name='IRHari']@elprincipe
thats not really fair, gareman posted that before Indigo posted that second bit. Although I'm not sure I don't see a direct correlation with anything Obama did.[/QUOTE]

Wasn't meant as a criticism (the d'oh was at myself for not reading the whole thing before replying).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I also meant Congress. For the first time in a long time, the majority of power in Washington all held the same ideology.[/QUOTE]

That's not really fair. Sure, Democrats have had a majority in both houses and the presidency, but surely you've noticed the huge divisions, particularly on fiscal issues, within the Democratic Party itself? Blue Dogs, New Democrats, Progressives? They may share a party, but on some issues ideologically they are a fair distance apart. That's why so many Democrats are voting against their party's bills (for example, 44 Democrats voted against cap and trade in the House, and so many are against it in the Senate it won't even come to the floor).
 
I liked that cash for clunkers program, he created that didn't he? A LOT of people hated it however, because some good cars were going to waste, but i think it will be good for conserving fuel and less air pollution... I think that's about it... Oh and the new home buyer's tax credit was decent
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']The majority of power in Washington has held the same ideology for about 30 years now - corporatism.[/QUOTE]

I can't argue with that.
 
[quote name='Koggit']do you not realize your argument is flawed or do you realize and not care?

find out (and explain) why he paid more. taxes depend on a lot of different factors, it's more likely that it was due to a change in brother's life (or type of income) than it was due to change in federal tax rates. without showing any evidence that it's the latter, everyone's gonna assume it's the former and consider your point moot, because the fed income tax rate was lowered.

the accurate way to gauge the effect of obama's changes would be to tally what he would've owed with this year's IRS filing under last year's rates. if he filed last year what he filed this year, i'm willing to bet he'd have been taxed more than he was this year.[/QUOTE]

You assume I want to make an air-tight argument against Obama, the guy I voted for. ;) You're free to take it as hearsay. However, if you wish to investigate this further, you might want to consider what other factors were grandiose enough to result in a net tax increase despite the decease of work income and the claiming of a dependent. The only other factor that comes to mind is that he had gambling winnings of about $5000, but he was also able to demonstrate a gambling loss in excess of $5000.

Said brother has no riverfront investments, stock, or interest-yielding bank accounts. So maybe you could explain to me some of these other variables which don't apply to my brother's situation, and then once we've exhausted those, we could get back to the observation that his taxes increased when Savior Obama promised that no working class American's taxes would be increased. Since we've got the Lincoln pennies out and are ready to save the union all over again, shouldn't we be able to bank on his promises all the way to the IRS?

P.S. Also my state (MD) has a piggyback tax and while I'm not up on all the flimflam that the leeches use to lower certain rates while raising others, I would still blame Obama by proxity since we're a Democratic state which should, by definition, share a direct mental link with Obama.

Disclaimer: @gareman it is entirely possible that my brother or someone involved in his taxes screwed something up. However, even our friend who is a hardcore democrat cannot argue with my brother's belief that Obama robbed us of approximately 75 pizzas for our game nights. Any way you look at it, you've got to agree that hits closes to home.
 
[quote name='poker360']I liked that cash for clunkers program, he created that didn't he? A LOT of people hated it however, because some good cars were going to waste, but i think it will be good for conserving fuel and less air pollution... I think that's about it... Oh and the new home buyer's tax credit was decent[/QUOTE]

It's interesting that you mention the clunkers program, for I've got another bit of hearsay to go along with that. In my area certain dealerships went belly-up while sporting great big "Thanks Obama" signs--something to do with the clunkers program helping out dealerships who contributed to the Democratic party while shunning those who did not. I'll have to look it up to see if there's any truth in the icing...
 
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']It's interesting that you mention the clunkers program, for I've got another bit of hearsay to go along with that. In my area certain dealerships went belly-up while sporting great big "Thanks Obama" signs--something to do with the clunkers program helping out dealerships who contributed to the Democratic party while shunning those who did not. I'll have to look it up to see if there's any truth in the icing...[/QUOTE]
How exactly would a government program that paid based on consumer choices act in a way that steered money towards a party's donors?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top