Obama: I'm President; Where is My Cool Phone?

[Onus]

I'm not concerned about the birth certificate, whatever it says. Let's assume he's legally a U.S. citizen; his own book "Dreams From My Father" makes clear that he is not an American. He wasn't raised in American schools, is unfamiliar with the Civil Rights movement, and knows nothing of the American Experience.
That said, Congress does deserve most of the blame for wrecking the economy. They're bickering over a few million here or there, and playing accounting games to boot, when they need to seriously cut hundreds of billions of Government spending.
To Congress: "You frapping parasites. What have you done to my country???"

 

[hoofhearted]

I guess the gadgetry his predecessors had in the White House wasn't lavish enough for his tastes

 

[Guest]

Some of you sound like you think the US should be reserved for rich white christians.

 

[fball922]

[citation][nom]Politechs[/nom]Some of you sound like you think the US should be reserved for rich white christians.[/citation]

You sound like an ignoramus.

 

[balister]

[citation][nom]fball922[/nom]

He is extremely smart, for sure. He knows exactly what to do to DESTROY this country. He hates what the USA stands for (not to say he hates the USA), and he believes we need to be cut down to European size.Facts:1. 45% of Americans pay no taxes[/citation]

Yeah, sucks when you're below the poverty line ($10k a year for a single person, $25k a year for a family of 4)

[citation][nom]fball922[/nom]2. European countries have enormous taxes and weaker economies. They have entitlement programs that Obama can only dream of, but many are cutting them because they are not possible to achieve in reality.[/citation]

You realize that Greece's retirement age was 50 right? You realize that Portugal and Ireland have extrememly loose tax systems right (look up the Google Double Irish to see what I mean). When you a small tax base, of course you're going to have issues.

[citation][nom]fball922[/nom]3. There is a reason tax cuts don't need to necessarily be funded. Reagan proved that when you cut taxes, government receipts GO UP. Increasing taxes on the wealthy only forces them to sit on their money and/or find more ways to avoid paying taxes (there are very legal ways of doing this). Taxing businesses is stupid to begin because you cannot tax a business at all... the cost is just passed on to consumers anyway. That's why the Fair tax makes so much sense, but people like Obama would never give up the punitive power in our 17,000 page tax code.[/citation]

Trickle down didn't work. You seem to forget what happened when taxes were raised on the ultrawealthy, they shelter their income in dividend paying stocks as dividends are taxed a a very low rate (around 15%) which means the ultrawealthy invent their money into companies which causes the economy to grow. Want proof of this, look at Clinton's presidency where he raised the taxes further (after GW Bush raised them initially which cost him a second term) thus starting one of the biggest economic growth periods for the US in decades and eventually led to budget surpluses that started to eat away at the debt of prior presidencies (going back to FDR, but mostly from what Reagan had done, prior to Reagan, the US had some debt, but it wasn't too bad, after Reagan it was OMG huge).

[citation][nom]fball922[/nom]4. Given the ramifications of raising/lowering taxes in 3, Obama has implemented spending programs with no hopes of paying for them.[/citation]

One has only to look back at the Clinton presidency to realize what raising taxes can do. Where programs can be paid for and debt can be lessened with budget surpluses.

[citation][nom]fball922[/nom]5. Obama didn't get us in to a "protracted war"? He has had no plan on how to handle it from the beginning. The great leader who got the Nobel Peace Prize is out bombing a sovereign nation. GASP. Do you realize that with both Iraq and Afghanistan, there were coalitions and UN statements in support of it? [/citation]

Yet if Bush and Chenney weren't so gung ho to try and finish the job that Bush Sr and Chenney should have done over 10 years prior, when the world would have been behind us all the way, we wouldn't have had the expenditures we have from a war that was started under false pretences where intelligence showed otherwise.

