What has Obama Done for us over his First 3.5 Years?

Here is a blog post that lists the accomplishments of the past 3.5 years of the Obama Administration.
http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

Doesn't look like a do-nothing presidency to me.

(Image of President Obama copied from http://northcountrydemocrat.blogspot.com/2010_04_01_archive.html as a lisense-free image.)

Obama a Loser?

Today while reading The Week on-line I came across a comment where the fellow claimed that Obama was a loser.  (There is a link below the box to the entire dialog.)

Tumblers, a flame © 2009

This is my reply to him.

Heavens, how can you call a sitting president a loser? He won that election, after all. And got some very major bills passed through a partially hostile congress. And he accomplished the primary publicly-stated goals Bush set for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq both. And he lowered the unemployment rate and reduced taxes for business and the middle class. And look at what he accomplished against the enormous odds set by the other party.

The major weakness that I have observed in the Obama years is that the press does not publish his accomplishments with the same fervor that they publish the criticisms against him, nor does it publish favorable opinions fair-handedly. The other major weakness is that the Dems have not explained their policies and the new laws in ways that the public will hear and understand. They have not consistently pointed out the facts so that people can read through the innuendos and out-right lies propagated by the other party and its media censorship.

The other major problem with publicizing Obama's successes is that many Americans have a religious fervor for accepting everything they hear on Fox News Network and refuse to listen to any reporting that does not agree with the likes of Glen Beck. When church members in the Bible Belt claim that what they hear on Fox is all they know or need to know in the same manner that they say they only read the Bible and do not require much education because God will provide all they need to know and whatever they need to live on-- they always let you know that to think, or say, otherwise would be a betrayal of their Faith--then you have to realize that churches are doing lots of politicking despite their tax-exempt status.

Check out the entire dialog here:
http://theweek.com/article/index/228291/5-reasons-the-clinton-biden-switcheroo-will-never-happen

How will Republicans under Mitt Romney Create Jobs?

    How will Mitt Romney create jobs? By bolstering the corporations? By making business loans available? By increasing government civil service positions? By expanding the number of government subcontractors?

Below is a copy of am email from Stephanie of the Obama-Biden campaign.  It discusses past examples of business practices of Mitt Romney.

There is an email within the email. The original is posted in the bottom half of the boxed area. It is even more informative than the top half.

 (Hello)

Watch this video we put together featuring people affected by Mitt Romney during his time in the private sector, and help hold him accountable by passing it along.

[This is an ad by Democrats. There is much info here, especially in the timeline across the bottom of the add page. Ignore the first popup. The others are all about information gathered from the people involved in the assistance provided by Romney's company. ~Knee Jerk Reactions added this caption.]

It's important that you understand exactly what Romney did as a businessman, and whether the lessons and values he drew from that experience really do qualify him to be our president.

In a career of buying and selling companies, Romney's pattern was to reap quick profits for himself and his investors, but often at the expense of workers and communities. Sometimes it meant outsourcing jobs to places like China and Mexico. Other times, it would mean reducing wages and benefits.

At times, his firm would buy companies, load them with debt and pocket millions, even as the companies went bankrupt, costing workers their jobs, health care, and pensions.

In Romney's world, CEOs and wealthy investors prosper by any means they can get away with, even when that means companies fail and workers are left behind. Two sets of rules -- one for people like him, another for the rest of us.

It's our job to let people know the truth about Romney's record, and what it says about the economic vision and values he would bring to the presidency.

The real strength of the economy is a growing, thriving middle class, not simply a band of successful financial engineers, and Romney doesn't get that.

I sent the note below to the Truth Team, a group of grassroots supporters who've signed up to be on the front lines of doing just that.

So check out this video:

http://my.barackobama.com/Romney-Economics

And consider becoming a part of the Truth Team -- we'd love to have your help.

Thanks,

Stephanie


-----
More than 1.9 million people like you power this campaign. If you can, please donate today.


-----------------Original Message-----------------
From: Stephanie Cutter, BarackObama.com
Subject: Romney economics

Friend --

On the campaign trail, Mitt Romney points to his private sector experience as his chief qualification to be president.

So we took a look at that experience, and put together a new site, RomneyEconomics.com, on it. Take a look for yourself here.

Let me sum up how Romney economics works:

Romney and his partners bought companies across the United States, often loading them up with debt in the process.

Too often, they slashed pensions, benefits, and jobs, while paying themselves and their shareholders straight from the debt they'd accumulated.

Because of that debt, several of these businesses went bankrupt, leaving workers without jobs, without pensions, and without health care -- all while Romney and his partners walked away with millions.

