President Barack Obama/Vice-President Joe Biden Re-elected to 2nd Term Thread

[Hersh]

But the Bush years set us up for prosperity like we've never seen? After all Bush retroactively retired from the Presidency in 1999. Thus, gets credit for all of Clinton's successes and Obama gets the blame for Iraq, the Banking disaster, the housing bubble,the bailouts that occurred before his election, etc...

You aren't mentioning the latest and funniest (most pathetic) campaign going on by Republicans. The are having town hall meetings talking about how the automatic defense spending cuts to cut the deficit (which they have been wanting to do for about 3 years) and that they agreed to are going to cost lots of defense jobs therefore there can't be any cuts and it's Obama's fault, but only presidential leadership by Obama can save these jobs....So says New Hampshire Senator Ayotte.

[deejaydana]

But the Bush years set us up for prosperity like we've never seen? After all Bush retroactively retired from the Presidency in 1999. Thus, gets credit for all of Clinton's successes and Obama gets the blame for Iraq, the Banking disaster, the housing bubble,the bailouts that occurred before his election, etc...

Burgold, you do realize that the housing debacle goes back to Clinton, right? It actually was something that both parties delved into, the Dems more so in their effort to get everybody into a home. I think the thing that is particularly distasteful about the aftermath of that is Dodd's relationship with Countrywide AND then his name on the Financial reform bill. It's just politics at its worst. And both parties have stunk up the room. what I wish would happen is to see some Obama supporters apply the same level of criticism they did to Bush (remember the "imperial" Presidency rants) to Obama who's overstepped traditional Presidential powers as often and really more then Bushever did.No we're perfectly fine with drones flying over our own country. Would the criticism be different if it was Bush doing this?You know what I think? I completely comprehend how both parties continue to make more people Independants. They are both just so full of it in my eyes. Is either one of these guys really going to chance DC to any degree?

[greenspandan]

1. Joe Biden has to retire for health reasons and Hillary becomes the Veep?

god i wish this meme would die! since the first day Biden took office, people have been suggesting he would be dropped from the ticket in 2012. it's not happening. it hasn't happened since FDR. there's no reason for it to happen. Bush Sr. didn't even drop Dan freaking Quayle in his bid for re-election.

[Burgold]

Burgold, you do realize that the housing debacle goes back to Clinton, right? It actually was something that both parties delved into

If I were being completely sincere and not flip (which my Bushisms were) I would say that the seeds to all of the problems we are suffering from today go back decades. They really pre-date Clinton.

Bush through negligence and bad policy made many problems accelerate and failed to address several others... though kick the can is a political game enjoyed by all. Still, a return to the Bush policies would be horrifying. The bigger problem to me is that we haven't deviated enough from that course and that I do blame Obama and Congress for.

[Thiebear]

If I were being completely sincere and not flip (which my Bushisms were) I would say that the seeds to all of the problems we are suffering from today go back decades. They really pre-date Clinton.

Bush through negligence and bad policy made many problems accelerate and failed to address several others... though kick the can is a political game enjoyed by all. Still, a return to the Bush policies would be horrifying. The bigger problem to me is that we haven't deviated enough from that course and that I do blame Obama and Congress for.

Though Bush did help this accelerate this in his 2000 efforts and It also happend on Bush's watch so he gets it by default:

He and McCain stated this in 2003/2005 and Barney Frank told them to sit down and stop being racist there is nothing wrong, everything is fine, followed by 8 other Financial Congressional Leader experts all with youtube videos compiled and ready to play again.

We might not have been able to fix it completely by 2007/2008 but i bet it wouldn't have hurt as bad casing vote for this today or we all fall over a cliff.

Obama has accelerated the accelerator by huge margins in spending (To stop the Recession and to get growth running again).

He specifically asked for Tarp money set aside before he entered office and Got It approved through the Bush regime.

[deejaydana]

If I were being completely sincere and not flip (which my Bushisms were) I would say that the seeds to all of the problems we are suffering from today go back decades. They really pre-date Clinton.

Bush through negligence and bad policy made many problems accelerate and failed to address several others... though kick the can is a political game enjoyed by all. Still, a return to the Bush policies would be horrifying. The bigger problem to me is that we haven't deviated enough from that course and that I do blame Obama and Congress for.

Yeah I think the relaxing of standards dates all the way back to the 70's and both parties have their fingerprints on it. I'm not sure as I write this in 2012 that DC has learned any lessons from it. I do enjoy conversing with you because you do a great job of calling both parties to task. Something many of us here on ES are at times challenged to do as we back our guy/party.

