He knows that! It's all in his plan to destroy this country and make more people dependent on the government; Socialism.

No one wants to see people who need help not receive help but the government needs to decide where it stops and work on getting rid of the fraud and their is no one who needs a cell phone paid by the taxpayers. Land phones with the bare minimum for emergency calls and for appointments, etc. this is all part of the wastefull spending.

Oren Spiegler, totally agree with you. he only got elected by the ones who collect entitlement every month, most of them who voted more than once. obama is no better than Hitler was to the Jews.

What happened to Patch requiring some facts instead of wild claims and lies posted as facts?

He doesn't care; this is his last term. He no longer needs the votes of these people.

Mr. Spiegler,
my question above was not aimed at your post, but at one which has wisely been removed.

If you want to put a large dent in meeting these debts stop the parties, vacations, tighten the belt in the whitehouse The Presidents claims to want to help the poor and elderly Why does he need to fire up the fuel using jet to fly all over the country promoting his agenda.

No need to shout.

It is funny how all the ones crying are the ones collecting entitlement programs. I agree with you we need to get rid of Section 8, Snap, obamacare and obama phones. Whats going to happen when the 1% quit hiring and have more massive layoff, who then is obummer going to get to pay for his entitlement programs.

Absolutely!!! It's time we all started to shout and quit standing by and letting this man completely destroy our great country.

Another one who collects their entitlement every month telling others to get over it. Whats going to happen when your entitlement runs out?

Define entitlement.

Next, produce proof of your accusations.

Not an entitlement?
No proof?
Take it all back, and stop pointing fingers.

Amen! The poor benighted conservatives refuse apparently to recognize the people they should be blaming were Dumbya Bush and his trillion dollar war in Iraq, and the whopping military expenditures. They always complain about 'entitlements' as though we hadn't paid for these things. They suck up the nonsense spewed by such ilk as O'Brien and the other fact-twisters of the raving right and think those are facts instead of the well-paid propaganda for the rich and big corporations. And that's not to mention the very vile racism that lurks under the surface of many of them who just can't see that the color of a person's skin has nothing at all to do with his or her intelligence (and President Obama's is miles above the twit that occupied the office before him and put us in this mess (a fact conservatives have a congenital amnesia about).

Ignorance is sad

Yes, it is, as is making false accusations against someone anonymously, and then running away again when called out on it.

WOW..........you really drank the coolaid. The ship is going down. Many things need to change but dont throw Capitalism under the bus. That is why makes us the best. Now, we can all be like everyone else. Watered down. See where we are at in 4 more years, certainly worse off. CUT SPENDING!!!!!!!! SIMPLE MATH!!!!!! MAKE THE TOUGH POLITCAL DECISIONS!!!!! We need real politician who will cut entitlements wether career suicide or not. There are more takers at the polls now so we will never be the same. I do like the idea of capping what CEO can make and drug testing those on welfare or any other program that give out tax payers money to those who do not have a job.

The blame game has been over 6 months after obummer was in office and started screwing up. He didn't want to take the heat for himself messing this country up so he still blames Bush. Get over it and be a man and admit that you have screwed up the first 4 years in office. Hopefully we will get more Republicans in office to stop all of the entitlement programs that obama thinks is going to fix this country and there isn't going to be anyone to pay for them. No wonder why companies are moving jobs overseas, it is because of obama and his entitlement programs.

<<<A Stankus: Look back at the economy when Pres. Bush was in........its a NO brainer.<<

Is this what you call a no brainer about the "economy when Pres. Bush was in" (office):
When George W. Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001, the S&P 500 stock market index stood at $1,342.54. The day he left office, it was $805.22, a drop of 40 percent.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fared a bit better. It dropped only 25 percent. NASDAQ shed 48 percent of its value on President Bush’s watch.
Sixty-eight percent of Americans — including 49 percent of Republicans — say President George W. Bush is responsible for the state of today’s economy
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155177/Americans-Blame-Bush-Obama-Bad-Economy.aspx

Amen!!!

AMEN TO THAT!

I agree with getting rid of obamacare and while everyone needs healthcare they either need to purchase it out of their own pockets. No more medical assistance unless your are a Senior Citizen or Truly Disabled. So sick and tired of people collecting SSI and SSDI and yet they can play golf every day. People getting SSI and SSDI should be called in every year to show they are still being treated by doctors, as many quit going to doctors as soon as they get their first check and are on easy street.

Next all illegals need picked up and put on buses or planes back to where they come from. If you want to come to the United States do it legally and when you do get here, no welfare, medical, food stamps, must show you have enough money to live on for 5 years.
If you lost your job and ask for assistance, be prepared to pick trash off roads, work in soup kitchens, food banks, volunteering in nursing homes. Also can't collect more then 3 months in a one year. There are full time jobs out there and working in a McDonald's or Wendy's shouldn't be beneath anyone if you want to put food on the table and pay your bills.

If we quit with the entitlement programs we would save trillions a year on people who shouldn't be getting anything especially 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th generation welfare. The only ones who should be getting helped are Senior Citizens and people who are truly disabled with real medical issues, not ones that are make believe and on SSI and SSDI

CC-AMEN to your comments on SSI and SSDI. Too many are scamming the system and getting money when they are 1.)not disabled 2.)not diasabled any longer. I am not looking for "free money but... I have a seizure disorder, and hearing loss both due to my slow growing brain tumor but according to the governments guidelines, I do not qualify for benefits ! Seizures aren't BAD enough to qualify-can hear somewhat with aids-!!!!! I worked from the age of 16 until I was 38 (paying into the "system")when I needed to resign because of the seizures. Fortunately my husband has a good job.

Dawn Swidorsky - I'm sorry for what your going though and wish people who deserve to be on SSI and SSDI were able to get it, but our government gives it to people who don't belong on it.

I agree obama lives in the twilight zone, his administration is a joke and he has done nothing in the first 4 years in office except use executive orders to give welfare to the ones that voted him in a second term, he started early buying votes.

wow!! not even worth responding to. Very sad.

James your So Clueless. Medicare wasn't made to give everyone in the United States health care, it was put in place for Senior Citizens who are on Social Security. I have purchased my own healthcare at 18 and paid for my family till I started my own business and am still paying for my own healthcare plus 75% of my employees health care.