[citation][nom]fball922[/nom]6. Obama certainly has added jobs to the economy, the majority in the form of Federal government jobs. He has done very little for the private sector, but what does he care about that?[/citation]

Bush lost most of the jobs. Likewise, you need to learn history and realize that sometimes the government needs to step in and create the jobs. Look back to how FDR got Americans working again during the Great Depression; hint - it was from start various civic projects like the building of Grand Coulee, Boulder (now Hoover), and various other Dams in the west along with other infrastructure projects. Obama tried to get infrastructure repaired and brought back up to speed and it did create jobs and help the economy move (realize that the last time there was any large scale infrastructure done in the US was back during the Eisenhower presidency).

[citation][nom]fball922[/nom]7. Obama certainly has decreased unemployment, but have you ever heard of UNDERemployment? Look it up and see where we stand. The economy is getting WORSE.[/citation]

Really? Funny, the GDP has been actually growing over the past two quarters, something it hasn't been doing since around 2007. There have also been companies hiring to put people that have been out of work, like myself, back to work.

[citation][nom]fball922[/nom]8. Obama is intentionally choking our energy supply. The EPA has forced Shell (I think) to stop drilling in Alaska and arbitrarily stopped all drilling activity in the Gulf following the accident, without plausible cause. This cost the region a number of jobs and economic activity. They have given ONE new drilling permit off the coast (I think...), yet complains about how GREED and PEOPLE WORKING THE SYSTEM are to blame for high oil prices... HA. The silly idea of green energy being a viable solution now is a complete sham, and he knows it.[/citation]

Do you realize what kind of effect the gulf oil spill had, both above and below the surface? Do you realize that where people are wanting to drill will effect wild life, but the oil companies are unwilling to do side drilling to get to the oil which would lessen the effect to the protected areas while only increasing costs a small amount on the extraction of oil that is considered low to mid quality oil compared to other oil reserves? Do you realize that Oil companies charge 65% of the cost of a gallon of gas to just pull up the oil in question, not talking about refining or the like, but the actual extraction which costs much less of a percentage per gallon thus allowing them to make huge profit margins *and* them getting subsidies from the US government on top of those profit margins?

[citation][nom]fball922[/nom]9. As for the national debt, here's a nice little analogy: http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc[/citation]

I refer you back to the bloat in the debt caused by the deficits under Reagan and the surpluses created under Clinton thanks in part to Bush Sr's and Clinton's raising of taxes against the ultrawealthy and the like.

 

[Gulli]

[citation][nom]fball922[/nom]If anything, the reason he is so hush-hush about his birth certificate is because his religion is likely listed as Muslim.Anyway, Allen West 2012![/citation]

Since when do American birth certificates list the religion of the baby and since when do babies even have a religion?

 

[fball922]

[citation][nom]balister[/nom]Yeah, sucks when you're below the poverty line ($10k a year for a single person, $25k a year for a family of 4)
[/citation]

Are you suggesting half of the workforce is under the poverty line? Seems like a lot...

[citation]
You realize that Greece's retirement age was 50 right? You realize that Portugal and Ireland have extrememly loose tax systems right (look up the Google Double Irish to see what I mean). When you a small tax base, of course you're going to have issues.
[/citation]

I was referring to countries like Denmark. I have a family friend from there (super liberal) and even she was starting to see the flaws in large entitlement programs, particularly how unsustainable they are.

[citation]
Trickle down didn't work. You seem to forget what happened when taxes were raised on the ultrawealthy, they shelter their income in dividend paying stocks as dividends are taxed a a very low rate (around 15%) which means the ultrawealthy invent their money into companies which causes the economy to grow. Want proof of this, look at Clinton's presidency where he raised the taxes further (after GW Bush raised them initially which cost him a second term) thus starting one of the biggest economic growth periods for the US in decades and eventually led to budget surpluses that started to eat away at the debt of prior presidencies (going back to FDR, but mostly from what Reagan had done, prior to Reagan, the US had some debt, but it wasn't too bad, after Reagan it was OMG huge).
[/citation]

Reagan was caught in a position where he had to beat the Russians by outspending them, accounting for a large amount of the debt.