[Larry]

If I were being completely sincere and not flip (which my Bushisms were) I would say that the seeds to all of the problems we are suffering from today go back decades. They really pre-date Clinton.

Bush through negligence and bad policy made many problems accelerate and failed to address several others... though kick the can is a political game enjoyed by all. Still, a return to the Bush policies would be horrifying. The bigger problem to me is that we haven't deviated enough from that course and that I do blame Obama and Congress for.

Actually, I would assert that a lot of our current policies haven't changed since Reagan. That, really, we've been following Reaganomics, with cosmetic variations, for 30 years.

[Burgold]

Actually, I would assert that a lot of our current policies haven't changed since Reagan. That, really, we've been following Reaganomics, with cosmetic variations, for 30 years.

I think that is largely true. My biggest worry is the pledge stuff. It might be entirely wrong to raise taxes now. It might be the stupidest thing in the world. But... if you are building a house, you don't do so, by throwing away your hammer. You need every tool in the kit and you have to be nimble and smart in the way use them. Any time you see never... you are handcuffing yourself in a dangerous (and stupid) way.

It's good politics to sign this pledge, but it's bad business and bad for the country.

[twa]

I blame LBJ

[twa]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/obama-favored-stronger-layoff-warnings-07/

President Obama's administration doesn’t see the need for defense contractors to warn employees about possible layoffs from across-the-board budget cuts, but in 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama railed against employers for failing to notify workers who were in danger of losing their jobs.

“The least employers can do when they’re anticipating layoffs is to let workers know they’re going to be out of a job and a paycheck with enough time to plan for their future,” Mr. Obama said in a news release on July 17, 2007, while campaigning for president.

The Obama administration said Monday in guidance from the Labor Department that federal contractors don’t need to warn their employees that they could lose their jobs because of the looming budget cuts that are slated to begin Jan. 2. The agency said it would be “inappropriate” for employers to send such warnings because the $110 billion in cuts are still speculative. Defense programs would be the target of about half of the cuts.

The Labor Department’s letter came after a Pentagon official said Defense Department contractors could be sending layoff notices days before the Nov. 6 presidential election. Some industry groups predict the budget cuts could cause as many as 1 million workers in the U.S. to lose their jobs. Lockheed Martin, for example, has told Congress it might be forced to lay off 10,000 of its 120,000 employees.

The White House is worried that thousands of those jobs would be lost in election battleground states such as Florida, Virginia and North Carolina

[JimboDaMan]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/obama-favored-stronger-layoff-warnings-07/

President Obama's administration doesn’t see the need for defense contractors to warn employees about possible layoffs from across-the-board budget cuts, but in 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama railed against employers for failing to notify workers who were in danger of losing their jobs.

“The least employers can do when they’re anticipating layoffs is to let workers know they’re going to be out of a job and a paycheck with enough time to plan for their future,” Mr. Obama said in a news release on July 17, 2007, while campaigning for president.

The Obama administration said Monday in guidance from the Labor Department that federal contractors don’t need to warn their employees that they could lose their jobs because of the looming budget cuts that are slated to begin Jan. 2. The agency said it would be “inappropriate” for employers to send such warnings because the $110 billion in cuts are still speculative. Defense programs would be the target of about half of the cuts.

The Labor Department’s letter came after a Pentagon official said Defense Department contractors could be sending layoff notices days before the Nov. 6 presidential election. Some industry groups predict the budget cuts could cause as many as 1 million workers in the U.S. to lose their jobs. Lockheed Martin, for example, has told Congress it might be forced to lay off 10,000 of its 120,000 employees.

The White House is worried that thousands of those jobs would be lost in election battleground states such as Florida, Virginia and North Carolina

Just so I understand, back then Obama was criticizing companies for violating the WARN act that required 60 days notice of possible layoffs. Currently Obama stated that sending layoff notices five months in advance is too early because nobody has any idea how policy and politics will play out over the course of the next several months. And you, and the Washington Times, think you've found something here? My how fragile you little ones are getting. Maybe if we get into October and things are looking bad there will be more of a push for WARN compliance.

I will tell you as an employee of a defense contractor, back in 2008 official notice didn't get sent to many people until about two weeks in advance. That was inappropriate, and last year the company gave significantly more notice (but still much less than 60 days). In many industries, the need for layoffs is apparent months or even years in advance. Because this whole thing is so political rather than market-driven, we've had situations where stop-work orders for tens of thousands were only averted hours in advance. Sucks for all concerned to be yanked around like that.