Most people don't want to pay for healthcare they want entitlement, think they deserve free healthcare. You want a new car, you pay for it, want a home you can't afford you pay for that yourself also, want to take exotic vacations you pay for that yourself. Quit looking for everyone else to support your health care needs.

as in the fair tax! EVERYONE pay 10%; that way everyone contributes and the rich are paying more and the middle class on down pay less!

Janet I totally agree with you, everyone should be paying the same percentage in Federal Income Tax. We also need to put a cap on all the spending in Washington starting with obama, he should be paying his own utilities for the section of the whitehouse he lives in, for his own staff, his own healthcare, food, clothing, Michelle's trips to the mall at night, when it is closed to others, he should only have 2 weeks vacation and all expenses paid for out of his own pocket and not using Air Force 1 to fly on either.

To "20 Year Resident",
Exactly correct. I started to respond to the myriad of comically ignorant and untruthful comments on this thread and then thought "why bother?". Those people that author the insanity will probably never change and I for one do not care any more. My husbands' comment was "Oh, I don't read the Patch any more since they allow hate mongering spewed in with untruths on their threads." It is sad but true: There is a very hateful and ignorant minority in this country. I am positive that they justify collecting THEIR "entitlements" and never research or open their minds to anything other than what is already spoon fed to them. We don't hate them in this household: We pity them for their small minds and even smaller world that they strive to create.

Okay, this is more a reply to Stacy. I'm not about to post my political viewpoint here, I still believe in a little something I like to call a secret ballot and I don't think it's anyone's business for whom I voted. My point is this: Your husband's comment gnawed at me for a couple reasons. He's basically saying he chooses not to read anything that isn't censored from what he considers hate mongering. Yes, I agree people should be more open-minded. Where do we start? With ourselves, since that is the only place we can start - be open-minded, and teach our children to be so, including listening to opinions other than your own to determine if there are valid points to be made. I do not think a lot of people are aware of many truths and blindly accept what is given to them as long as they consider it a reputable source. What happens if that reputable source was not as honest as we thought? This is where we all need to do some research and be open minded enough to realize what is going on in the world around us. I pity the people who will shut out the world around them rather than try to learn more and understand it.

LOL! You voted for obama twice!!!! So who is drawing attention to their ignorance??!!

You just have to ignore people like Janet Butler who is clearly too uneducated and ignorant to form a coherent debate, and instead must resort to the childish retorts that dot these comments. Saying something or someone is stupid and calling them names because they have a different idea on how the country should be run than you do? I've encountered 5 year olds who were more open-minded than that.

al:
You are assuming, incorrectly, that we do not research and actively pursue a variety of angels on news / issues in our household: You are completely incorrect. I can tell you what Fox News reported this morning as well as CNN, BBC, info wars, Huff Post, NY Times and a smattering of science related publications. However, I would not consider this thread some deep fountain of information at this point.

Great that you are so well informed, but what does that have to do with angels?

proudAmerican, are you going to post the site address from which you copied those lengthy "rants"?

NE 12Ukid These are just a few of the sites I pulled them from and as you will see I didn't post all of the wasteful spending. But since you will find fault with these do a little research yourself these are real and they do exsist.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/16/top-10-examples-of-wasteful-federal-spending-in-2012/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/tribu/sns-pgc-wastebook-2010-pg,0,4199163.photogallery

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/15/sen-tom-coburn-draws-attention-to-wasteful-spending

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/15/coburn-waste-book-details-1-billion-in-eye-opening-government-expenses

/http://cagw.org/

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/politics/coburn-government-waste/index.html

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/government-waste-20-of-the-craziest-things-that-the-u-s-government-is-spending-money-on

http://baldwin-whitehall.patch.com/users/proud-american-e7ac2c15: " But since you will find fault with these do a little research yourself these are real and they do exsist."2:28 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013 >>>

Whoa there mr/ms American---slow down with the irrational accusations of what you imagine you know I will or will not do!
I asked for the site address because it is supposed to be required here to include the source, (right, Bob?)
especially when you copy and directly quote passage after passage as you did.
I thought perhaps you had just accidentally forgotten to credit your source, but in some obviously angry fashion, your mind took you in a whole 'nuther direction I see. Thanks at least for revealing more about yourself.

NE12Ukid I said what I did about your own search because I have been on other debates with you and I know you would find fault just to keep it issue going.

Funny how ne12ukid aka ml is asking you for websites when it always post others words as its own, with no links to the million web sites that she steals sentences from and then makes a paragraph from.

If you take all her sentences and do a search on them, one by one, you can see all the web sites that she steals other peoples words from.

to proud american:
I asked for the site address because it is supposed to be required here to include the source, (right, Bob?)
especially when you copy and directly quote passage after passage as you did.
I thought perhaps you had just accidentally forgotten to credit your source, but in some obviously angry fashion, your mind took you in a whole 'nuther direction I see. Thanks at least for revealing more about yourself. Again, the END.
Have yourself a real sweet day.

NE12Ukid can you please print the site where I can go and read you have to post where you get your info from.

http://canon-mcmillan.patch.com/term

should answer your questions. FTR I did say "quoted", not just where you got any old idea you write about in your OWN words.

http://canon-mcmillan.patch.com/term

NE12Ukid this is what come up when you click on you post

Page Not Found
Sorry, we could not find the page you requested. Please check the URL and try again. Thanks!

http://canon-mcmillan.patch.com/terms

ok NE12Ukid I read it twice and could not find anything that says you have to print where you got your facts from. Could you copy and paste that please

Sorry if you don't know that one cites a source when copying and pasting someone else's words. I know that Bob expects it on our BW Patch, perhaps the editor at Canon Mac has looser standards or just has not had a chance to note it on this thread.

Ne12Ukid quote "I asked for the site address because it is supposed to be required here to include the source, " then I asked for the rules that a stated that and I received this site from you http://canon-mcmillan.patch.com/terms. So I read this site twice and it doesn't state that any where and this is what I get quote "Sorry if you don't know that one cites a source when copying and pasting someone else's words. I know that Bob expects it on our BW Patch, perhaps the editor at Canon Mac has looser standards or just has not had a chance to note it on this thread.
Give you one more chance post the rules from the BW Patch and I will ask Amanda the editor of the Canon Patch if she has looser standards.