Clinton had a Republican Congress that pushed to cut the budget, which they succeeded at, as well as the benefit of a HUGE economic growth in the form of the dotcom bubble.

[citation]
One has only to look back at the Clinton presidency to realize what raising taxes can do. Where programs can be paid for and debt can be lessened with budget surpluses.
[/citation]

See above.

[citation]
Yet if Bush and Chenney weren't so gung ho to try and finish the job that Bush Sr and Chenney should have done over 10 years prior, when the world would have been behind us all the way, we wouldn't have had the expenditures we have from a war that was started under false pretences where intelligence showed otherwise.
[/citation]

I get tired of this argument, so fine you win.

[citation]
Bush lost most of the jobs. Likewise, you need to learn history and realize that sometimes the government needs to step in and create the jobs. Look back to how FDR got Americans working again during the Great Depression; hint - it was from start various civic projects like the building of Grand Coulee, Boulder (now Hoover), and various other Dams in the west along with other infrastructure projects. Obama tried to get infrastructure repaired and brought back up to speed and it did create jobs and help the economy move (realize that the last time there was any large scale infrastructure done in the US was back during the Eisenhower presidency).
[/citation]

Ummmmmm maybe you should learn that NOTHING that FDR did actually benefitted our country. He did exactly as Obama has done by "putting people to work" on infrastructure work and taxing the wealthy heavily. Our country would not have ever come out of the Depression had it not been for the war to end all wars.

[citation]
Really? Funny, the GDP has been actually growing over the past two quarters, something it hasn't been doing since around 2007. There have also been companies hiring to put people that have been out of work, like myself, back to work.
[/citation]

I didn't say no companies have been hiring, but overall the job market is still rather stagnant (except for Micky D's hiring spurt, woohoo!). Check your data on GDP growth, there was a short period (I think that's in 2009) when the GDP shrank. Not to say that was Obama's fault though.

http/www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

[citation]
Do you realize what kind of effect the gulf oil spill had, both above and below the surface? Do you realize that where people are wanting to drill will effect wild life, but the oil companies are unwilling to do side drilling to get to the oil which would lessen the effect to the protected areas while only increasing costs a small amount on the extraction of oil that is considered low to mid quality oil compared to other oil reserves? Do you realize that Oil companies charge 65% of the cost of a gallon of gas to just pull up the oil in question, not talking about refining or the like, but the actual extraction which costs much less of a percentage per gallon thus allowing them to make huge profit margins *and* them getting subsidies from the US government on top of those profit margins?
[/citation]

Frankly, I don't care about the short term impact on wildlife. We can't hault our lives to save a few birds. Period. Regardless, there is actually a substantial amount of life that thrives on oil. It consumes the oil, something consumes that, and the whole chain rebounds. No biggie. Sucks for a little bit, but its not the end of the world.

Besides, even in the BP case people are discovering how little the impact actually was. The ecosystem has checks and balances in place for these things: http/www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2066031,00.html

[citation]
I refer you back to the bloat in the debt caused by the deficits under Reagan and the surpluses created under Clinton thanks in part to Bush Sr's and Clinton's raising of taxes against the ultrawealthy and the like.[/citation]

Meh, tired. See above again haha

 

[prabal34]

All debate set aside, the fact is that he IS the President of the United States of America and if he wants a cool phone/gadgets then it should be made so... you gotta have some perks to the job... right?

 

[fball922]

[citation][nom]prabal34[/nom]All debate set aside, the fact is that he IS the President of the United States of America and if he wants a cool phone/gadgets then it should be made so... you gotta have some perks to the job... right?[/citation]

I agree! Personally, even at, what, like $400k a year, POTUS is the most underpaying job in the world haha. I have never had an issue spending money to keep the Prez in the loop (hightech communication stuff) or protected (expensive limosines and airplanes).