[@DCGoldPants]

Just so I understand, back then Obama was criticizing companies for violating the WARN act that required 60 days notice of possible layoffs. Currently Obama stated that sending layoff notices five months in advance is too early because nobody has any idea how policy and politics will play out over the course of the next several months. And you, and the Washington Times, think you've found something here? My how fragile you little ones are getting.

I think he should wait till they are laid off, then retroactively let them know its coming.

[deejaydana]

So Obama has attended 195 fundraisers in 16 months (according to CBS News White House /Mark Knoller). That's an appearance every 2.46 days. Where's the time to lead? I know both parties engage in this in our "endless campaign cycle" world but really, this seems excessive to me and of course with so many things he's done, unprecedented. It's a non stop effort to get money from donors.

[Larry]

Really amazing, to me, the number of right wingers who seem to think that they've discovered a major scandal, when a Democrat President spends time away from the White House.

[deejaydana]

Really amazing, to me, the number of right wingers who seem to think that they've discovered a major scandal, when a Democrat President spends time away from the White House.

Larry, where in my post did I in any way imply this was a "scandal?" It is for sure a level of campaigning that is unprecedented. I even pointed that we live in an eternal election cycle world. I wouldn't want any President on the road looking for funds to the level that he's out there. It's just more evidence of what I find to be a badly broken system. Not every post needs to be dumbed down to a my side vs your side discussion. I'll pose it this way: are you supportive and happy with him being on the road asking for cash every third day? Is this effective leadership? How do we change this or address it? can we change it? It just doesn't seem right to me. I'd level this claim to any leader who's on the road to this level.

[twa]

Just so I understand, back then Obama was criticizing companies for violating the WARN act that required 60 days notice of possible layoffs. Currently Obama stated that sending layoff notices five months in advance is too early because nobody has any idea how policy and politics will play out over the course of the next several months. .

My reading of it is he wants to overlook the sixty day notice.....nowhere do I see a call for immediate notification

[Larry]

Larry, where in my post did I in any way imply this was a "scandal?" It is for sure a level of campaigning that is unprecedented.

No. It isn't.

(Why does it not surprise me in the least that you support your claims, by making claims that aren't true?)

Remember Katrina? Big hurricane? Hit New Orleans because New Orleans voted Democrat?

W took a lot of grief (completely unjustified, according to every Republican) because after Katrina hit, it was a week before Bush could visit the place.

Where was W, during that week? He was on vacation. Attending two fundraisers a day.

Remember 9/11? Big event. Made all the papers.

When 9/11 happened, I remember a whole bunch of people announcing that it wasn't Bush's fault (it was Clinton's), because W had only been in office 7 months, and he was too busy getting his staff in position and setting up his administration to pay attention to terrorists.

At the time, W had been in office 7 months. And had spent 2 of them on vacation.

Including the entire month of August. (August was when the NSC prepared a Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Ossama bin Laden Determined To Attack Within the US". Got a lot of attention when that came out, after months of White House announcements announcing that they were never told that Ossama wanted to attack within the US.) But W as safe. There were no records indicating that W ever read that briefing. Or any briefing for the month of August. Or that he ever spoke to the head of the FBI, the head of the CIA, the SecDef, or his National Security Adviser. For the entire month.

I bet you complained a lot about those. In fact, I bet that you so much as knew about those.

So please, feel free to tell me some more about how Presidential Fundraising is "unprecedented"

[deejaydana]

Larry I love how passionate you get behind these posts, even though we almost always stand at odds.

Here are some links I found about Obama's fundraising as well as his recent expenses on polling. What do you think? I stand by my earlier post in that with all things Obama, he's like the college freshman, away from the parents, and with the Amex card with the high limit. He loves spending all the time. Just my take. This isn't again a slam on Obama, but boy what's with all that polling?

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/david-hill/239865-obamas-poll-spending-is-obscene

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136851/Obama-held-fundraisers-previous-Presidents-combined-visits-key-swing-states-permanent-campaign.html

Obama has held more re-election fundraisers than previous five Presidents combined as he visits key swing states on 'permanent campaign'

[Mad Mike]

Actually, I would assert that a lot of our current policies haven't changed since Reagan. That, really, we've been following Reaganomics, with cosmetic variations, for 30 years.

In many ways you are correct. Here's my view on it...