NE12Ukid I will save you the trouble went into the BW Patch terms and it is word for word as the Canon Patch. Now you know why I said what I said quote " NE12Ukid I said what I did about your own search because I have been on other debates with you and I know you would find fault just to keep it issue going."

could be you owe Amanda the editor on the Canon Patch an apologize for saying she had looser standards

We have a winner! Not only a dumb post, but you managed to be racist on top. Also really bad at spelling. A perfect example of why it doesn't make sense to argue with most right wingers. Fox & Rush call Obama a socialist, dumbasses don't know what socialism is and that Obama is very far from being one, so they regurgitate it on the internet. I guess we'll have 4 more years starting tomorrow of racist, ignorant comments like this.

In case anybody wants to argue that this isn't a racist post, here's the urban dictionary definition of "Mack Daddy"-
"The pimp-meister, the king of the streetwalkers, possessor of the blingest of bling-bling. The mac daddy is the man who means everything (and the only man who really means anything) to his ladies of the night."

Mack Daddy -unlike a player(gigalo), a mac daddy has more than just the ladies as a way fulfill his mackin (money & reputation) ways. a mac daddy is a man's man and has many ways(games)to handle his business. obama to a T

You're very welcome. Clarity is often lacking in such forums, one does what one can.
:-)

<<<proud American4:58 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
I have to agree name calling just makes (sic)you argument weak (sic)gather your facts and post .>>>>

All but a very few know that is true, yes, name calling only weakens one's argument. You add "gather your facts and post", to which I would add "and include your source for any quoted material".

What argument? All you did was call the president a bunch of names. Doesn't sound like any kind of rational conversation to me. You didn't answer the original question in either of your posts. Do you have any ideas besides calling people names?

I see you didn't try to defend your racist term. Would you have called a white politician you didn't agree with a "Mack daddy"?

How was you use of the offensive term "Mack Daddy" a typo, rodney j landreneau? Please explain.
I'm sure the truth does hurt, next time skip the racist namecalling and you won't get hurt.

correction:
your use

It would be great if the 22nd amendment gets appealed because the greatest President this country has ever had, Barack Hussein Obama, could be elected to a third and possibly fourth term!

obama is the worse president that the United States has seen. He is worse than Jimmy Carter.

Close the loophole of drug addicts getting welfare tax money. And as for the 22nd Amendment.....pres gets a max 8 years to make an impact and in four years I will be worse off guaranteed. So....I think 8 will be enough unless you get 75% of the vote maybe because you know a pres would be doing a great job...not a lously re-election when majority didnt want you.

Duke yes all loopholes should be closed along with everyone paying the same percentage in taxes. If you make 15,000 a year you should be paying the same percentage as someone making 30,000, 40,000, 50,00, 60,000, 70,00, etc. No more free rides for anyone everyone pays the same percentage.

Do you realize also that a business owner pays taxes on everything for his business then also has to pay taxes on his salary just as you do. He is actually paying double the amount of taxes that the average tax payer pays.

karen turley, you are right about the lack of proper debate by a FEW here, but I must ask why you consider social security a handout when the recipients paid into it? It's not like it's welfare. What say you?

Karen Turley - Most everyone pays into Social Security and Medicare and it is their right to collect it when they retire. The only ones who should be getting food stamps, medical, Section 8 is Senior Citizens and the truly disabled. To many voted for obama because of him by executive orders destroying what Bill Clinton put in place on Welfare only to be used to get voted in a second term by the ones who are collecting it. It is going to be a long 4 years and hopefully we get more Republicans in office to keep obama inline over the next 4 years.

Mark, Well said! I couldn't have said it better!

Please provide some sources. Whre are workers putting in more tha 60 hours per week under unsafe conditions? If you know of such a situation, call OHSA. Where is our water so filthy it can catch on fire again? hase EPA or the State taken samples? All of this is available for public viewing. I would like to know your sources and specifics of the this information please.

Karen i'm sure OSHA, EPA, and other Goverment agencies want to know where all this is happening in the United States.

The Senate and House voted on going to war over the same information that Bush had, so you can't put the blame entirely on Bush.

"The President's main point is correct: the CIA and most other US intelligence agencies believed before the war that Saddam had stocks of biological and chemical weapons, was actively working on nuclear weapons and "probably" would have a nuclear weapon before the end of this decade. That faulty intelligence was shared with Congress – along with multiple mentions of some doubts within the intelligence community – in a formal National Intelligence Estimate just prior to the Senate and House votes to authorize the use of force against Iraq."

This is coming from the favorite website of democrats http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html

Ok, thank you for clarifying your comment :
"Even republicand take social security and medicare and plenty of other hand outs."
I hope you can see how your use of " and...OTHER hand outs" sounds like you are calling SS a handout too.

Karen, it was Johnson (D) that changed the SS accounting rules, not Reagan (R). And technically, SS is not part of the general budget, I would argue otherwise, but technically it is still separate.

Social Security is also not self substaining. The program was not designed for the life expectancy that people now live. As a result, based on an average, people take out, more then they put in.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505146_162-38741151/whats-the-return-on-your-social-security-taxes/

It would only be self-substaining if the government was somehow making interest on that money, which it is not, since it is not invested and the gov is in deficent spending. Same for medicare.

Sorry you don't like paying your taxes with the same deadline as the rest of us. I guess you are special.

p.s. the bailout was done under Bush.

He has kept Republicans from making it worse

cranberry dad:groceries through the
roof and only reason UBL dead is by
anti Obama tatics I can't get file
my tax returns later than usual because of the excuse
of fiscal cliff! Can I make an excuse for extending April 15
deadline? >>>

Sure you can!
Need more time to file your 2012 tax return?
If you can't complete your 2012 federal tax return by the April 15, 2013 deadline, file an extension to push the deadline back six months to October 15, 2013, I think it is Form 4868 you want.

Once you pay your taxes, it's no longer YOUR money.

The money that the Government is spending is actually all of our money that we allow the clowns in Washington to have control over.

doglover1: The inauguration is paid primarily through donations. DONATIONS. Honestly people: RESEARCH objectively. The portion that is not paid for through donations is the same type that was used for past inaugurations, both Republican and Democrat. If your point is that no tax money should be used for any inaugurations then ok, I might even agree with that, and let's start by asking ALL past Presidents or their heirs to pay back any tax monies used for the same.

Thank you, Zandy. A major network reported over the weekend on the extraordinary number of individuals and agencies that will be involved in providing security, the cost of which is estimated to be approximately $120 million, a sad commentary in many respects. It reflects all of the angles that must be considered in ensuring that no type of plot to disrupt it or to harm anyone occurs.