 

[COLGeek]

Funny, this was a tech oriented article and look at where we are in the discussion. Not really "Tom's worthy". Probably okay for CNN or Fox News forums, but not really the domain here.

Just sayin'........

 

[eatmeimadanish]

Wait did someone mention Obama turned the recession around? When did that happen? Dangit I missed it again! Wait a second, why do we need to give everyone healthcare, welfare, and social security if the economy is doing so well and we all have our own money?

 

[figgus]

[citation][nom]acadia11[/nom]he's doing fine, the guy regardless of what you state, has had actually a pretty stellar performance> yes, the debt grew but most of that was under the former president, including the bailout , which covered the 2009 budget, as well as Obama including the cost of both the Afghan and Iraq wars which Bush did not.[/citation]

Bzzt... Obama's FIRST failed stimulus package cost more than the entire Iraq war had to date when it was issued. His subsequent spending has dwarfed the costs of both wars you mention. Look at costofwar.org if you want to check, they are anti-war so probably inflated their numbers to boot.

Second, not collecting taxes is not an expense item in the budget, letting people keep their money doesn't COST anything. Maybe start collecting some money from the ~50% of households that don't pay a dime and chopping out the handout programs that only support people who don't even try to take care of themselves, THEN you can look at tax hikes on anyone.

Obama's policies are to reward failure and punish success, is it really so hard to see why that is such a horrible idea when you look at the future prospects of the country?

 

[greliu]

Actually increasing taxes on the wealthy would be a good thing for the U.S. If i remember correctly, which I do, the wealthy in the United States back in the 50's and 60's payed much higher taxes than they do today. This tax money is what allowed the highways to be built and the remaining infrastructure that has allowed the U.S. to become competitive in the first place (we need start updating the infrastructure). The idea of the wealthy not being taxed and creating jobs is straight "voodoo magic". My favorite thing is that individuals love Regan for creating jobs and reducing government. Well, you're half correct. Regan did create jobs, but he increased the size of the government by 10% and the government has been increase in size with every year since his presidency. Regan was a joke, he was used by the ultra-wealthy and powerful to increase their wealth and run the U.S. more like the corporation it is today instead of a representative democracy.

 

[loomis86]

I laugh at fools who respond to criticism of the current loser in chief with criticisms of PAST presidents. Obama is the worst president in one hundred years. He will go down in history as a one term loser just like jimmy carter. except way worse. I feel bad for black people. the first black president has made asses of them all.

 

[dark_lord69]

[citation][nom]ct1615[/nom]obama didn't hear? we passed a law stating you need a USA birth certificate to get a new phone....one more year with this clown....one more year.....[/citation]
Some people just do what is popular.. like ragging on the president. My guess is, you have no idea what he has done. Maybe that would have made more sense when we had a complete moron. My guess is you don't like your life (Job, economy or whatever) so its the presidents fault. If you would take your head out of your AS5 you would know he's doing a good job.

Here are the FACTS that I KNOW:
1. My taxes have gone down and unless you make over $250,000 a year yours went down too but I'm sure you didn't give him credit for that.
2. This man uses technology and acknowledges the public on topics america is concerned about. He has even commented on this birth certificate controversy. Also, he is much smarter than our last president. I think our last president killed too many brain cells snorting cocaine.
3. He has made changes that force the government to have more transperency by posting what they are spending online.
4. He has forced the healthcare industry to compete. This means that if you don't have a job. You can get your own health care coverage for about $100 a month, this is a change that has already happened. Look it up, I've already seen the rates I could get if I wasn't employed but since I am employed my coverage is a lot better for roughly the same price.
5. He is trying to reduce our deficit with a new plan that I think is simply genuis. Here's how it works. Every person in this country will be taxed at lower rates (ok, stop for a second and read that sentance again). Yep, with his plan I would go from owing 28% income tax down to 14% and he would still be able to cut back 1 trillion dollars a year. How would that be possible? By overhauling the tax code and either eliminating or reducing to a bare minimum the number of tax write offs. One plan says 0 writeoffs for everyone (What you owe is what you owe no execptions). A slightly different plan would keep only the most popular writeoffs like the childtax credit and student loan interest write-off. Including those would only increase the tax rate 1% for each tax bracket. Lower tax rates that lead to us paying back our debt as a country is something everyone can agree on. Which is why this plan (with slight alterations will likely pass). It was written a in bi-partison way meaning that both sides can agree to it. Some republicans won't like it because it a big change and republicans as a rule of thumb appose all changes. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't know that.