At the time when Reagan was in office, it was an effective policy. That boost for the big money principals loosened up a lot of money at the top which sparked private industry, jobs, and was a general boon for everyone. The problem is that because it *was* successful, people became convinced that the process would always work and that more of the same would always lead to the same success. (I include myself in that group) Unfortunately, what everyone missed was the fact that beyond a certain level of wealth at the top, the benefits to the the economy diminished. They already *have* all of the money they need to create new businesses and jobs. What they don't have is consumers with enough money to support new businesses and job growth. In order to find the balance needed for a healthy economy now, what we need is a "trickle up" economy. And while those on the right try to paint this as wealth redistribution, the fact is that the wealthy will still benefit because ultimately the money that is taken away from them in taxes will be returned as consumers begin to spend again.

This lesson brought to you by Mad Mike for Pres. 2012

[Larry]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136851/Obama-held-fundraisers-previous-Presidents-combined-visits-key-swing-states-permanent-campaign.html

Obama has held more re-election fundraisers than previous five Presidents combined as he visits key swing states on 'permanent campaign'

Has he attended more events which were specifically labeled as fundraisers for his re-election? I certainly don't know.

Granted, I'm just going from memory, but I seem to recall reading that when W was doing two a day, after Katrina, that he was raising money for other Republicans, and for the Party.

It's certainly believable.

---------- Post added August-2nd-2012 at 04:40 PM ----------

In many ways you are correct. Here's my view on it...

At the time when Reagan was in office, it was an effective policy. That boost for the big money principals loosened up a lot of money at the top which sparked private industry, jobs, and was a general boon for everyone. The problem is that because it *was* successful, people became convinced that the process would always work and that more of the same would always lead to the same success. (I include myself in that group) Unfortunately, what everyone missed was the fact that beyond a certain level of wealth at the top, the benefits to the the economy diminished. They already *have* all of the money they need to create new businesses and jobs. What they don't have is consumers with enough money to support new businesses and job growth. In order to find the balance needed for a healthy economy now, what we need is a "trickle up" economy. And while those on the right try to paint this as wealth redistribution, the fact is that the wealthy will still benefit because ultimately the money that is taken away from them in taxes will be returned as consumers begin to spend again.

This lesson brought to you by Mad Mike for Pres. 2012

I've heard it expressed even more simply.

Just because lowering the top tax rate from 70% to 38% is good for the economy, doesn't mean that lowering it from 38% to 14% is.

[GSF]

Larry, where in my post did I in any way imply this was a "scandal?" It is for sure a level of campaigning that is unprecedented.

From the article you linked:

In the complaint, Reince Priebus, RNC chairman, wrote: ‘Throughout his administration, but particularly in recent weeks, President Obama has been passing off campaign travel as “official events,” thereby allowing taxpayers, rather than his campaign, to pay for his re-election efforts.’

Doherty, however, said that although the tactic of labelling Obama’s activities as fraud was ‘novel’ in reality the opposing party always complained about a president facing re-election dressing up political events as official ones.

‘This is not new. The Republican complaint is more of a situational complaint than a principled complaint because they certainly weren’t complaining when George W. Bush did this eight years ago.'

He added: ‘In 2004, President George W. Bush broke all records for presidential fundraising in terms of time devoted to fundraising and in terms of money raised and at the time Democrats hit him hard for that.

'Obama has already surpassed Bush [Jnr] in numbers of re-election fundraisers, but not yet in money raised.'

The rising costs of campaigns, lower contribution limits, the breakdown of the public financing system, the 24/7 media environment and the professionalisation of campaigns had all led to successive presidents having to devote more and more time and energy to raising money.

Every presidential campaign in recent history was unprecedented in the amount of time spent and money raised, so no I don't believe Obama is doing anything wrong or different from previous or future presidents republican or democrat.

[deejaydana]

How about the polling? It's extreme and even by Obama's bloated spending standards . .

[GSF]

So are you giving up on your claim that Obama's campaigning is unprecedented?

I would say it's pretty obvious that the polling is a result of worrying that they might not win the election. I would add that they are running a thorough campaign.

Why does the polling matter? It's not like it's taking away from Obama doing his job as you implied with your other point.

[JimboDaMan]

How about the polling? It's extreme and even by Obama's bloated spending standards . .

I'm impressed by how quickly you abandon each argument as it is debunked (as nearly all of them are) and on a dime spin onto a different complaint.

[GSF]

Step 1: Post false or out of context claims that make Obama look bad.

Step 2: Ignore posts that expose previous posts to be false or out of context, move on to other false or out of context claims that make Obama look bad.

Step 3: Repeat