"No one even tried to say what should be the priorities of this President be "
"This is not a compete list of all that is wrong but in my opinion ( YES FLAMETARDS IT IS SIMPLY AN OPINION) this is a good place to start."

Dear Funny, you missed a lot of posts, quite a few have expressed their opnion on what the priorities should be for term #2. True, a few sounded like ranting loonies, but it was still their opinion.
And now we've seen yours. Ranting caps locked name calling and all. Thanks so much!

Tax Reform, everyone should be paying their fair share in taxes. 10%, 15%, 20%, everyone should be paying the same amount no matter if your are lower, middle or upper class. Why should lower and middle class people pay less money. Most lower class and the ones that don't want to work are getting entitlement programs that only the rich shouldn't have to pay for. Can't meet your bills, get a second job like most others do.

proud American:
I agree with you on many of your points you have made. The main part of your comment that I raise an eyebrow to is the part about Congress. There is only such much power the President has over Congress...and Congress is ruled by business and lobbyist for business. The folks in Congress were voted in and many need to be voted out.

Stacy you are right we need to hold congress to their part of the responsibility of the debt. I won't vote for anyone that I research and find out they are one of the people loaded up a bill with pork . If their project is so good put it out on the floor and stop shoving into bills that need to be passed. Now the President is the leader and he needs to be more proactive in bringing both parties together I don't care if he has to hold meetings every single day. The big part of the debt the last 4 years is pasting bills we have no money to support they are not part of the budget because we have no budget it is and issue of spend, spend,spend on his own agenda health care, solar(bankrupt companies) etc. Any business or home knows to get out of debt you have to curb spending until the debt is brought under control and you don't spend on things you might want until this happens.

proud American:
Jan / 2013: "Republicans in Congress unleashed a blistering attack on him today, accusing Mr. Obama of “cynically and systematically using his position as President to lead the country.” Now take that bizarreness and mix it with this: GW Bush signed 291 Executive Orders and Obama has signed the LEAST amount of Executive Orders of any President in 100 years. (144). My point is that the man can't win against a whole party that is often led by half-truths. I agree with you that we need to get spending under control and I propose that we start with the line item that takes the most: Defense. Welfare is at 12% and will be cut to 11%....Defense stays the same with no end in sight. We spend more on defense than our "enemies" (Or who some might call enemies). Education for our country is a dismal 4% and that, sadly, is very evident. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_detail_fy13bs12013n

the difference between you and I Stacy is you think holding the President's feet to the fire to get a budget and cut spending you think is a blistering attack and I say about time. Executive orders is not how many but how it is being used. Finally defense , cut out the waste but a commander and chief should never put this country in harms way by reducing our defense when the rest of the world is exploding and the terrorist are spreading. There are hundreds of things to be cut I listed a few. If the President can't lead or take heat from the Republican party, tea party and even some of his own party then he shouldn't have run for president.

Doesn't matter who was low, who was high. All presidents during events of every kind experience high and low ratings. This article took AN AVERAGE for 4 years. - the fact remains, Obama has the lowest ratings. Front page article on Gallup.
http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx

From the same article being cited (gallup):
"Obama's first-term average is most similar to Bill Clinton's. Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, and Dwight Eisenhower were the most popular first-term presidents." My point is this: You can lead with the most negative or the most positive and both statements are relevant. Since Obama has 4 years to go he may very well end up in the positive group vs the most negative stats. We'll see. Since the majority of people in America voted him in to office he stands a good chance of going down in history as one of the most popular Presidents of our country.

Makes you wonder where those numbers came from since Obama won by the majority of the actual popular vote. Perhaps some is explained by this: Those that voted for the President to have a second term are open-minded enough to see objectively where he...and certainly Congress...could do better. I think the real story is the amazingly low approval rate of Congress.

Re read the post - the Gallop poll is talking about his OVERALL approval during his first term. LOWEST of all post-World War II presidents. No conversation about what his poll number is today and that will change. AGAIN - his OVERALL average for a first term president is among the lowest. Leave Bush and Clinton out of the subject matter.

I checked, again, with Gallup:
Obama's CURRENT approval rating is 54%. His average of all years is 49%. G.Bush average of all years is also 49%. (Of course, his low was 25%, Obama's lowest was 38%) Here is an accurate link from Gallup. Since Obama is not done with his 2nd term, is not in here, but we know he is at a 49% average today with a current percentage higher than that.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx

The Gallup organization was completely discredited after the last election. The polling model is flawed. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/

Some drank the coolaid but I think you are smoking the good stuff, LOL

Obama's approval rating (per the Gallup) is currently at 54%, about average for Presidents at this point. G.Bush was lower, Clinton higher.

Bill:
You are correct that Obama has successfully guided our country through many low points....and those low points were created while previous administrations were in charge. The stock market has gone up 5 years in a row, we are rebounding in terms of Americans employed, ended the war in Iraq, passed the Wall Street Reform, turned around the US Auto Industry (even when I personally was not sure I would have "saved" it) and has continually insured solid financial support for Veterans (More than any other President), passed the Credit Card Reform act (remember when they were allowed to just raise rates without warning and for no reason?) and he has lead this country on to do much more. The bottom line is it does not matter what he has done: A minority in this country do not like him and oddly long for the days when our country was flailing but apparently they were unaware of that.

This post doesn't even make sense. What color is the sky in your world?

Joseph:
You are right in that our country spends way too much on foreign aid. (I think that might be the bulk of your comment?) Of course, Obama is not the author of foreign aid nor the big cheese that stepped us into so many countries. Obvious politics aside: I, too, would like to see us cutting back from funds spend on foreign soil....no matter which department it is through...and shift to a true "our own country first" mentality. That shift, for me, would include more affordable college for American students, good healthcare for all Americans, a more updated infrastructure that uses only American workers and American companies in contracts, not to mention American made products. That sort of thing.

Stacy:

Foreign Aid represents less than one percent of total Federal Spending. If you think that is too much, you are missing the forest for the trees....