 

[eatmeimadanish]

Majority in Congress: Stock Market
Democrats 1971-1981 (10years) Dow: 822 – 972 (growth 18%)
Republicans 1981-1987 (6 years) Dow: 972 – 1930 (growth 98%)
Democrats 1987-1995 (8 years) Dow: 1930 – 3834 (growth 102%)
Republican 1995-2001 (6 years) Dow: 3834 – 10662 (growth 169.3%)
Democrats 2001-2003 (2 years) Dow: 10662 – 8600 (loss 16.54%)
Republicans 2003-2007 (4 years) Dow: 8600 – 12400 (growth 41.13%)
Democrats 2007-2009 (2 years) Dow: 12400 – 8579.19 (low of 6626) (loss 30.49%)
Republicans/Democrats 20010-present Dow: 8579.19 - 12482 (growth of 32%)

Analysis: Every time there was a republican lead congress there was a spike in economic growth, often in a shorter period of time. In the last 8 years every time democrats took power we suffered massive losses. How about those FACTS.

 

[Kryan]

[citation][nom]plasmastorm[/nom]He could ask China, they're gonna own the USA in a few years anyway haha.[/citation]
they already do...u just don't see it yet.

 

[figgus]

[citation][nom]dark_lord69[/nom]3. He has made changes that force the government to have more transperency by posting what they are spending online.[/citation]

He has since cut the funding for those sites, sadly. They weren't very costly to run, but I bet they were terribly inconvenient.

[citation]4. He has forced the healthcare industry to compete. This means that if you don't have a job. You can get your own health care coverage for about $100 a month, this is a change that has already happened. Look it up, I've already seen the rates I could get if I wasn't employed but since I am employed my coverage is a lot better for roughly the same price.[/citation]

Compete with who? Surely you know the difference between competition lowering rates anda subsidy doing the same thing....

[citation]5. He is trying to reduce our deficit with a new plan that I think is simply genuis. Here's how it works. Every person in this country will be taxed at lower rates (ok, stop for a second and read that sentance again). Yep, with his plan I would go from owing 28% income tax down to 14% and he would still be able to cut back 1 trillion dollars a year. How would that be possible? By overhauling the tax code and either eliminating or reducing to a bare minimum the number of tax write offs. One plan says 0 writeoffs for everyone (What you owe is what you owe no execptions). A slightly different plan would keep only the most popular writeoffs like the childtax credit and student loan interest write-off. Including those would only increase the tax rate 1% for each tax bracket.[/citation]

I would back this sort of plan (especially the former) 100% if only it were true. I think if Obama was willing to do this, though, he'd be trumpeting it to the media... so I call BS. I think you are confusing Obama's plan with the "painful" plan the republicans put forth a few weeks ago, the one that Obama ridiculed.

You'll never fix our problems on the revenue side, the numbers just aren't there. We need to chop the handouts and get Uncle Sam's vest back to covering up that governmental teat.

 

[mcd023]

with the mods for Kinect, soon the Presidents could be able to have the Minority Report interface. haha

 

[gladiator_mohaa]

Anyone who enters the Presidency thinking it will be like a season of 24 is entering with obvious incompetence and lack of knowledge of what the job requires in the "Real World" and not someones made up imagination.