Obama hasn't done what promised

I am outraged because, on Aug. 10, out of the mouth of President Barack Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, I have been accused of being a member of the “professional left,” who should be “drug tested” and who wouldn’t be satisfied even if Dennis Kucinich were president.

For the record, I worked my bottom off for Obama. I spent hours making phone calls and canvassing because I believed, naively, that Obama would be different from his predecessor.

And I believed that, not because that was what I wanted, but because Obama himself pledged to end torture and to restore the rule of law to the so-called “war on terror.” He also pledged to end the Iraq war, but never said anything about continuing a useless war in Afghanistan where, last month, more American soldiers were killed than ever before.

So pardon me if I don’t bow down in loyalty to this Obama, a president who has not fulfilled the promises he made and has gone back on many of them. I am not a member of the “professional left,” whatever that is. But Obama has turned out to be a member of the “professional politicians.” Sad.

I’m just a long-time liberal Democrat who hoped that my candidate, a constitutional scholar himself, would restore constitutional rule in the United States as he promised to do, and would govern differently and better than his predecessor.

He has done neither.

I still like Obama the man, but not Obama the president.

Paul Macri, Auburn

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.

Advertisement

Comments

Voisine's picture

Republican Communism for the Wealthy

Between 2002 and 2007...the bottom ninety-nine per cent of incomes grew 1.3 per cent a year in real terms--while the incomes of the top one per cent grew ten per cent a year. That one per cent accounted for two-thirds of all income growth in those years. People in the ninety-fifth to the ninety-ninth percentiles of income have represented a fairly constant share of the national income for twenty-five years now. But in that period the top one per cent has seen its share of national income double; in 2007, it captured twenty-three per cent of the nation's total income. Even within the top one per cent, income is getting more concentrated: the top 0.1 per cent of earners have seen their share of national income triple over the same period. All by themselves, they now earn as much as the bottom hundred and twenty million people. So at the same time that the rich have been pulling away from the middle class, the very rich have been pulling away from the pretty rich, and the very, very rich have been pulling away from the very rich.

Gil's picture

Again

I should just cut and paste this - Has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject - the fact that Barry lied and told you what you wanted to hear. You believed it, and now, when one of your own voices dissent, you can't defend your messiah. So, change the subject and whine about how someone, somewhere, is doing better than you. One thing you forgot to mention is the disproportionate percentage of taxes paid on that income. Typical liberal, half right on something that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Gil's picture

That

was in response to Visine's earlier rant on income disparity.

concerned KD's picture

Its a simple fact that it

Its a simple fact that it takes money to make money. So why does it surprise you that the top percents INCOME grew in comparison to the lower percentage??? Are you for redistribution of wealth.. Do you believe in the Robin Hood theory?? STEAL from the rich to give to the poor?? If those without worked as hard to raise they're income as those who have the wealth then they wouldnt be in the lower percentage...Look at Warren Buffet.. He started from very little and grew it onto a whole lot.. This is the american way and to advocate for anything other than this basic fundamental principle is SOCIALISM.... Bill Gates... He didnt grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth but is one of the richest men in the world.. Is it wrong that these top percentage earners can reinvest they're income and make it work for them to increase they're overall income? Maybe if the federal/ state governments wouldnt increase taxes at every corner, then the middle/upper class employers could hire some of the lower percentage earners and actually raise some of these percentages to a suitable number. Until then it is going to continue to be a battle between the haves and havenots.

veritas's picture
verified

"concernedKD" simply hasn't been paying attention...

He writes: "Maybe if the federal/ state governments wouldnt increase taxes at every corner"

Time to wake up and smell the coffee there, 'concerned' but obviously not informed - Federal taxes are at the lowest they they've ever been in years; thanks to the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II tax cuts.

Even during the Vietnam War, Nixon was running enough of a surplus in the budget that he enacted the "Federal Revenue Sharing Act" in 1972. It effected more small, local government than any other Federal Program, and helped keep local taxes down because it was the only Federal disbursement without restrictions on the use of the money.

That was all ended during the later part of the Reagan Administration, when in its last year Federal Revenue Sharing distributed $4.5 billion to 39,000 municipalities in the fiscal year 1986. Reagan couldn't afford to cut federal taxes and pass money back to the locals - so the locals either had to cut programs (often police and fire), or raise taxes.

So just where did you get the idea that they've been increasing Federal Taxes around every corrner? Care to share that with us???

concerned KD's picture

Good deflection but you

Good deflection but you disregarded the real point i made.. Maybe you have a point with the taxes being lower, but you dont address the jealousy issues between the haves and havenots that you are crying a foul over.. Just because the top percents income is increasing doesnt mean they are taking it away from any one. But you stand on your soapbox preaching as if the rich are stealing from the poor.. But the real point is that the poor are trying to justify stealing from the rich... If someone is poor and unhappy with it then in this great country we get to control our destiny by the choices we make. They need to make the conscious effort to better themselves with education or better employment and hopefully someday they will be up there with the haves instead of the havenots.. If the problem is that the jobs just arent out there for the havenots to better themselves with then who is to blame for that? I see the stimulus $$$ going to the "to big to fail industries" and the average middleclass business has to wallow in the horrible economy while being hit with tax INCREASES, And government mandated FEES.. Yes fees are taxes they are just hidden in the term fee. A spade is still a spade... If it cost me more money to run my business now then it did 10 years ago due to federal regs/legislations/mandated costs, then no matter what you call it a fee or a tax then it is the governments fault for being too intrusive in the free market and hampering capitolism... WHY would they do that???? maybe there is an agenda at work here.. If your eyes are open you might actually see it. But if you want to run around with the blinders on then be ready to fall prey to big government... And god forbid you actually strive to be successfull and increase your income then you will be in the higher percentage earners and they will want to steal it from you.. bet your tune would change then..