Your other comments are interesting. "more affordable college for American Students"? How does that work specifically? Are you looking for Federal Tax Dollars to be spent to subsidize college? We already have Tax Credits for college expenses, but it sounds like you want even more? "Good healthcare for all Americans"? All Americans already have access to good healthcare. The issue is not with healthcare, rather health insurance, or how people pay for healthcare. What do you see as the answer to that one? It seems once again that you think the Federal Government needs to spend more money on that issue as well. "More updated infrastructure"? If you are refering to roads and bridges, we already pay enough tax dollars every year to pay for all of the infrastructure upgrades we will ever need through State and Federal Gasoline taxes. The problem is that those tax dollars get diverted elsewhere. Sort of like the Social Security Taxes collected.

America does not have a Tax Revenue Problem, we have a Tax Revenue Spending Problem. At some point in time Americans are going to have to face the realities of what the Federal Government pays for, and why.

Hi Stacy.

By foreign policy, I meant overseas military ventures, i.e., military personnel (~1.4 million) deployed in about 150 Countries at a cost of 20% of the budget. Obama was the author of escalating a military presence in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, etc., and continuing a military presence in the other 100+ countries including deploying special forces in 75 countries. And he has expressed willingness to do whatever it takes in Iran... a policy no different than Bush's policy of pre-emptive warfare. People were furious over this along with civil rights abuses, an ailing economy, transparency, etc. Four years later with the candidate of hope and change in the White House executing these same things, people have turned their cheek.

The same people that were angry over American soldier deaths in Iraq, look the other way in Afghanistan. The same people that were angry over civilian deaths in Iraq, look the other way in Afghanistan and Pakistan (including a Presidential kill list and the assassination of a US citizen). The evaporation of the anti-war movement since Obama took office is disturbing when wars and death are still ongoing.

Out of curiosity Stacy: government healthcare programs currently consume 45% of the budget. With 20% of the budget tied to defense and 6% for paying interest on the debt, that leaves 29% to other mandatory and discretionary spending WITH a $900 billion deficit. Where is the government going to get MORE funds for more affordable college and healthcare, and putting 'Americans' to work? That almost always means taking on more debt. We pay, on average, $1 billion in interest PER DAY on the current debt. How can we keep borrowing without putting a dent in the debt?

The National Debt is ignored to institute all these programs, but the debt is literally enslaving the future. It would cost workers, today, $100,000 to pay down the debt. What sense does it make to keep piling on the debt for future generations?

This Senator was right:
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." -Barack Obama, 2006

Joseph:

I agree with you regarding the dissappearance of the anti-war sentiment. It reminds me of the term "his support is broad, but not deep". The anti-war proponents were vocally supportive of the current POTUS during his campaign, but are all but invisible now. They did their best to get a POTUS they thought was on "their side" ofthe argument, he did win the Nobel Peace Prize afterall, but then he attacks Libya without any Congressional approval.

The anti-war movement has become a sort of microcosm for politics in America today. It seems to be all about "winning" with just about zero understanding of the consequences or benefits of someone winning. The saddest illustration of this currently is when the "winners" actually attempt to blame a past POTUS for the shortcomins of the current.

Hi Ernie and Joseph,
Here is a pie chart to make this easier to discuss when it comes to where exactly the money is spent. To the best of my knowledge that is correct. As for health care vs health insurance: The current system does not work for all working Americans. Period. I personally know people who have their health care undermined by the insurance companies or they work for a private company that offers very little. (Example: Paid low wages w/ no dental or prescription) We need to keep Americans working and insist that they are treated decently. I can appreciate that there is a wide berth of what that may mean to everyone.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_detail

Stacy, isn't the purpose of the Affordable Care Act, to provide everyone with affordable health care? If you look at the projected health care costs until 2018, the percentage increases from 22% to 28%. You point out health care issues people have today. Are you saying those issues will not be corrected under the ACA and we still need more? The last figure I saw from the CBO is that we will add $1.8 trillion per year for health care under the ACA (and everytime they calculate it the $ increase). What exactly are you looking for that won't be covered when it goes into effect next yr?

Thanks for the link Stacy. That pie chart doesn't look right to me. I'm not entirely sure what 'healthcare' entails. Look at the chart here: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258 which is based on the budget posted at the Office of Management and Budget: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

Actually, just figured it out. The pensions piece of the pie is mostly Social Security. The healthcare piece of the pie is medicare and 'Vendor Payments (Welfare)', which is primarily Medicaid. So, that's ~46% of the budget...

If you look at the pie that I linked, about 90% of the budget goes to health, defense, federal employee benefits, safety net programs, and interest on the debt. 10% is left for education, research, transportation, etc. That's why 1/3 of our budget NEEDS TO BE BORROWED. Government spending is a serious problem.

Stacy:
I agree the current healthcare system doesn't work. 'Obamacare' isn't going to fix it either. Obamacare simply increases coverage. It doesn't fix the system.

Obamacare empowers the insurance companies-- they get more customers as mandated by the government, they get subsidized by the government, and they'll still increase premiums (they're already increasing in anticipation of the law going into effect).

Anyway, back to the point... how do you 'fix' healthcare while incurring so much debt to service the healthcare programs already in existence?

Everyone just wants to throw money at the problem, but there is no money to throw!

Fundamental changes need to take place. Should start at controlling escalating healthcare service costs--- actual costs, not insurance-based costs.

I don't think the WH grounds are big enough to install enough solar and wind power just to power the WH.

Exactly Donald. So it would encourage development of our own oil and gas resources while we explore alternative energy sources.

Wow, Jim. You have serious issues. Mandatory Sterilization? Your first point alone is laughable, you lose all credibility when you bring eugenics into the equation. And what's with all the drug testing? Like that's the main problem facing this country. You show just how little you understand the world with point # 6.

Craigslist has a "Best Of" for posts as ridiculous as this one. The Patch should start one now and put this right at the top of the list. I've been reading this website a while and have yet to find a post as uninformed and misguided as this one.

Jim and if they would go with what you write then they should make people breath in a breathalyzer machine a few times a day also because there are more people that drink then use drugs. So if you have a drink you lose all your benefits too as this is your way of thinking.

Nobody knows what happened to the Jobs Council?

Bob,
Not at all, everyone works hard to get what they want. My children are grown and successful and have had jobs since they were 13 or 14, and went to college and worked 2 jobs while they went to college. They paid for 50% of their college education. That way they studied hard and GRADUATED and have good jobs. If you keep handing everything to people like obummer wants to, they tend to expect it and think they are ENTITLED to it. I don't know about you, but I work hard for what I have and am getting tired of all the loser dirtballs that expect everything for nothing!

Jim - hope you didn't teach those kids to refer to African-Americans as monkeys like you did the president. Hopefully every generation gets a little more open-minded and respectful of all than the last.

JS, this is someone who is in favor of mandatory sterilization...I doubt that he taught the kids much of anything morally worthwhile. And everyone is a "loser dirtball" to him, so I think you can pretty much draw a conclusion about his open-mindedness or respect.

One of the greatest things about our Constitution is that people have a right to express their opinions, even if others don't agree. Or in this case, even if your opinion is small-minded, racist and misguided by most other people's judgement. There aren't many places in this world where someone like "Jim" could speak as freely, and I would encourage everyone to remember that.

And this is an objective comment. All republicans are completely ignorant., based on comments from a handful of people.

Bob, like many, you have adopted the new norm for unemployment rates. Why have these rates dropped? Please consider employment participation rate in your assessment, and you will reject your new norm.

S & P is at a high, to be sure. Why? Where are the profits being made? Why is the $3T in business cash reserves sitting on the sidelines? Why is the expectation of small business owners near 70% pessimistic for growth in the next two years?

Why is the Government spending vs. GDP at record highs, with steep upward trends? How can this ratio be sustainable?

Why are retirees, or those near retiring, still part of the work force? How is the fixed income rates from life-long building of assets supporting these folks?

Yes, good question, "What is going on here?" Do you have answers to these questions?

Yes it will be on the way when obama is out of office and the next President is in office. obummer is destroying our nation.

bob, I am not saying "what you want." I am taking the assessment from those who know these matters far better than any Patch poster. And, these questions have nothing to do with politics, rather have to do with the realities of economics.

Yes, you are right. Economic recovery has happened. But, at what rate? You will find nobody that agrees the 2% growth rate is sufficient to gain any ground on the economic stability of our country. At 2% we continue to loose, and cannot have a sustainable economy, UNLESS major changes are done. Thinking 2% growth is satisfactory, and calling it "recovery" is the adopting the same "new normal" as referenced in the earlier post about unemployment. Who can you cite that believes that 2% should be the new norm?

Every recession is followed by a recovery. Why is this one the slowest in our nation's history? Every other recession has been followed by growth rates of 5%, or more. Why do you think this recovery is the slowest? The natural cycles of economics tells us there will be a recovery. The recent changes with some upward trends, as welcome as they might be, could be expected, regardless of other circumstances (unless the entire economy collapses, e.g. Greece).

A few answers to these, and the other questions, would help us understand your comments.

bob, "say what you want," using a cliche I read recently, but ...

Consumers in January would not agree with your assessment. CC dropped to the lowest point in a year, and dropped significantly from December to January,

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/financial-fears-hit-consumer-confidence-jan-1C8157987

I realize statistics and good information don't fit your viewpoint, but if you have others stats to refute, lets have them.

bob, the economic report today (Wednesday) now shows the economy shrinking. Q4 has declined from Q1-Q3, to the point where the marker is negative.

The idea that we are "growing" has now been taken off the table.

No argument from me. And credit not blame to W!

The 1.7% increase in SS payments is more than wiped out by increases in Medicare insurance. No gain, ... if fact, a loss.

Could be, Roger, but then there are those in PA who have had NO COLA for more than 9 years and Corbett wants to slash their pensions.

proud American:
Yes, I am aware that you say you are living this reality and agree with you on some points. I am also asking that you research a little deeper with an open mind....forget your party leanings...and look even before Obama. As for "Obamacare" (which could just as easily be called "Romenycare") there ARE flaws, no doubt.

Proud American this has nothing to do with this subject but I just want to tell you to keep a watch on EID's website. I have an article that is supposed to be posted on it.

Will do Donald

It is true that we can't change the past, but we also are doomed to repeat our mistakes unless we acknowledge the past mistakes and hold accountable those that need to be accountable. Ragging on about ACA and the cost as well as the debt is fine....but we can not blame all the debt on Obama. Sorry: That would be a lie. So let's all agree that we have allowed under GW Bush and Obama more spending than we can afford and stop pretending that the democrats hijacked everyones money when in fact two parties did that. Come on, proud American, can you publicly agree to this and then admit that a trillion plus of debt is, in fact, from items that had nothing to do with the current administration OR their spending yet has everyhting to do with a skewed tax platform and wars that were waged but not paid for. (And money that just came up "lost" under Bush as well) I think there are intelligent people here that can agree to this...as well as the shortcoming of the current administration.

Quoting: "... The Jobs Council did did their job: Produced over 90 recommendations with some that have been implemented. ...."

OK, Stacy, please be specific. If what you say is true, why were the ground rules of the Council changed? The Council was to be on-going, not stopping after one session. And, why do the Dems never follow your assertion when asked about the whereabouts of the Council?

While answering that question, what happened to the quarterly updates on the impact of the stimulus money. Pres Obama was very specific and clear that quarterly reports would be issued so that the American people would know that the stimulus money was effective in creating jobs. I think the last quarterly report was about 18 months ago, when the report showed that one job had been created, yes, one. Then the flow of promised quarterly reports stopped. When questioned, the WH refused to answer why. Stacy, since you have good inside information, maybe you can enlighten us about the whereabouts of those reports in the past 18 months. Thank you for helping us out on this one.

LiNK ON JOBS COUNCIL & REPORTS:
http://www.jobs-council.com/recommendations/
proud American:
Glad to help you out: Above is the link to the site that our government, under President Obama, has in place for the jobs council reports you infer do not exists. They do. There is no magic or slight of hand: All any American has to do is RESEARCH with an open mind. You stated that you were an Independent, then honestly this should be fairly easy for you. I don't understand your crack about Rush; how is an uneducated disc jockey relevant to this discussion? Rush has no control over Congress or our President. Rush is, at best, an entertainer, that some might think is a fountain of facts. Sometimes I enjoy a good comedian but I don't get my information from them: I check things out on my own. As for Fox news: I stated before that sometimes I watch them because I personally believe it is healthy to try and understand other points of view. I strongly urge everyone to try that mental exercise. I think it would be fair to say that our country is shifting some of their thoughts on some large issues and that will cause division. However, as every gardener knows you can't have healthy growth without breaking some new ground. Finally, not once have I called republicans "bad"; I think honest discussion backed up by facts is a positive thing.

obama has been a joke since being in office, can't fight his way out of a wet paperbag and lead the United States. He is all about wasting money by the trillions and will never accomplish anything. Can't wait till 2016 and he is history and know as the worse president, besides Jimmy Carter.

