Osama bin Laden is dead, GM is alive and 23 million people ar looking for work

I love Joe Biden and his ability to convey a big message succintly. When asked the question “are you better off now than you were 4 years ago”? He did not stammer nor studder like some Democratic operatives (Gov. Martin O’Malley), he said, “Osama bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.” That’s great, but there are still 23 million Americans unemployed or under-employed and that’s a problem. When the president speaks Thursday I want to hear him not only tout the accomplishments of his tenure, but I want to hear a plan for the unemployed. Osama bin Laden is dead and GM is alive is great bumper sticker ink, but that does not put a chicken in every pot.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

Comments

  • Spanish Inquisitor  On September 4, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    Obama does have a plan, and he’s spent the last 3 1/2 years trying to implement it, but the Republicans have made it their strategy for the 2012 election to defeat whatever he proposes, regardless of whether it has merit or not, simply for the good of the Republican party, (which by implication means that their strategy is definitely NOT designed for the good of the country, which borders on treason in my eyes.)

    For example:
    1. Republicans filibustered a bill that stopped tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.
    2. They filibustered Senate Bill 1723 to put teachers, police and firefighters back to work, and Senate Bill 1769, the Rebuild American Jobs Act which would have put 2-3 million back to work,
    3. At the same time, they voted, 33 times to repeal Obamacare, knowing it was a futile gesture. Why are they allowed to collect their paychecks, one might ask? Don’t they have to actually accomplish something?

    If you want to read Obama’s plan, it’s easy. A simple Google search brought this up.

    Ezra Klein also wrote on the comparison of Obama and Romney’s plans on The Washington Post.

    • Bill  On September 4, 2012 at 7:21 pm

      SI, for you to lament that the president spent the last three and one half years TRYING to implement his plan but has been thwarted by the Republicans sound pretty pathetic. You sound like a ten year old kid who plays pee wee football and whines that every time that he attempts to run the football into the end zone, the players on the opposing team make it their strategy to obstruct his efforts. Of course they obstruct his efforts because the goal of the opponent is counter to his.

      Leaders are employed to find solutions to problems and implement strategies to overcome opposition. Of course the Republicans have thwarted much of what this president has attempted because they are the opposition party and they embrace a different vision for moving the country forward. There is nothing new about that. If you recall Bill Clinton’s tenure, the opposition party was staunchly opposed to many of his initiatives. But Bill Clinton possesses leadership skills and he figured out ways to advance his agenda in the face of opposition. We are paying the price for hiring a totally inexperienced neophyte who proffered absolutely no evidence of any experience in his life that would have prepared him for the position.

      • Spanish Inquisitor  On September 4, 2012 at 10:17 pm

        Are you serious Bill? Are you seriously trying to equate the process of legislating for the good of Americans with a football game?

        Ok, let’s go with your metaphor for a moment.

        What Dems and Republicans have done historically is what you are describing. Vigorously opposing legislation on intellectual grounds, and using reason and rhetoric to convince a majority of legislators to agree with their viewpoints, and in the process combine with the majority to vote for or against proposed legislation. Yes. Now the metaphor fits.

        That’s not what has happened though, is it? Republicans don’t even allow a vote to occur, nor do they attempt to convince a majority of legislators to take their side. What they do is filibuster so that even legislation that has merit doesn’t get heard, or voted on. They block discussion, they block votes, they discourage true oppositional vigor between the parties, for the sole purpose of saying, later, the President is ineffective.

        A proper football analogy would be this: whenever the opposing team got the ball, they’d steal it and hide it, effectively stopping the game from continuing, followed by them running off the field and calling a press conference to blame the other team for not being able to come up with a new ball.

        Leaders are employed to find solutions to problems and implement strategies to overcome opposition.

        Explain to me how one overcomes a filibuster? Seriously. I want to know. 250 filibusters during the Obama administration, (a record by the way), is a pretty huge “opposition” to “overcome”. My understanding of parliamentary procedure is that it is impossible.

        So. Obama should be kicked out of office because he was unable to perform the impossible? You have some pretty high standards there, Bill. My guess is that no one could meet them, and anyone in office would fail.

        We are paying the price for hiring a totally inexperienced neophyte …

        … who we should replace with another totally inexperienced neophyte.

        Wait! You’re going to tell me that Romney has experience as the President to the United States? And that Obama’s experience as a community organizer, Constitutional Law scholar and US Senator is not the type of experience you mean, but 4 years as Governor is?

        Spare me.

  • LadyLee  On September 4, 2012 at 3:02 pm

    I don’t see how either party is going to snap their fingers and correct all of these problems, whether it be in 4 years, 8 years or 20 years. Sorry, but that’s a pipe dream.

    I agree with Spanish Inquisitor. I thought it was just me, but if you pay close attention, the Republicans have been hell bent on making sure they don’t cooperate and that the President has a hard time implementing plans.

    I hope the Democratic convention is better than the Republican convention. I think they will be speaking more to all of America. At least I hope so.

    I still haven’t heard a plan from the Republicans. Maybe I missed it. I was too caught up in the other speakers touting their own records and preparing for 2016. And Eastwood throught me way off. And all the half-truths… Let’s not even talk about that. It was all way too confusing.

