Buyer's remorse

[sirs]

The Billings Gazette, a Montana newspaper that endorsed Barack Obama over John McCain in 2008, admitted Friday that it was wrong. It appears that the unraveling of Iraq is the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.

Obama, the paper said, is even worse than George W. Bush:
“[W]e were wrong. We said things couldn’t get much worse after the sub-par presidency of George W. Bush. But, President Barack Obama’s administration has us yearning for the good ol’ days when we were at least winning battles in Iraq.”

Here’s what the paper wrote about Obama in 2008:
“At this extremely challenging time, America needs a uniter, not a divider. In this economic turmoil, America needs a thoughtful, cool-headed optimist who envisions a bright future for all citizens.
*
After several years in which worldwide respect for America has been diminished, our great nation needs a new leader who can inspire confidence at home and abroad.”

A “uniter, not a divider” who could restore “worldwide respect for America”? LOL.

“Obama is that leader. As Gen. Colin Powell said last week, Obama is the president America needs now because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities. … He has both style and substance.’”

After painting his opposition as “enemies” for 5 ever-more polarizing years, it’s clear that this couldn’t be any further from reality.

If you’re one of the people who voted for Obama in 2008, 2012 or both and now regret it, The Billings Gazette officially feels your pain. Finally

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Billings Gazette is  first and foremost among American newspapers.

I only pay heed to the newspaper with regard to judicial elections, because there is no information besides that available, and the Miami Herald seems to know at least some of the people who are on the take.

[sirs]

The Billings Gazette, a Montana newspaper that endorsed Barack Obama over John McCain in 2008, admitted Friday that it was wrong.

Obama, the paper said, is even worse than George W. Bush:
“[W]e were wrong. We said things couldn’t get much worse after the sub-par presidency of George W. Bush. But, President Barack Obama’s administration has us yearning for the good ol’ days when we were at least winning battles in Iraq.”

[Plane]

  Makes me wonder what is Par for presidency?

   Reagan and Clinton seemed to have the Teflon trick, so that the thrown mud wouldn't stick.

   But Reagan reversed the course of the country, and Clinton attempted unsuccessfully to reverse it again, enjoying a good economy and victory in war in spite of his contrary actions in these regards.

     But Reagan and Clinton were both successful presidents because the country fared well during their watch no matter that they were pushing opposite .

     That must be what makes par.

[Plane]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/24/why_i_regret_voting_for_president_obama_99879.html


Pretty funny letter, dates from January 24, 2010

I am a registered Independent. I voted for Barack Obama. And for that, I am sorry.

I'm not sorry for you. I'm sorry for me. Because I voted for Obama for me, not for you. I voted for hope and change and all the intangibles that Obama was peddling in the wake of the financial crisis, Sarah Palin, Sept. 11 and all the other ills that shook our country in the last decade. I wanted something new. Something different. What I got was, I suppose, exactly what I voted for - a spin doctor. And not a very good one at that.


..............................

Seven years later, I am ashamed to say that I was blinded by charisma. Obama was so convincing that I stopped caring about what he knew and started getting caught up in the euphoria. Imagine having a president who came from a broken home, who had money troubles, who did grass-roots community service? A young father. The first black president. It pains me to admit I got caught up in the hoopla.

...............................

All that changed when the Obama campaign became the Obama administration. I was a small business owner during 2008 election and my business ultimately failed under the weight of a horrendous economy. I am not ashamed. I worked hard. But I believed that Obama would try to level the playing field between big business and small, between thieves and honest business people, between greed and moderation. Instead, he bailed out the most wicked and left the rest of us fail.

   There is a lot more and it is pretty cogent, but she excuses herself by positing McCains lack of savvy and Sara Palins lack of sense made her easy for Obama to fool.

   I do not accept her excuse , conflating Tina Faye and Sara Palin is not being tricked it is being picked as a low hanging fruit.

[Plane]

http://www.c4parchive.com/2010/01/why-i-regret-jill-dorson-regretting-her.html


Hahahaa!

Defense of Palin , argument against Dorson's excuses.

Very good , sorry I missed it when it was fresh.

[sirs]

 

[Christians4LessGvt]

Buyer's remorse

This guy has been a disaster for our country!

[Xavier_Onassis]

The choice was, again, between Barak Obama and John McCain. McCain would have gotten us into another war for sure. 