Everyone understands that businesses rise and fall -- and sometimes fail -- and no one is challenging Romney's right to run his business as he saw fit or questioning private equity as a whole.

But when a handful of people make a fortune by putting thousands out of work and bankrupting once-healthy businesses, it's legitimate to question whether those are the values America needs in a president -- and whether those are the values that will create an economy built to last, with a strong, secure middle class.

On the campaign trail, Mitt Romney claims that what he and his partners did is the very best of what capitalism can be. He claims to know how to create jobs based on that experience, but even his former partners admitted their business was never about creating jobs -- it was about creating wealth for investors.

Just listen to the workers of GST Steel: Mitt Romney came in, ravaged it with debt, and it ended up filing for bankruptcy. 750 workers lost their jobs and health care, and Romney's managers left their pension fund $44 million short. The 113-year-old steel mill closed its doors, and Romney's company made a 150% profit on their initial investment.

As RomneyEconomics.com shows, stories like that happened time and time again. That approach, where a few people do very well no matter what the cost to others, is the last thing we need in a president.

Romney's economics would be a disaster for the middle class. We can't afford an economy where even when the company fails, the financial wizards walk away with millions, while the workers who have invested years growing the company are left holding the bag. That won't make our economy -- or our country -- stronger.

As part of the Truth Team, it's up to us to spread the truth behind Mitt Romney's business record. We don't need to spin it here, the facts speak for themselves.

So take a look around the site -- check out the year-by-year statistics and hear from the workers and managers affected by Mitt Romney and his business partners. Then share these stories far and wide: http://my.barackobama.com/Romney-Economics

There's too much at stake in this election not to.

Thanks,

Stephanie

Stephanie Cutter
Deputy Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Let's Keep Moving Forward, America!

Election time approaches. I ask all liberals, progressives, and Democrats to vote to keep the Dems in the majority and more in the House and Senate. Read what the Democratic Party is posting as a rallying cry for the upcoming elections; watch President Obama on video. Then share the video with your friends and family on Facebook and Twitter. Blog. Get the word out. Drink a cup of coffee: Join the Coffee Party! Get active in Organize America.

Personally, I am frightened that the Democrats will lose seats in Congress if we do not all vote. There is much at stake. VOTE.

Download this .pdf file for a flier that can be distributed--after you read it. (It is the same .pdf download link on the above site.)

Why the Republican Candidate Won the Senate Race in Massachusetts

Discipline, Change, Policy, Campaign Strategy, Defeat. These are the reasons being touted for the election of a Republican to the Senate by Massachusetts.

Let's examine the claims of the pundits.

Obama has not disciplined the Democratic Congress sufficiently according to a GOP Strategist on CNN this morning around 8:35. I guess they want Obama to threaten ostracism like Palin did when a Republican got out of line. Bush controlled the party with an iron fist, not democratic compromise. Sorry, but the President's job is not to control Congress. He may lead, but Congress makes law, not the President, whose only real legislative power is the veto.

Change from the Republicans sounds like a metaphor for business as usual. The public voted on a president who promised to change certain societal wrongs. Then he was given a destroyed economy and now is being blamed for not providing a quick fix. Sorry. but I do not see the Republicans working to make jobs available. I do not see Republicans making needed changes. How does Brown expect to make changes when his political party will not support needed changes to current regulatory law and needed social supports? Will he be willing to get his party to stop Obama-bashing long enough to actively participate in actual governance? What solutions--workable solutions--do the Republicans have to offer the American people?

Policy is what the people voted on. The main points that were suggested by the pundits to be of concern to the American People is that they want jobs, they want Washington to stop spending money, and they want no new taxes.  Jobs come from industry and take time to develop. The banks that received the TARP money were asked to pass the money on to industries. But big business, left to regulate itself, took the money and ran. Maybe we would have been better off if we had let the conglomerates fail. At least we would now be on a real route to recovery and not this business-as-usual backslide. However, now that we have spent tax money on the rich, the middle class and poor are to be left out. Again. Banks that could have held off on foreclosures and restructured mortgages on their own were too afraid to help the people so now are taking huge losses on foreclosed loans--or are taxpayers paying the insurance coverage on these loans? Will the Republicans in Congress participate in rewriting laws to control these vultures? Or will they, too, take the money and run. Lobbyist and corporate campaign contributors pay out a lot, after all.

Campaign Strategy seems to be more important than issues in political campaigns. An active attorney general, holding down a full-time, taxpayer-paid job, should drop everything and work only at campaigning? She had a job for her state that had to be done. She let her personality come through, even in her gaffs. Ok. But surely her ability to do the actual job is the key issue here.

