Obama's top 50 accomplishments

For all the negative press he gets, in the face of historic resistance from the opposition and the economy, this list is all the more impressive imo...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma...tures/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php

 

This list could easily read as Obama's Top 50 failures. But I can see that this is going to be an Obama love fest, so I will excuse myself.

 

Chuckle, just can't give credit where it is due huh?

 

Well, to balance out the scales I could post a "Romney love fest" with all his numerous failures in politics.

I'm sure James and pani and iggy would be along shortly to change those failures into successes...

Such as..he wanted to save Detroit. He stated this in the last presidential debate. But when the bailout was proposed..he basically said that the American car industry should be allowed to fail.

WIN! Such an accomplishment my knees are weak and I can't walk.

 

Haha! No, I think some of his smaller policies will be effective. But I disagree with almost every piece of major legislation he has released. The first two points on that article I would call failures. If this article was titled "Obama's Top 50 Accomplishments...if you're a Democrat" that would be more appropriate.

 

Well once again I will take this opportunity to give you the facts.

Romney proposed letting the auto companies go through managed bankruptcy so they can restructure their bad contracts and come out more effective. Congress never authorized a TARP loan of $49.5 billion for GM. Taxpayers had to ante up an additional $30 billion just to give GM the financial reserves required by bankruptcy court.

That $30 billion bought shares in the new GM, which have lost 49 percent of their value relative to the Dow. Obama's failure to follow standard procedures redistributed an extra $26.5 billion of taxpayers’ money to the union. Obama actually hurt selected middle-class retirees, pension funds and endowments.

Even worse was the unprecedented transfer of a $45 billion tax credit to GM, which distorted its future financial reports!

Did the bailout fix GM’s problems? No. GM’s fundamental problem was that it could not afford its labor union contracts. After the bailout, these costs remained unsustainable, at a level 20 percent higher than its competitors. A proper restructuring would have renegotiated those horrible contracts.

 

Simply not true about the labor union contracts/costs, see below
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/auto-worker-salaries/

As for the rest of your post, here are some more facts

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/06/did-obama-save-us-automobile-industry/

Still, the present success leaves critics asking whether it came at too high a price. The Treasury Department estimates that about $23 billion will never be repaid. For James Sherk, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, much of that is due to "incredibly generous treatment of the unions." Sherk says the union’s retiree health benefit fund got about $21 billion more than it deserved compared to other creditors.

Mitt Romney has taken up that claim, saying the bailout was flawed by "crony capitalism." The union counters that the trust fund does not belong to the union and the fund took on the substantial risk of providing healthcare for retirees for all the decades to come. According to the Center for Automotive Research, that shift alone accounted for two-thirds of the labor savings that have made the carmakers competitive.
Even Sherk at the Heritage Foundation gives Obama credit for forcing the carmakers to go through bankruptcy and the necessary restructuring that followed. The Economist concludes "by and large Mr Obama has not used his stakes in GM and Chrysler for political ends. On the contrary, his goal has been to restore both firms to health and then get out as quickly as possible."

As we said in the beginning, it is impossible to know if the American auto industry would have fared better without government money, without government ownership, and without strong government intervention. Most likely, that debate would be more robust if the industry were not doing well.

Lastly time will tell about the value of the shares of GM, currently they are down, but they did achieve record profits this year http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/16/news/companies/gm_earnings/index.htm, so there is reason to be optimistic for the future.

 

Feel free to list your candidates top 50. If he has any. :smt102

Or even go 10.:smt073

Why go from thread to thread and tear down Obama. If...ifffffffffff you believe in your guy start new threads and talk him up. Stop the negative and whining. Republicans can be so repetitive in their negativity.

 

Sorry, I thought the point of the forum was to have debate. But I realized this was just going to be a love fest thread for Obama. I think it's laughable to say Republicans are repetitive in their negativity. Have you seen an Obama commercial and him during the debate? You basically can't tell the difference. It's just one long blur of attacks and pithy remarks.

 

That's what I thought. Sidestepping instead of listing your candidates 50 accomplishments.

I bet you are one of those people at work who when it comes review time you start putting down your coworkers instead of talking up yourself.

Negativity. It's a beautiful thing.......NOT.