The economy has recovered as well as it could have recovered. There is not one goddamned thing that McCain or Romney would have done to improve employment, which is not growing because jobs are being replaced by machines, The stock market is at an all-time high and American troops casualties are at an all time low.

[Plane]

We already had a war.

John McCain might have approached the war with a lot more understanding of how to conduct it.



Also Barak Obama is just now learning that not willfully starting a war is not enough to keep us out of war.

[sirs]

The economy has recovered as well as it could have recovered.

While nearly every economist, who actually knows exponentially more than you do, as it relates to economic recoveries, has referenced that this is the worst recovery in the history of American recoveries.  We would have recovered faster had Obama done NOTHING.  Had McCain been President, we would have recovered far more faster, similarly to how the economy rebounded under Reagan, facilitated by tax cuts for EVERYONE.  GDP was nearly 4% under Reagan, vs the anemic 1.5 under Obama.  Here's just a peek at employment improvements, between the 2 recoveries. 



A Romney Presidency would have been even faster than McCain, based on his experience in executive actions and ability to use the private sector, vs pitting classes against classes, and Obama's grotesque overreach and abuse of the Constitution

[Christians4LessGvt]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/02/us-usa-obama-poll-idUSKBN0F716P20140702

[Xavier_Onassis]

, has referenced that this is the worst recovery in the history of American recoveries.

==========================================
That is nonsense. The recovery from the Great Depression took longer (from 1929 to 1942 at least) and the economy grew far less.

When Obama tookk office, experts said that this would take at least 10 years to come out of. So far it has been only six.

[sirs]

Unfortunately,  you're claim of nonsense can't stand up to scrutiny, or the conlusions made by a plethora of actuL economists.  Wishful thinking on your part,  but nothing more.  Literally,  had Obama done nothing,  this economy would have recover faster

[Plane]

A lot depends on when you look ands what you count.

If you are pushing an extended unemployment payment you spin it to be seriously bad.

But is it a coincident that the number of long term unemployed has been reduced at the same time as the most of them have lost unemployment benefits?



http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/01/11/white-house-report-proves-white-house-is-wrong-on-extended-unemployment-compensation/

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0407/Senate-extends-unemployment-insurance.-Why-such-a-tough-sell-in-the-House-video

https://www.aier.org/research/labor-woes-persist
25 October 2013

Unemployment is considered long-term when it hits 27 weeks or more. The number of individuals in this category jumped to record levels in the Great Recession, as Chart 2 on page 3 shows. It still remains unusually high despite falling by 733,000 over the last 12 months. The number of long-term unemployed now stands at 4,290,000, accounting for 38 percent of the total  unemployed.

The duration and level of unemployment is linked in part to the level and duration of unemployment benefits. The extended availability of unemployment insurance tends to reduce the search effort of a job seeker. During the Great Recession and the early months of the recovery, unemployment insurance was extended several times, allowing jobless individuals to collect up to 99 weeks of benefits in some states.

http://www.foreffectivegov.org/blog/emergency-unemployment-extension-expected-take-back-seat-tax-extenders?page=71

4/25/2014 •The number of the long-term unemployed has remained unchanged at approximately 3.7 million. These individuals, who are defined as those who have been jobless for more than 27 weeks, account for 35.8 percent of the total number of Americans who are unemployed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

http://www.learningandfinance.com/2014/06/28/euc-unemployment-benefit-extension-2014-jobless-aid-news-review-on-emergency-compensation-plans-u-s-today-june-29-2014/
 June 29, 2014:
 

Some members of Congress have ignored the needs of the long term unemployed across the U.S. in 2014. Many have argued that economic recovery in the U.S. is sufficiently strong enough and that an emergency unemployment extension is not needed at this time. The fact is that right now, unemployment in the country remains elevated at a rate of 6.3 percent and recent economic data shows that economic recovery during the first quarter was anything but strong. The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that the U.S. economy contracted at a rate of 2.9 percent. This rate of contraction was recession-like.....

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/will-congress-give-boost-the-long-term-unemployed
07/02/14

The long-term unemployed haven’t gone away. Though their numbers are slowly shrinking, there are still nearly 3.4 million Americans who’ve been looking for work for more than six months. That’s more than twice the number than before the financial crisis.