Time to see where we are.....

[Tom]

As his first term winds down, let's take a look at Obama's promises and see where we stand vs where he promised we would be.

Today's topic: Health care costs.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...to-curb-trend/

During the 2008 campaign and health care reform debate in 2009, President Obama said repeatedly that his plan would bend the cost curve downward, ultimately saving the average family $2,500 per year.

“We won’t do all this twenty years from now, or ten years from now,” he said. “We’ll do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States.

Looks like he has a long way to go by mid January.
Lie, or stupid promise to begin with?

[Jay Trotter]

Tom, not sure if you realize, but the election is over. You need to accept the fact that the Democrat was a better candidate than anyone offered up by the Republicans.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Jay Trotter

Tom, not sure if you realize, but the election is over. You need to accept the fact that the Democrat was a better candidate than anyone offered up by the Republicans.

Obama got more votes.

That does not mean that he was the better candidate.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Obama got more votes.

That does not mean that he was the better candidate.

Excellent point

[thaskalos]

The fact that the voters chose someone with Obama's track record over Romney, shows what the majority of the American people thought of Romney as a candidate.

It clearly proved to me that Romney could only win an election if he was running unopposed. And even then...he might find a way to screw it up...

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Jay Trotter

Tom, not sure if you realize, but the election is over. You need to accept the fact that the Democrat was a better candidate than anyone offered up by the Republicans.

Is the point of your comment that criticism of Obama is now officially outlawed?

[Jay Trotter]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Obama got more votes.

That does not mean that he was the better candidate.

au contraire my fine feathered friend. In this case it does!

[Jay Trotter]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Is the point of your comment that criticism of Obama is now officially outlawed?

Funny, I didn't see that stated anywhere in my response.

The guy won fair and square. You and others may not like it but that's a fact. A majority of Americans elected him (twice). He deserves a "little" bit of respect.

It's funny how nobody can criticize the military but the Commander in Chief is fair game!

Of course, every individual person has a right to their own opinions but making a relatively good man out to be the devil at every turn only discredits that opinion. Personally, I think the best candidate won but I wouldn't be disrespecting Romney at each and every turn. Romney is a good man too and if he had won he would deserve some respect as well. The President represents the will of the people and democracy is all about respecting that will.

Hammer away!

[Mike at A+]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Obama got more votes.

That does not mean that he was the better candidate.

What it does mean is:
1.) There are more black racists in America than ever
2.) There are more stupid white people in America than ever
3.) Democrats have found that sweet spot balancing black racism and white stupidity

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Jay Trotter

He deserves a "little" bit of respect.

He gets way more than his fair share of respect from his supporters.

Tom's just here to add a little balance to the equation...

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Jay Trotter

Tom, not sure if you realize, but the election is over. You need to accept the fact that the Democrat was a better candidate than anyone offered up by the Republicans.

Is this an example of your criteria for better man?
Maybe you could address the facts for once.
Oh, wait, no one holds Obama responsible for his lies or his failures.
I forgot - you guys are in some kind of club, right?

Is this why libs don't like to keep score in anything?

btw, you should try living under him before you tell us who the better people are.

The President represents the will of the people and democracy is all about respecting that will.

We also just elected a House of Representatives who, on the will of the people, are diametrically opposed to this idiot in the WH. That is a bigger mandate than he got - the spending bills come from this decidedly conservative legislature.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Jay Trotter

au contraire my fine feathered friend. In this case it does!

Yes.

Just like in figure skating or Olympic diving eh, ...a Canuck term,
the best always win, eh.

(Psst. How are Greyfoxes ever called "fine feathered friends?")

[NJ Stinks]

Originally Posted by Tom

We also just elected a House of Representatives who, on the will of the people, are diametrically opposed to this idiot in the WH. That is a bigger mandate than he got - the spending bills come from this decidedly conservative legislature.

I know you don't like facts but the fact is Democrats got more votes nationally in House races across the country than Republicans.

So much for your wildly inaccurate conclusion that "the will of the people" gave House Republicans "a bigger mandate" than the unbeaten Obama.

[newtothegame]

So, if the argument from the left is that "Obama won" and we all should not question him, then the same can be said for the house (being led by the R's), as they all won too right? So, then there should be no lame arguments about obstructionism....right????

[Steve 'StatMan']

Originally Posted by Mike at A+

What it does mean is:
1.) There are more black racists in America than ever
2.) There are more stupid white people in America than ever
3.) Democrats have found that sweet spot balancing black racism and white stupidity

The Hispanic Vote went significantly Obama's way as well.

Edited: The rest is an overall reply to all posters, esp. any who are somehow drunk with power again.

I think a lot of people who voted Obama voted for him based on key issues to them, but not on what would be best overall. Hispanics probably went against the GOP for the Immigration Issues (which really are supposed to be just illegal immigration but the main stream media and the dems always claim that the GOP is against immigration. Not legal imigration, just ILLEGAL imigration) So that swayed a lot of votes.

Many people on welfare, and those who have loved ones on welfare, certainly weren't going to vote for anyone wanting to review and revise the current welfare situations, even if those changes would help the country in the long run, or were supposed to be to help people get off welfare by becoming employable (I admit I'd want to see lots of jobs open that they could be trained for to become available before I believe it could actually work.) But that, and anyone changing current unemployment views wasn't going to get a vote. Voters on this issue are likely of many backgrounds.

I know many seniors, including some people whom I care about deeply who were voting for Obama because they were concerned about any changes to Medicare and Social Security (depsite it won't affect the currently retired). Some of these people I knew to be Republicans.

Given all the troubles we've had that Obama and his allies in congress have just made worse since they took over in 2008 (and 2006), I truely believe Obama was not the best candidate. However, there are enough people who just can't embrase things that many, but not all Republicans were maintaining as part of the platform. Coupling that with Obama's political team, which has pretty much just helped him get elected and stay elected/reelected in most of his career (only got in as IL's Senator because the Repulican canidate had a secret smutty side that got exposed by his ex-wife after the primaries) but even despite the broken/impossible promises of the past that have not come true or have even failed, they and the mainstream media made him out to be a choice that got 51%, but only 2-ish million more share of the 115 million-ish casted votes. Not more than 1-2% more votes than the oppoent. Noone is saying Obama didn't win. But he, and the US economy still have all their faults and flaws, and no one is going to roll over and change their views on many key issues.

As far as I know, Obama won with even less of a % of the vote than he did when he first won. I don't see how that makes anyone feel they can claim that Obama and his ways are supperior. The country is highly divided, and much needs to be looked at by both sides. Will Obama's win depressed me, I would likely have been very disappointed minutes after a Romeny win, knowing that the resulting margins might at best have been similar the other way, and that the hate that was expressed (often outrageously, and mostly class warfare) would just spill over the other way into the next governing cycle.

The United States, esp. the People of the United States, as well as their Policitcal Leaders, have a lot of learning to do, and a lot of reexamining to do. It seemed that the G W Bush years were highly divided and unleadable, the Obama years so far highly divided and unleadable, and I fear the next term will be unleadable too.

If the Repubs had a platform more friendly towared the illegal immigration problem, stayed out of women/doctor relationships or reduced the furvor (rightly or wrongly), Romney very well might have edged out Obama in this election.

Obama lost a lot of political capital right off the bat in his first term when he quickly talked about raising taxes on the wealthy, redistrubiting wealth, pushing for as much health-care change as possible (and wanting that public option), and thinking and acting that just because he had 53% of the popluar vote, that meant that America was all lined up behind him. Nothing could have have, nor should have been further from the truth. Don't make the same mistake again this time.