    The conventions are one thing, but the debates… that’s where the gist of everything should come out. I am waiting for the debates to get a clearer picture.

  • Okey  On September 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    S.I. HAS SPOKEN MY MIND. MY INTENTION IS NOT TO IMPROVE ON WHAT HE SAID, FOR HE HAS CAPTURED IT ALL. SAVE EQUALLY, THAT AS AN OUTSIDER (NIGERIAN) I DO KNOW THAT THE GEORGE BUSH YEARS HAD NEGATIVE RIPPLE EFFECT ON THE REST OF THE WORLD, BECAUSE, WHEN AMERICA SNEEZES, THE WORLD CATCHES COLD.

    DOWN HERE IN AFRICA, OUR ECONOMIES WERE SO BADLY AFFECTED BY GEORGE BUSH’S AMERICA THAT IT WILL TAKE US DECADES TO FIX. MY TAKE, THEREFORE, IS THAT IT WILL BE GROSSLY UNFAIR TO EXPECT ANY AMERICAN PRESIDENT TO CLEAR THE BUSHY MESS JUST IN 4 YEARS. MORE SO WITH AN ALMOST ENTIRE LEGISLATURE THAT SAW ITS PRESIDENT AS AN ALIEN AND EMPLOYED THE PULL-HIM-DOWN (PHD) STRATEGY MEASURES TO HAMSTRING THEIR PRESIDENT FROM RENDERING MAXIMUM SERVICE TO THEIR PEOPLE.

    WHAT I SEE AS TRAGEDY THEREFORE IS PERCEIVED INABILITY OF AMERICANS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE HARE AND THE HOUND. IN THIS WISE AND SADLY, NOVEMBER 2012 WILL BE DECIDED BY SKIN COLOUR AND NO MORE.

  • hoping4astory  On September 4, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    What would help is if the congress really cared about the American people instead of getting reelected.

  • Bill  On September 5, 2012 at 1:17 am

    SI, Romney has had vast experiences as an executive which means holding a position where he was accountable for measurable objective outcomes. Community organizer, constitutional law instructor (not scholar) and state and U.S. senator, not so much.

    So now he’s had executive responsibility as president for which he has not been prepared and he ain’ doin’ so good. You see the probably for him is the performance is objectively measurable. Spin all he wants to, he can’t hide from the numbers.

    • Spanish Inquisitor  On September 5, 2012 at 1:56 pm

      Running the government is not the same thing as running a private company, by any means. But lets assume it’s good work experience for running a government. Exactly what is there about being a community organizer, law professor and US Senator that disqualifies him? We’ve had lots of Presidents with similar experiences, some good some bad. Truman was a haberdasher. Most historians consider him one of the top three president’s in our history. Wilson was a college professor. His historical reputation is so-so. In truth, there is NO experience that prepares anyone for being President because it is a unique, singular job. If anything Obama now has almost 4 years of experience and that should count as something.

      However, I’d say your opinion of his track record is colored by your disdain for Obama. The numbers all work in his favor, yet you seem to think they don’t. Since he’s been in office, the market has increased by over 100%, the unemployment rate is less than when he started, and the economy is rebounding. Any chart you look at all points in a positive direction. So the claim that the numbers are bad for him is specious at best. The numbers are bad in comparison to the numbers when Bush took office in 2000, 12 years ago, and the current state of the economy is simply a continuation of that – 2 wars with no money coming in to fund them, Medicaid Part D, also completely unfunded, unregulated speculation on Wall Street (which frankly I don’t think Obama has done enough to curtail). Did I mention that revenues are down because of the Bush tax cuts? And the debt is close to 16 trillion, yet the first 10 trillion of that was incurred by Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, and the 5 trillion added by Obama was partially incurred by the Bush mismanagement, without which we’d would probably be in the Great Depression Part II. But to lay that at Obama’s feet is dishonest at worst, uninformed at best.

      Between 2001 and 2007, economic growth in the US was the lowest since the great depression. Coincidentally, that low growth correlates to the lowest tax rate in our modern history. Actually, I doubt that’s coincidental.

      There’s really not a lot of room for debate when you look at the numbers you claim are persuasive. Ignoring them is not a good way to back up your beliefs.Since the general trend of ALL the numbers is positive, imagine where we would be if Obama had inherited the economy Clinton left us in 2001, instead of the one he inherited from Bush.

      Your uninformed beliefs, notwithstanding…

      Do you really think Romney will be able to do any better, with no money to pay bills? If he was running the government, he’d do a leveraged takeover and put the US in Bankruptcy. Then sell the assets to China. That’s what his experience qualifies him to do.

      To me, this is just sheer lunacy. Bush was, hands down, the worst President we’ve seen in modern times. He completely fucked up the economy, polarized the nation so that you and I are arguing the inarguable, caused the deaths of thousands of Americans, and hundred of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, yet Romney’s entire economic plan is to continue with Bush’s.

      Why don’t we all just shoot ourselves in the head? It’s be a lot quicker, with less pain.

%d bloggers like this: