On the other hand. . . .

"Ourself"?

(I heard someone say "theirselves" recently. Is that a word?)

We knew Obama was a sellout and another sock puppet for the power elite.
So we got exactly what we knew we would get didn't we. (I didn't vote for that schmuck)

Of course Obama "gets it." People act as if he really wants to lower the deficit and the national debt. When you shift gears and start thinking that Obama doesn't care about the deficit or the debt, he just wants to redistribute the wealth (higher taxes on the top and bigger government to take care of the rest who will undoubtedly need help when the economy is trashed), it makes a lot more sense. His plan is to make America more "fair" with economic justice (equal outcomes, not equal opportunities) for all. If we keep thinking Obama wants to see a strong American economy in which individuals can prosper, then no explanation of his so-called negotiation skills will suffice. If one really listens to his words and doesn't get caught up in false conceptions of what he is saying, HIS reality becomes clear.

On the other hand. . . .

Yeah, any day now Obama's gonna grow a pair. Any day now...

I don't know. He kept the economy from tanking, which I believe would have happened if he had failed to reach a deal.

And I care way more about the economy than I do about the deficit.

He's doing fine. Not great. But about what I expected.

NOW, do you folks get Clint Eastwood's stick with the empty chair ?

I think people make a mistake when they assume President Obama has an agenda based on ideology. "He just wants to redistribute wealth" is an example of that, like he came into office with a vision for how he wants America to be.

I think he sees America as a big wave like the ones he must have seen in Hawaii. The goal is to get up on the surfboard and ride it as far as it will go. What he does takes great skill - he's brilliant at it - but it's not about making waves.

In other words, not about leadership.

I think we can sum up Obama's eight years nicely: "Never has a man done so little with so much."

It's all just show biz, really.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ1ANlvn3rs

That guy WANTS to play poker with the Pres?

Are you kiddin me? You know Obama would accuse the dealer of cheating, he'd drink all your best booze...then bitch about it, have a confederate looking over your shoulder at your cards, he'd do a happy dance on any hand he won and when he finally went all in and lost ... he'd fail to pay off his markers.

If YOU won, he'd have some Chicago pals mug you outside then he'd brag about it.

HEY... this C note he just tossed into the pot is a Xerox photocopy.... all of his bills have the same serial number!!

"THAT'S not mine" he says. "One of you guys tossed THAT PHONEY DOUGH in."

And still, some of the guys want to invite him back. Unbelievable!

Let's hold off on these assessments of Obama's leadership until after the debt limit tussle. If Obama can cut the House Ryan budget extremists out of the herd (I think Ryan's nomination was the last nail in Romney's coffin) and keep enough of the GOP on a middle ground, he can then get moving on the debt and tax and entitlements in a sensible way. Chris Cristie may help him some.

Nothing's going to change in the rest of the guy's term. He's either a sellout or a wimp.

Mr Pres - give Alan what he wants! Please don't make him do this again!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/alan-simpson-gangnam-style_n_2244550.html

I don’t blame Obama. This country is as divided as I have ever seen it. Abortion, gun control, entitlements, climate change, immigration reform, and on and on. Heck, we are getting to be worse than our Middle East friends at solving anything.

He remains a fraud and a hoax, continuing to scam those sheeple who want to believe. They believed it was the right thing to do...electing him 4 years ago...so they could feel righteous and good. rinse and repeat....they've done it again....the results will only get worse.

If MSM had started their obsessive coverage of the fiscal cliff eighteen weeks ago instead of eight weeks ago, we'd be throwing rocks at a different guy.

Obama = Worst President in my lifetime!

And I'm one of those guys old enough to have voted for Presidents from both parties since Kennedy.

I'll go along with "shockingly inept," although the shocking part of it is that many are surprised anymore. Obama has been miscast in his role from the beginning. A community organizer from Chicago with one term in the Senate just did not have the experience or connections for this level of power. That was pretty clear when he quickly cobbled together an administration of Clinton rehires, throwing in a Wall Street bank tax cheat as Treasury Secretary. I do believe he has a fundamental loathing of business and loving of community organizing. I believe he had one true good impulse early on, to contain our level of medical spending (20% of GDP now or so I heard on NPR yesterday). But he couldn't handle the politics of that, either, so the main thrust gave total way to a badly cut political deal which only worsened the problem he initially set out to correct.

I'll be surprised if that isn't the summary of most of his administration.

The Right hates the deal, the Left hates the deal. Everyone can do better, no one did. I guess if you start out with the metaphor of a cliff and try to rush something through at the last minute you get a deal no one wants to like. 50.5 of the country thinks this, 49.5 of the country thinks that...everyone wants their share of the government trough, no one wants to pay for it and debt is a bad thing. I have never met a liberal who wants his tax bill to go up and I have never met a conservative that sent his SS check back.

Well said, George, I agree. I remember a lot of the same rhetoric being levelled at Clinton when he was forced to work with a Republican Congress.

I think the biggest reason President Obama was reelected was that the Right Wing criticism saved him. Their incessant over-the-top complaining about him moved everyone else to vote for Obama again just to enjoy the election night coverage from FOX.

I personally still can't get enough of those articles about why Romney lost. Read the one in the Boston Globe. It's so obvious the Right Wing built up a world view that was completely disconnected from reality, and frankly, watching them realize it after the election was thrilling.

One little example I'd like to throw out there is this redistribution of wealth number - also known as "Obama is a socialist." If there is any way - including this latest deal with its ongoing treats for Goldman Sachs - that President Obama could have been kinder to Wall Street, let me know. I can't think of anything.

From Day 1 his approach has been to ignore the crimes of the Great Recession, and continue genuflecting before the "Too Big to Fail" banks with an earnestness that must make George W. Bush proud if he knew what that world meant.

The Right Wing of America is the problem. They have negated themselves by buying a big ticket on the Crazy Train, allowing the Democrats to romp freely knowing that whatever they do, the alternative is so pathetic that they can get away with it.

All these issues were in play the last 4 years, and what did the Republicans do? Run out a cast of misfits that looked like out-takes from a Fellini movie.

The Right Wing is way too dense to get this, but they got Obama reelected as much as anybody else. When one of your leading intellectuals is Sarah Palin, you're not going over a fiscal cliff - you're so far in the hole, you'd have to dig your way out to jump.

We went over the cliff decades ago. This is all about ending the middle class and turning this country into the "have everythings" and the "have nothings".

China, most of SE Asia, Russia, Iran, and many other countries are moving away from the dollar as the reserve currency of the world.

With the unsustainable debt, the lack of jobs because we shipped all of our manufacturing away, we have about 3-4 years before the dollar is dead and we become the next failed state.

Sally, you're right about Obama being "miscast". 51% of the audience initially gave him a standing ovation. But his repertoire is mostly "redistribution", like his father believed.

I'm hoping for our nation's sake that our media and citizens start dissecting what he's really about. I think when 77% of the middle class see that their taxes really went up and medical cost on average increased $2700, they'll stop applauding. Sadly many citizens hide behind their operatic masks until something hits them in the face.

I cal him Obumma because he makes everyone bummed out, for different reasons, but the result is the same.

It is a poor piece of legislation and political action about anyway you look at it.

Simpson-Bowles called for 4tril deficit reduction over 10 years, late last year Boner and O were telling the media 2tril over ten. The result? As scored by CBO, adds 4tril to deficits over next 10 years. Wonderful.

I know, I know, automatic or organized spending cuts right around the corner. I have a hunch at who is going to be feeling worst of the cuts now that O has spent his best chit (Bush cuts permanent). It wont be agribiz, Wall Street, or military.

Hope is a wonderful emotion.
It got Obama elected.
It's also a dangerously naive strategy for doing important stuff.

Bill - even socialists have their wealthy elites who keep manipulate power and reap the benefits.

All this "Obama is a Socialist" ranting is truly the work of lunatics.

The truth is that Obama is the most conservative Democratic president we've had in more than 100 years. In many ways, he's more conservative than Nixon!

The Republican Party has moved so far to the right that it's own health care reform proposal from 1994(?) (the Heritage Foundation) that became Romneycare that became Obamacare is now considered Socialist. This extreme rightward lunge has been replicated across a broad policy front.

One of the most memorable moments for me in the film "All the President's Men" is footage of Attorney General John Mitchell leaving a meeting of some kind. In response to a question from a reporter, he says, "We're going to take this country so far to the right that you won't recognize it anymore." The Republican party has never waivered from that vision and to a shocking degree, they've been wildly successful.

Obamacare and reforming the financial system are somehow trivial achievements? Not to mention preventing an international meltdown in 2009? The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will become more important in time. Getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan too must go in the credit column. All this anti-Obama baloney reminds me of the anti-Clinton, anti-Hillary baloney.

The 2% payroll tax hike only rolls back that temporary measure. Big deal. If the rich have to pay more, so should the middle class/working class.

Nolo,
Okay, but what about the redistribution of wealth part? Wasn't the message that Obama wanted to take from the rich and give to the poor? Wouldn't he have gone after Wall Street if he wanted to do that?

One of the problems Mitt Romney had in describing Obama this way, is that the rich - including Mitt Romney - had 4 terrific years under Obama. It was working people who suffered the biggest declines starting with having to foot the bill for the recession that Wall Street caused.

The reason the right wing didn't want to look at Wall Street is because they were so busy focusing the anger at what happened there, onto President Obama. That was the strategy, and coupled with a message that didn't have any connection to reality, they concinced themselves they were about to win back the White House.

That's why they appeared so shocked Election night.

"...reforming the financial system..."

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Classic!

The comparison with Carter is apt. Just remember 1980 when the federal government had to offer 14% to get people to buy long-term government bonds. Do people understand what that will do to the value of the bonds that are currently yielding 3% for 30 years? You'll be able to buy long-term treasuries for 25 cents on the dollar. Oh, and don't forget, that's what's in the Social Security Trust Fund.

Obama is "a sellout" in the same sense that OJ Simpson is a mugger and Rush Limbaugh occasionally misspeaks some slightly off-color phrase. The understatement is so weak that it is in fact false. Limbaugh is a prosecutable flaming bigot. OJ is a prosecutable murderer. Obama is prosecutable for sedition and war crimes.

'President' Obama is a figment of celebrity imagery, a massmedia snow job. Totally a con-job opposite of what is pretended and people suppose he is. For instance, it is said he is a Democrat while in fact he is a dictator ... yet no one cares (having massmedia air-time) to mention he unlawfully self-authorizes by edict a 'license to kill' whoever wherever whenever he chooses, assassination by drone, and has done and does so, repeatedly. As one example. Of more than a thousand points of not right.

Obama is a one medical subject ('patient,' 'case file'), from among hundreds, of CIA human experiments in mind control. He is one 'research experiment' in the MK-ULTRA program, 1951 on-going to present day, since before!, and including!, the programmed very inception of him in his mother's womb; (and that not by sperm of B.Obama,Sr., as is pretended and almost everyone supposes, but by anonymous donor probably in Cuba where his mother reportedly 'vacationed' accompanying her CIA-operative father during Thanksgiving week, 1960, in the Agency's urgency during its 10-week window of opportunity -- while JFK was only president-elect and IKE was a retiring lame-duck -- to prepare plans, position infiltrators, and pursue invasion of Cuba in the so-called 'Bay of Pigs' operation, April '61, in defiance and subversion of JFK's command to halt). The fable and charade of Obama is more than total; it began in his likeness years before his conception and birth. A 'mixed-parentage' baby, born to an unwed mother, in off-shore Hawaii, in August 1961, was 'given up' for adoption as the 'normal' societal course of things. That baby was 'adopted' by paperwork by the CIA with custodial guardianship assigned to the 18-yr-old mother and both her CIA-employee parents.

As much investigation and evidence in documented fact as you are going to find readily, is online HERE, a lengthy excerpt from THIS book.

In the taxblog link leading the heed of this thread, Joseph J. Thorndike writes, "... speaking as an historian -- as someone who’s spent a lot of time examining the partisan politics of previous decades – I think it’s safe to say that Obama ... seems almost deliberately inept." However, Thorndike undermines his own credence claimed as "an historian" duly diligent 'examining decades,' undone by the amount of waffle between an estimated assessment that (Obama) "seems almost deliberately inept," and a pronounced surety, that's quite different, in measuring a CIA-begotten, -maintained and -controlled operative (marionette) deliberately inscrutable, politically ineffable, effectively tyrannical, obediently duplicitous, sordidly Damoclesian-sworded, demonstrating no personal or charismatic strength-of-character."

Other main (celebrity) characters playing kabuki roles in Beltway nationalism are equally (as Obama) under the thumb and coerced under the gun, posed as pieces and pawns arrayed upon the geopolitical chessboard, (i.e., planet-scale power-scope), yet all either unwitting or unwilling to name the players (institutions, entities) playing them, by moments, in or out of promoted currency.
Thorndike's "examining" discerns none of such currents and Agency throughout decades of post-WWII industrial militarism, (which in itself is a contradiction in terms, prima facie -- 'post-war war-making,' ending war by starting wars).

The 'deal' on the 'fiscal cliff' or 'Obamacare' or 'AIG bailout' or/and everything else, is all scripted, staged, and acted out.

To practice with, another 'for instance': Obama's arranged 'community organizing' in Chicago, variously 1985-90, was as a gov't informant planted in African-American activism in that time and place unpenetrated, and evading scrutiny, by 'regular' Intel.Operatives, (gov't spies).
Seeing him according to the crafted image that's presented of him, by contorting truths you eye-witnessd but which, by inducing self-denial of your sensate faculties, must be 'sexed-up to fit the policy' of imagery, deforming extant reality you know to match storied euphemisms you're told ... seeing him in that light from the glowing TV, his behavior (holding power) is hardly understandable. Because the propagandized version of Obama is not understandable, is inconsistent, contradicts itself, has no proof, evidence, (where is Obama's college records?), no truth.
Looked at another way, by merely shifting perspective within your own mind, quietly and comprehendingly, then how you see him act and what you see him do makes all the sense in the world, is understandable and consistent of-a-nature.

[P.S. Accusing charges against the CIA is NOT eccentric; au contraire instead: CIA crimes against humanity is the most regular pattern, longstanding, clear, and continuous. They killed JFK. Also MLK and RFK. They were 'in on it,' active participants, operational, and harboring guilty souls behind shields afterwards. They lured Eisenhower under false pretenses into Vietnam. And led retreat, taxpayer de-funded, under knucklehead newbie Gerald Ford. They death-squaded hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans, (Operation Condor), installing tyrants and dictators by CIA fiat everywhere south beyond USA's border. They sold contraband military hardware (to Iran) to pay the mercenaries they directed in Central America, (so-called 'Contras' being contrary against indigenous peace). Their bank went bust ('BCCI scandal') exposed in money-laundering billions-with-a-'B' dollars of drug money, sex-slave sales, and bribes to office-holders. They completely were spy clueless of roaring currents coming to dissolve their Great Enemy Communist USSR, which they weren't even watching, while at the same time designing funding training and conducting their mercenary bin Laden and their murderous al Qaeda into existence as supposed countermove (to repel USSR, which wasn't even there). They rigged and gamed the dot-com bubble to broker billions-with-a-'B' TopSecret dollars to their illegitimate slush fund bag money. They invented and infused terrificationism to 'cost justify' counter-terrificationism (which is not the same as anti-terrificationsim) as cause for taxpayer funding to them. They did Nine-Eleven Op. They did anthrax letters to Congress. They record every keystroke I type here, into a data-traffic-jammed cloud beyond the capacity of computation in finite time to analyze, yet being perfected casework for persecuting selecteds and selective prosecutions. Rap sheet continuation pages here:
www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

Of course you heard it reported that the Newtown maniac's murdered mother was/is an employee of the DARPA compartment of the CIA, and heard that the sequestered taxes-expert father carries potent insider information involved in the Libor scandal; and heard that the school had surveillance video working yet none showing the shooter(s) entering or within the building although mundane convenience-store robbers and even manslaughterers are notoriously aired next-day ...?

'They' are anathema of America. 'They' are the hubristic downfall and imperialistic disgrace of taxpaying Americans.

Intrinsically, their 'fiscal cliff' gaming holds no possible positive outcome for citizens. The best result any office-holder can manage is break-even, no loss, stand pat and stay empowered keeping a seat at the table. The worth 'they' make of gaming is gotcha's and banana-peel slippages among their in-house recalcitrants and outside resisters such as the Judicial branch of government, because: That's ENTERTAINMENT, a packed car of circus clowns sticking it in the camera stacked and wracked for meaningless, and magically redirected, massmind amusement -- gotcha good,
did they?]

OK Bill McD. I agree with you more than you think. Wall St. and those in Congress who promoted sub-prime mortgages as an economic justice deal did great harm to the country and the world. People should be going to jail, but lately, doing what's legal is substituted for doing what's right. The public knows intrinsically that we all were cheated, and books have been written about it already, but I don't associate Obama with the crimes and misdemeanors of the meltdown. Obama's stimulus spending aka: Solyndra, Cash-For-Clumkers, etc. where the government creates an artificial demand that is not supported by the market, is wrong.

The socialist part that I am concerned with is evident to a lot of people, but for a majority of Americans who voted for him, Obama's policies represent salvation. I am speaking of Obamacare. I don't want to re-hash the healthcare debate, but as a believer in the strength and fairness of the market to create wealth, and make the country strong, increasing controls and regulations imposed by government upon businesses and individuals stifles creativity and ambition and encourages dependency.

Perhaps Obama is not an proclaimed socialist, but he does exhibit an elitist demeanor and a need for control and micro-management that is not keeping with a country dedicated to individual freedom. Is it ideology or personality? Is he being used by others, or is he leading his followers into the unknown with only slogans as guides?

I distrust him. I distrust any person who vilifies a segment of the population and uses them as scapegoats to vent the misery of the masses and then profit politically. I understand that negative campaigning is de rigueur, but besides blaming Romney for being wealthy, Obama split the populace into two groups and denounced everyone he considered wealthy along with his opponent. Is this right - negative campaigning against one's own constituents to gain the favor of the majority? Every time Obama or Democrats in general talk about the "rich" paying their "fair share" it sure sounds like a Robin Hood appeal to me. Whether or not the money goes to whatever purpose we all think he wants, it seems enough that the rich be punished. Please understand, this isn't about wealthy people paying more because they should, it is about the manner in which this national discussion is taking place and what the desired result is. For some, the leveling of society and the elimination of private property is the long-term goal. Where on the spectrum is Obama?

I don't know if this lengthy post helps much, but the man rubs me the wrong way. I respect people who have opinions opposite of mine (I am related to a few!), but none share the seeming deep-seated distaste and aversion for success (?) as Obama, regardless of what he says. Perhaps he denies it a bit too much. Socialist or prig, ideologue or clumsy communicator, he needs to learn how to live alongside people he doesn't understand or relate to, and make friends and build fences - skills he should have learned before he took on the job of leading the nation.

I distrust any person who vilifies a segment of the population and uses them as scapegoats to vent the misery of the masses and then profit politically.

And yet you presumably voted for Mr. 47%. All the outrage over Obama's supposed class war would be amusing if it weren't so damn hypocritical.

Nola, after reading Obama Juniors "Dreams From My Father", his father's several political and college papers, reviewing papers and speeches of Obama's life associates, it seems that even though Obama may not have "proclaimed" he's a socialist, he's certainly has those tendencies. And there's even some evidence that he has made this claim. But back in my college days I think I might have said I had some socialist tendencies too.

Consider, y'know, socialism is good and is a natural development of sociopolitical cognition through human evolution. Seeing "socialist tendencies" within one's own thought processes is a signal that one's self is evolved.

Ex-bartender:

And yet you presumably voted for Mr. 47%.

Me:

Fair come-back perhaps, but what Romney was actually saying to that crowd of potential donors that there is a 47% bloc of voters that will never vote for him and therefore he was promising that he would not waste their contribution money in trying to win over any of them. That it would be easier to work on the other 53%.