Stacy, good link to the Jobs Council. After spending lots of time reading, I find nothing that has come from the Council. Yes, lots of recommendations. Yes, lots of meetings. But, I failed to find one action item. I failed to find one piece of legislation that was implemented and created employment.

Hinges on the door, remember?

Clearly Fox News' fault, right? I think you have reading too many of the recent interviews with President Obama.

Ha-Ha-Ha. Bob, you are a real jokester. Too funny.

I remember the first few months Obama was in office, he made a statement the "we are going to reform health care, if the Republicans want to join us, they can get at the back of the bus". Yeah, right, he sure was reaching out since the beginning. I've never seen a president so quick to throw walls up and it has trickled down quite quickly to the general population.

No, bob, we don't remember that incident. What we do remember was the promise of C-SPAN coverage of all the meetings. They were to be transparent and open to the American people to see.

In reality, the Dems chose to hold their meetings, by themselves behind closed doors, with guards at the doors, keeping GOP, or anybody else away.

And, we do remember the promise by Pres Obama, and Speaker Pelosi, to not hold votes on any legislation for 48 hours after it was finalized and published. But, in reality, we saw the arm twisting directed toward some no-name Representative from Michigan on the abortion matter, and the legislation was passed. Even the Speaker was clear, "We have to pass it, so that we can see what is in it."

What happened to transparency? Is this "reaching out?"

that was to Roger

bob, your question pretty well seals the "troll" tag. Thanks.

proud American: Here is the link with information on Obama's (& Bush, Clinton) travels. Read & you will see that the argument about how much President Obama travels is...well...not really worth arguing. He is right in line with past Presidents. Check it out yourself. Obama has made his intent clear on immigration reform: He is for it and will try to get his Congress to move on it. I think they call that leading, proud American. Is Obama ALSO a politician? OF COURSE!
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/the-traveling-president/
Sue T:
Obama directed Biden to step in and work with the republicans; an appropriate action. We can't give up when we struggle to solve something, we must be bright enough to allow others to work on the issue as well. If you want to use statements such as "Obama couldn't reach an agreement on the fiscal cliff" then you must also include in that statement "nor could the republican leader, Boehner". As for Obama's "working with the 8 senators" on the forming plan on immigration reform: You might have missed it but Obama already said he would let that committee "take the lead" regarding a plan, and their plan seem to have much in common with what the WH might want as well. Maybe you are referring to Obama not wanting to make "shoring up" the borders as part of a "pathway to citizenship" in the plan? You may have a good point; I would be interested in what exactly the plan by the senators have included regarding borders, and any inferred cost.

Proud American one thing we agreed on was that energy independance from the foreign oil by using our own abundant supply of natural gas should be one of Obama's top priorities. He should switch his jet over to run it to eliminate some of that carbon footprint. With that being said Proud American I want you to read the following articles by the Observer-Reporter and pay close attention to the comments sections. You'll see what I'm talking about.
http://www.observer-reporter.com/article/20130127/NEWS04/130129359

http://www.observer-reporter.com/article/20130128/NEWS01/130129302/1003

I see what you mean Donald in the second article I know people who are involved and because they want drilling their lives are being torn apart people are only reading half of what is going on.

I hope you took note of the name they used. That's one thing I was trying to point out to you. Plus my EID article was just released. It came out pretty good. You'll like it.
http://eidmarcellus.org/marcellus-shale/natural-gas-trains-trucks-coming-through/17551/#more-17551

Donald the article was excellent youare a very interesting man and very knowledgeable. So many people get upset when you don't post your real name but I have always said if they post a name how do we know it is real. A few people in my community don't like what I stand for .

Sue T:
Obama directed Biden to step in and work with the republicans; an appropriate action. We can't give up when we struggle to solve something, we must be bright enough to allow others to work on the issue as well. If you want to use statements such as "Obama couldn't reach an agreement on the fiscal cliff" then you must also include in that statement "nor could the republican leader, Boehner". As for Obama's "working with the 8 senators" on the forming plan on immigration reform: You might have missed it but Obama already said he would let that committee "take the lead" regarding a plan, and their plan seem to have much in common with what the WH might want as well. Maybe you are referring to Obama not wanting to make "shoring up" the borders as part of a "pathway to citizenship" in the plan? You may have a good point; I would be interested in what exactly the plan by the senators have included regarding borders, and any inferred cost.

Stacy, if you have read my past several posts, I have consistently blamed BOTH parties for the dead lock in Washington, I don't feel it is neccesay to continuely do it in every example I cite. I was emphasising Obama in this particular post because Bob seems to think that he has tried to work with the Republicans all along. I can't think of one instance that Obama has worked with the Republicans. My point is Obama gets as much blame for the deadlock in Washington as do the republicans and democrats in Congress far as I'm concerned. If you all feel Obama is the peace maker constantly reaching across the aisle, well, just go on believing that. You and I are coming from different sides of the statisphere.

Sue T-
You and others constantly say that Obama won't work with others and won't compromise. Here's a quote with his views on single payer universal health care -
"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program, I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. "

Do we currently have a single payer universal health care system that he rammed down our throats - no. Do we have the exact same system that was failing when he took office - no. This would indicate that he compromised with those opposed to single payer insurance and those that pushed him to stick by his guns and propose universal care for all.

I could go on with many other instances of Obama working with his opponents, but a loud minority prefer not to see facts.

Sue T writes:
Now, there is a bipartism proposal on immigration reform. Is Obama working with the 8 senators on this plan? No, he is proposing his own plan. >>>

I disagree.
As the White House reported on January 31, lawmakers from both parties agree with that basic set of principles, (re: immigration reforms) and a bipartisan group of Senators is already working on a bill that's consistent with President Obama's proposal.

Roger: No one said the Job Council was the answer to all problems. It was created with the plan to disband after 2 years, which has happened. Of the 60 items that could be addressed without Congress 54 were addressed. The President met four times with them. Am I impressed? No. Do I think it is horrid? No. They were to create written recommendations and did. The markets etc and S & P has had its best start since 1997 and we continue on a five year climb w/ the financial markets. Overall, markets are going well, despite the fact that we had slight contraction in the 4th quarter and spending that was unplanned (50 billion alone for Sandy relief). As for unemployment creeping up: it usually does this time of year. Second of all there are some cut backs, notably with government jobs. Small businesses as well as service ADDED jobs. Are we doing ok? YES, but we can do better. (unemployment down from 10% when Obama took office) If we take away the incentives for hiring non-American workers, including white collar jobs, then I think much of this would be solved. Reality is that the very liberal AND the very conservative will not go along with that idea. If your point is that the Jobs Council was mainly a forum for business to chat it up as well as some photo ops: Then I agree with you. I do not think that Big Business has the answers to our problems when the fact of the matter is that it is our allowing them to run rampant that has helped land us in this mess.

Sorry, Stacy, the shut down of the Council yesterday included absolutely nothing about being planned. In fact, the assessment was to the contrary, "With unemployment at these rates, this is NOT the time to shut down the Council."

As for the financial markets, I will ask you the same question asked of others: Why? For those touting the advancing markets, nobody wants to write an answer because it flies in the face of the preconceived agenda.

Using four indicators, the situation is worse now than four years ago. Unemployment rates are slightly more, but not much. Those unemployed are slightly more, but not much. The underemployed rate is more than four years ago, but not much. However, the major marker is the participating rate. It has dropped nearly 3 points in the past four years. This means fewer and fewer people are supporting more and more people.

When we hear Jay Carney speak about how much worse things were four years ago, and how much progress has been made, he clearly is listening to a different drummer. While three of those markers are only slightly different, the significant drop in participation rate is alarming.

To think we are "doing OK," is to tap into the new normal. We have been in this anemic situation for so long, that the Administration would like us to think that we are "doing OK." Adding 150,000 jobs this month is a very meager number. In order to be on a sustainable path, we need to be adding 400,000.

Roger - the jobs council charter was for 2 years and has expired. It's in every article I've read about this subject. How you can ignore this and say it wasn't planned is beyond me. As far as it having met only 4 times - that was 4 times with the president. It went around the country and met 19 times with local business leaders to gather information on their thoughts about job creation. That was what the council was set up to do.

There were recommendations by this council and by Simpson Bowles that were just not going to be accepted by some factions of our government on both sides of the aisle. The make up of the jobs council was 10 CEOs or presidents of corporations, 5 economists and 1 union leader. Are we shocked that they came up with lower corporate taxes and reduced spending as their #1 recommendations? There were recommendations that this council made that would have never passed congress and some that the white house would never agree to. That's the state of our government today. Yet some see fit only to blame the administration.

The Job Council created ONE job. That is a big accomplishment for obummer, maybe in the next 4 years in office they can create another 4 jobs.

Stacy the only reason unemployment is down is because people who aren't getting benefits aren't being counted. Doesn't mean there were jobs created. We have lost so many coal jobs since obama has been in office and these people now aren't collecting benefits and are not working. A friend in Ohio just lost their home to foreclosure as they couldn't live off the two minimum wage jobs that her and her husband are working full time. Both were coal miners and lived a modest life, put their children though college so they didn't have student loans, now they are so far in debt thanks to obama and him destroying the coal business.

Job's Council:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/advisory-boards/jobs-council

Having read the information here, the "About" and minutes of the first meeting, I find nothing about a two year charter. No commentator that addressed the dissolution last week spoke about the two year charter. The two-year story seems to be embraced by a small audience of two.

The last meeting was Jan 17, 2012. That is more than one year before dissolution. If this Council was so important, why wasn't it convened more often, and why wasn't there a "wrap" meeting? Why wasn't all participants for the two years gathered together to understand what worked, what did not work, and what should have been done differently? The WH certainly is entitled to dissolve the Council. But, any organization that makes these kinds decisions wants to understand the happenings, and how it was effective, how it was ineffective. Yes, there are times when it is time to fold up the tent and go home. But, these decisions are not made after a year's dormancy, and without input from the group.

Also, if it was so important, and there was a two-year charter, the WH would have chosen to extend the term.

Only when the WH and Congress face the "big picture" issues of deficit, out-of-control spending, and excessive oversight, will the purse strings of business by loosened for hiring at 400,000/month levels. The anemic GDP growth and 140,000 job creation will never make significant impact.

The first three articles that come up when you google Obama's jobs council disbanded. All mention early on that it had a 2 year charter.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/01/31/obama-boehner-jobs-council-unemployment/1880481/

http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/01/31/obama-jobs-council-is-disbanding/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/31/white-house-announces-it-no-longer-needs-a-jobs-council-will-disband-the-group-thursday/

You can have all the opinions you want on how Obama isn't doing anything to create jobs but you can't have your own set of facts. About your opinion - seems to me unemployment has dropped and private sector job creation has increased since Obama took office. Not enough? Of course, but you talk as if he has done nothing and has made things worse. Economics 101 - demand for products and services drives the need for hiring, plain and simple. People out of work and people with stagnant wages are not spending as much. Those that lost living wage jobs and have had to take the low paying jobs that industry is offering these days also are not spending as much. When demand is not there we can do one of two things - cut back on spending and take more money out of the economy or stimulate the economy and try to create more demand, therefore more jobs. The opinion of too many is we should put more money into the pockets of corporate America who will then magically create jobs even though demand is still low.

Don't take this as I feel Obama is like Hitler but between 1933-1944 Hitler was also very popular because he promised to change the country. Just stating that being popular doesn't make you a good leader

It is actually an uncommon event and has only happened 4 times.
Don't forget,however that Clinton NEVER won more than 50% of the popular electorate as well.

proud American:
Being popular may not make you a good leader but it also does not make you deserving of being compared to Hitler. So let's take the whole popularity side out of any discussion regarding Obama & stick to facts instead. It is a fact that unemployment has dropped under Obama's presidency and the stock markets have steadily climbed. Government spending is actually at its slowest rate since Eisenhower and its projected to go down 1.3% this year. i get that you do not like the guy and I understand that you are frustrated he is in office, but he is and so far is doing better for this country than the last administration.

Stacy didn't I start out by saying I didn't feel Obama was like Hitler. Personally President Obama is a very likeable guy but a terrible leader I don't care what party he represents. Terorist attacks are up , unemployment rose again this month and have you not looked at the national debt clock and as a leader the only thing he can think of is print more money and raise the debt ceiling or pass more bills we can't pay for. If he thinks raising taxes to pay for these programs in this economy is going to work it has never worked. Raising taxes on hard times just stops growth.