 

No, the problem is that I don't have time to write out 50 accomplishments of Romney because I have to work.

Negativity and fear is the only thing Democrats have been running on. Obama's record is terrible so the only thing he can do is scare you guys into thinking Romney is this horrible man who will push old ladies off cliffs or "throw ya'll back in chains" as Biden said. lol!

 

Loki,the conservatives and GOP will never mention one accomplishment of President Obama.

 

There are enough liberals lining up to kiss Obama's butt, conservatives don't need to.

Plus, that really isn't the way the real world works. When my kids are messing up, I tell them they're messing up. I don't list off their accomplishments just to make them feel good when they're messing up. Obama is not a child that needs to be coddled and praised.

 

I said feel free to make it 10. If you can name 10 I will be impressed. You are here posting so you have time?????

 

I'm not going to waste my time. I've done a hundred posts about Romney, but it always falls on deaf ears.

Just FYI- Loki put a link to a Washington Post article and did not type out 50 accomplishments of Obama. So I will link you to a post of a woman who worked for Romney who lists his accomplishments.

http://www.blogher.com/our-binders-accomplishments-under-governor-mitt-romney?page=0,0

 

James I love a good fact based debate, we certainly disagree about Obama's record. As I have mentioned before on this site I am a registered republican and a founding member of a GOP PAC here in AZ. That being said, my opinion is that Obama's first 4 years were outstanding given the circumstances. You mention that you disagree with the first two items on the list of accomplishments, can you tell me, just the facts please, as to why you have a problem with those two issues.

 

Sure no problem. I love a good debate as well. I appreciate you that you bring actual data and reasons into your argument.

1) Based on the Washington Post article "The Affordable Care Act will cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014 and mandates a suite of experimental measures to cut health care cost growth, the number one cause of America’s long-term fiscal problems." The issue is that providing quality medical care is expensive. It has less to do with insurance companies being competitive. Insurance companies are required by law to have the cash reserves to satisfy all claims plus they can only use 15% on general administrative costs. So they're not profiting like people think.

If we have 30 million more people seeking medical care, then hospitals will have to invest in more beds, more technology, hire more doctors & nurses, etc. This will drive up the cost further. Additionally, physicians will have to carry more malpractice insurance because they are seeing more patients. This will force many physicians into concierge medicine.

Lastly, it is a burden on businesses. They will be required to cover employees once it goes into effect in 2014. Businesses will have to pay a penalty between $2000-$3000 annually times each full-time employee. This means businesses may be forced to lay off employees or reduce them to part-time work to avoid having to pay for medical coverage.

2) The stimulus bill was $787 billion dollars which was supposed to spur economic growth. After four years, we are barely getting to a net even of where we were in 2008. The American Recovery Act basically created temporary jobs not permanent, long lasting jobs which can be done in the private sector. I'm not saying we don't need people building roads and highways or we don't need teachers, but that won't solve our economic problem. The only thing that will have a major impact is tax reform. If you look at Reagan's first term he reduced unemployment from 10.8% to 7.6% and then in his second term he reduced it from 7.6% to 5.4%.

 

Sure no problem. I love a good debate as well. I appreciate you that you bring actual data and reasons into your argument.

1) Based on the Washington Post article "The Affordable Care Act will cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014 and mandates a suite of experimental measures to cut health care cost growth, the number one cause of America’s long-term fiscal problems." The issue is that providing quality medical care is expensive. It has less to do with insurance companies being competitive. Insurance companies are required by law to have the cash reserves to satisfy all claims plus they can only use 15% on general administrative costs. So they're not profiting like people think.

If we have 30 million more people seeking medical care, then hospitals will have to invest in more beds, more technology, hire more doctors & nurses, etc. This will drive up the cost further. Additionally, physicians will have to carry more malpractice insurance because they are seeing more patients. This will force many physicians into concierge medicine.

But James the 30 million were already seeking and getting medical care via emergency rooms. Thy had no insurance so you and I and every other taxpayer were paying for it. This fact has been a major factor in the increase in overall healthcare expense.

