Obama Failure Thread Part IV

Well, he is technically correct. It is unprecedented in recent history for government spending to accelerated at a rate as low as it is under Obama...

 

What kind of Doritos? I remember when Cool Ranch came out like it was only yesterday.

 

that graph is just full of emotions

 

if I recall my Think-Tank Generated, Rant-Radio Amplified Talking Points correctly, Schapes will inform us that, while it is true the numbers are bigger when Republicans are in the White House, it's more important to look at which party controls Congress. That's the true reason why Clinton and Obama look better than patrio... Republican presidents

 

Obama gave the order.

Except for that **************** that wrote the book that probably exposed his fellow SEAL possible retribution

 

He's gonna have to pick another snack, Doritos already had another candidate in the bag

 

That sounds like some kind of BDSM.. Is it softcore or Hardcore?

 

- Impending depression was turned into a recession.
- Went from losing 750k jobs/month to stabilizing the unemployment numbers.
- Health care reform/more people covered by health care.
- Bin Laden dead/Al Quaeda weakened.
- Ended useless war in Iraq which you cannot afford anyway.
- brought back stem-cell research.
- saved General Motors.
- number of terrorist attacks in the USA since becoming President = 0

And last but not least, kept John McCain (aka Bush the Third) out of the White House.

 

I can't help but hear Karl Pilkington's voice in my head when I read your posts.

 

You come back and tell me how great Obamacare is when your employer realizes it is cheaper to pay the fine for not providing insurance as opposed to paying for your healthcare. Then you will be on
Obamacare - you can tell me at that time how great it is.

 

Do I have to do this? God, I don't want to have to do this. Sure, it's copy+paste at this point, but couldn't we make him read into the history of this thread?

I'm going to have to do this. But I'm doing it my way, dammit.

Alrighty, Schapes, Politifact.com has compiled a series of promises made by the President in 2008. 508 promises, in fact. So as of today, Politifact gives him the following score:

Promise Kept: 190
Compromise: 72
Promise Broken: 83
Stalled: 49
In the Works: 112
Not Yet Rated: 2

Here are the various ways we can attribute 'success' and 'failure. The most restrictive is to say all things "Kept" or "In the Works" are successes (they are things he's actually done/doing), with all else failures. That's 59% combined. Or we could add "Compromise" since we want our leaders to compromise, right? That's how the Founding Fathers designed the federal government so we'll call it a success. His success rate goes up to 73%.

Here's the method I prefer: assume 506 (the two unrated ones can't work here) and give each category a value between 0 and 1. So, a perfect Presidency would receive a score of 506. "Promises Kept" = 1, In the Works = 0.75, Compromise = 0.50, Stalled = 0.25, Promise Broken = 0. On that metric, the President receives a score of:

Kept - 190
In the Works - 84
Compromise - 36
Stalled - 12.25
Promise Broken - 0

Total - 63.69% success rate for the President.

This means that President Obama accomplished about 64%, just shy of two third, of what he wanted from his entire goddamn Presidency in one term. Moreover, since 99% of that happened while he was in his first two years, we would assume the President would accomplish a great deal more if Democrats were to take back both houses of Congress.

There is absolutely no objective metric by which someone can judge the Presidency of Barack Obama a failure. It does better than 50% accomplishments by any metric. Do not link any more case studies. It's pathetic and small.

 

I had no idea that noted Obama worshiper Warren Buffett coined the term "skin in the game." Schapes may need to find a new catchphrase.

 

My employer provides healthcare currently despite the fact that there is no penalty if they don't. So you're suggesting that once there is a fine, they will drop our healthcare plans? That makes sense.

 

Well the Latvia type would have been nice, but we are too big of a country for that to work.

http://articles.businessinsider.com...1696287_1_eurozone-austerity-latvian-minister

The Guardian does agree with you

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/04/austerity-policy-eurozone-crisis

 

Can you explain why those companies would drop coverage and pay a fine when, pre-ACA, they could have just dropped it with no fine? I mean, why, under the existing system, would they have offered health benefits to their employees in the first place?

Damn: Luftmensch beat me to it.

 

Well duh, because free markets and stuff.

 

I think Schnapps here could really benefit from reading this article...

Joining the Reality-Based Community

 

The game.

 

"On Obamacare"? Perhaps you can explain what you think that means.

 

The Big Game?