Defeat, the final issue being touted by the pundits. The vote in Massachusetts was so close to 50:50 that this vote can not be called a "crushing defeat."  What this vote does illustrate is that the American people are equally divided in what changes they want for this country. Half want the status quo, half want sweeping changes. In a diverse country, such differences in opinion is normal. As a supporter of the current Democratic Platform, I find the statistics today disappointing, but not a reflection of total defeat and failure. I suppose the Democrats should step back and make less sweeping changes, but here's hoping the the laws that are now crafted will do less harm than did the Republican policies of the last decade.  Here's hoping the Republicans will take stock of what changes are necessary for minimal good governance, at least.

Apparently, the American People actually do have distinct differences of beliefs. And they have a huge fear of the changes that most voted for in electing Obama. The Republicans managed to scare people enough that many who wanted change are no longer brave enough to fight for it. Why? Some say a fear of socialism. Some say a fear of higher taxes. Some say if we just let the communities and businesses of America solve their own problems,  then over time social evolution will result: what changes work will survive and what changes do not will go extinct.

Could government regulation and efforts push this process towards recovery any faster? Most likely. Will as many people be left unemployed for as long? Possibly longer. Will we slip into a depression? Maybe. The socialism that people claim to fear as a reason for denying the public option in health care is the same socialism that the people are declaring is necessary to provide jobs, increase and continue unemployment benefits, and generally make life easier for everyone--as long as health care is not of the package and as long as taxes are not raised. Socialistic policies pave roads, build bridges, control crime, isolate criminals from society and educate children--and send our young men and women to war so we can stay safely home.

How do we resolve these differences? As in the past, our Congress must work together--in a give-and-take across party lines--to pass the minimum laws to keep the country going. It would be great if Congress could actually accomplish something, but maintaining the status quo in a nation of 50:50 differences of opinions means there is no winning side. As in the past, common needs will author legislation which will then be doctored by the added special interest bits and pieces that are always added to garner needed votes and appease the special interests who donate so hugely to the lobbyist efforts and the campaign funds. Maybe business as usual will get some successful and needed changes through. Maybe. At least we have a President who I believe is wise enough to veto the bills that would actually be harmful.

The American People are so fearful of increased taxes because the current tax policies are so unfair. The percentages for taxable situations, incomes, inheritances, businesses, investments, etc., are too arbitrary and too high. A reasonably low percentage with absolutely no loopholes would make so much more sense. As would strict regulations on taking money earned in this country out of this country before and without  being taxed.

Offshore accounts used to evade one's tax liabilities should be regulated and taxes paid. If corporations want to be treated as individuals under the law, then treat them as such. If the corporation breaks the law, discontinue its business within the US. And do this within a court system that applies the law based on the truth of the case, not the money and ability of the lawyers.

Truth is truth. There should not be a winning of a case on trial, but an identification of truth and the admistration of actual justice. Lawyers should not win cases, rather the facts of the case should determine which way the verdict goes.

Taxes are the last point I wish to cover. Somehow the things that have to be done must be paid for. Taxes pay for this. If you want a government solution to the need for jobs, for increased needs for unemployment, for help with foreclosures in the form of money for refinancing loans, and for infrasturcture, then you must accept that taxes are necessary. Otherwise, everything must be privatized.

My state of Mississippi is facing the possibility of letting 2500-3000 prisoners go free because the state budget must include cuts to state prisons. Will private groups help these people when they are released?  Will privatized help, which will ask for tax-supported grants to run their agencies, be able to assist these people to stay out of crime?

And how much money is saved by privatizing agencies that function by being paid by the government to do the job?

Taxes will be needed to keep us going. How can we all be taxed fairly? Maybe the rich Republicans and Democrats together can come up with an equitable solution. I suspect the solution will mean drastic cutbacks on what our government can do for us all. Oh, well. Give us time. the naysayers today will be adding handouts back in soon enough. And there is always the fundraising solution to get monies for one's favorite programs. Make celebrities your friend. Get the really rich megachurches busy doing social outreach programs to all members of a community. Stop spending money on lost causes and actually help people in need.  Go ahead and run a business like a religious theme park--paying all necessary taxes--since that brings in needed money for projects. Churches and Organizations, decide on the value of a ministry or non-profit and tax any income over that value. Why should donations go to the support of a lavish lifestyle just because there is a claim of religion or charity involved?


Amidst all this angst today is the worry over the people of Haiti. I am grateful that the American People are so generous with money, effort, government funds and time to help where it is needed so drastically. I am proud of our whole international community for stepping up to help. I hope and pray that the Haitians can recover as soon as possible, knowing it will take a long time. I hope that the repressions of the Haitian past will be lifted by all oppressors in the future. I hope the US and corporations will deal more fairly with Haiti in the future.