The NRCC video says the law could cause “a possible doctor shortage.” With 30 million to 33 million more Americans gaining insurance under the law, there is concern that doctors’ offices will be packed and wait times will increase. But the alternative, of course, would be keeping those millions of Americans off the insurance rolls. The federal law does include incentives for doctors to go into general practice — offering scholarships and loans to medical students and increasing graduate training positions, especially for primary care. The law also increases Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to primary care physicians. It remains to be seen what impact this will have on the supply of doctors.

Lastly, it is a burden on businesses. They will be required to cover employees once it goes into effect in 2014. Businesses will have to pay a penalty between $2000-$3000 annually times each full-time employee. This means businesses may be forced to lay off employees or reduce them to part-time work to avoid having to pay for medical coverage.


Another survey, by McKinsey & Co., found that “[m]ore than 30 percent of employers overall, and 28 percent of large ones, say they will definitely or probably drop coverage after 2014? (our emphasis added). But, again, that’s because employees would have the option of joining state-based exchanges. The report found that “most” employers would increase compensation if health benefits were dropped and that the possible change in health coverage could well benefit employees. “This development should not suggest, however, that employers considering the elimination of [employer-sponsored insurance] are focused exclusively on the bottom line, at the expense of their employees. In fact, because of the subsidies, many low-income employees will be able to obtain better health coverage, for less out of pocket, on an exchange than from their employer,” the report said.
Yet another survey cited by the NRCC fails to provide evidence that the law will cause employers to leave employees without health care. That 2012 poll, by Towers Watson, a business and human resources consulting firm, found that “23% of companies are very confident that they will continue to offer health care benefits for the next 10 years,” a metric that the group says “has steadily deteriorated since 2007.” As for a direct impact of the health care law, the survey found that only 3 percent of companies were “somewhat or very likely” to drop plans for workers who would receive no subsidy in 2014 or 2015, and 45 percent were “somewhat to very likely” to offer insurance to some employees, sending the rest to the exchanges.


2) The stimulus bill was $787 billion dollars which was supposed to spur economic growth. After four years, we are barely getting to a net even of where we were in 2008. The American Recovery Act basically created temporary jobs not permanent, long lasting jobs which can be done in the private sector. I'm not saying we don't need people building roads and highways or we don't need teachers, but that won't solve our economic problem. The only thing that will have a major impact is tax reform. If you look at Reagan's first term he reduced unemployment from 10.8% to 7.6% and then in his second term he reduced it from 7.6% to 5.4%.

Ok, so Obama has lowered taxes for 98% of Americans during his first term, and has given no indication he wants to raise taxes.

The truth is that the stimulus increased employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million people, compared with what employment would have been otherwise. That’s according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs/

 

Even with the 30 million uninsured being able to access healthcare via emergency rooms does not mean they were used by all and certainly not to the frequency that a person with coverage would go.

Company surveys vary from study to study. But the fact remains that it will increase costs for those not currently providing coverage. A certain portion will either reduce staff or reduce the number of hours worked to avoid penalty. I'm sure some companies won't mind paying for the coverage and that is a good thing. But if the argument was to provide affordable care, it will address that problem. Healthcare costs are not driven up by the insurance companies, they raise premiums to keep up with healthcare costs not to make a ridiculous profit.

 

Interesting, well here is a link from a doctor on the front lines regarding the very real and present cost of the uninsured going to ER's http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/09/healthcare-cost-shifting.html

Small businesses, less than 50 people, are the backbone of our country's economy. The fact is, businesses with fewer than 50 workers are exempt from the requirement to provide coverage, or pay a penalty to the government. Furthermore, some small businesses with fewer than 25 employees are already getting tax credits under the new law to help defray the cost of providing worker coverage.

A Heritage Foundation report says: “The CBO predicts that [the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] will reduce the amount of labor being used in the economy by approximately one-half of 1 percent. This equates to about 700,000 additional Americans being unemployed.” But CBO didn’t say that 700,000 Americans would be without jobs unwillingly, as that statement implies. Instead, it said there would be a reduction in the amount of labor supplied by workers — many of whom would decide to retire earlier than they normally would, or work fewer hours or fewer jobs, because of the subsidies provided by the law, and greater security for those buying their own coverage outside the workplace. In fact, this frees up jobs for those who are looking for work.