taxpayer's picture

plagiarism

There you go again Voisine!

taxpayer's picture

You should really learn how

You should really learn how to form your own thoughts without plagiarizing other peoples' work. Cut and paste is just lazy and I think the original author of those words would be kind of upset that you didn't at least give them credit for their work.

taxpayer's picture

P.S. this was in response to

P.S. this was in response to Voisine's post.

thinkingman's picture

If anyone looks back at the

If anyone looks back at the presidential history of the past 50-60 years you'll find a clear pattern that once in office REGARDLESS of wich side of the aisle they were from, our president's have become more centrist as they begin to understand the problems and potential solutions. Thats why people like Carter and Clinton never pushed as hard to support the far left and why both of the Bush's were considered RINO's by many in the party once elected. In this regard, Obama is no different than his predecessors.

WideStanceRepublican's picture

Couldn't agree more

that Obama has not been the president I had hoped for. But he is leagues ahead of the teabagging Talebangelicals who are the core of the Republican party. The republicans are in such disarray they still hold complete shit for brains like sarah palin and newt (been married 3x) gingrich as there standard bearers. Amazing how dumb some Americans are.

Gil's picture

Another typical response

from a liberal. The article is about the messiah's broken promises to the fools who voted for him and all this poster can do is try and bash the other guys. In true lib fashion rather than defend their bad choice as president, this lefty tries to change the subject. Instead of worrying about how many times Gingrich has been married (forgetting the number of women bubba schtupped), why not use facts to defend your chosen one? Could it be because that would never work, because the facts are not on your side.

veritas's picture
verified

Here's a Fact - Palin Bailed on the People of Alaska.....

Couldn't commit to a four year term of Governor there, Baby Cakes???

Golly Gee, You Betcha!!!

Gil's picture

Again

Has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Chosen one lied, you gullible lefties ate it up, and now there is a lot of buyer's remorse. Stick to the subject

Voisine's picture

Repubicans Want to Return to Bush Economic Policies

It's the deniality that kills. Really only about 5% are doing well. Under that there are tens of millions working jobs that don't pay a living wage. There are tens of millions malnourished, poorly clothed, without healthcare, ... ill educated kids. Many, many more times more Americans die each year from lack of healthcare than died on 9/11. Many times more die from medical error each year. It's a disgrace.

Right now thanks to Bush, we have 50% of America's wealth in the hands of just 10% of its population. That's communism for the wealthy and it is the only actual achievement of Republicans.

Gil's picture

Throwing the BS flag

on you Voisine. Gonna need to see some sources for all of your allegations. Tens of millions without a living wage? What is the definition of a living wage and where do you get these numbers? tens of millions malnourished? Again, gonna have to see some real sources on that one. You can't just parrot crap you hear from the left or read on the Daily Kos and pretend that it is true. How do you prove that the numbers you speak of died because of a lack of healthcare? And where exactly is this lack of care? Liberals greatest stunt - lie, fabricate, throw out made up numbers, then refuse to prove them. Al Gore is the king of this trick and Voisine is apparently his protege

Voisine's picture

Obama's Policies Seen as Better than Bush's for Improving the Ec

While most Americans disapprove of Barack Obama’s handling of the economy, far more think his administration’s policies – rather than those of the Bush administration – would do more to improve economic conditions over the next few years. As Congress gears up for debate over the tax cuts passed when Bush was president, the public is divided, with roughly equal numbers in favor of keeping all of Bush’s tax cuts, repealing only those for wealthy Americans, or scrapping them entirely.

In the latest Pew Research/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, sponsored by SHRM, conducted July 22-25 among 1,004 adults, 46% say that following the policies of Obama administration would do more to help the economy improve in the next few years, while 29% say that following the Bush administration’s policies would do more to help. Nearly one-in-five (17%) volunteer that neither administration’s policies would help.

More than eight-in-ten Democrats (84%) say the Obama administration’s policies would do more to improve the economy; fewer Republicans (63%) say the same about the Bush administration’s policies (84% vs. 63%). More independents see Obama’s policies than Bush’s policies helping (by 43% to 20%); a sizable minority (27%) of independents say neither administration’s policies would help.

While Obama’s policies generally are viewed more positively than are Bush’s, whites and older Americans are divided on this issue. About as many non-Hispanic whites say following the Bush administration’s economic policies (38%) as Obama’s policies (34%) would improve the economy in coming years; this also is the case among those 65 and older (38% Bush’s policies, 40% Obama’s policies).

verified

OAbama's un fulfilled promises

Great letter Paul, but he
's still better than the other alternative a very scary thought!

Gil's picture

Did you mean the alternative

that does not spend the country into oblivion? The alternative that won't try and nationalize the industries of this nation like the messiah has tried to do? You mean the alternative whose wife is proud of this country and always has been, not just because her husband has weaseled his way into power? You mean the alternative whose wife doesn't jet off with 50 friends to Spain on our dime? You mean the alternative that does not have ties to convicted domestic terrorists, or bigoted, racist pastors? You mean the alternative that has some kind of experience, any kind of experience doing anything other than living off of the people? I would welcome an alternative to this socialist, this poser, this nobody. I don't believe his predecessor to be an alternative, but surely there is one. I would welcome that person, from whatever party with open arms. If you wouldn't, then maybe you need to rethink your priorities when it comes to the leadership of this country. I HOPE HE FAILS

Gil's picture

Nice to see

The left is still the party of the non argument. Facts and logic are presented and the only response is a lost of No's and one other stating that we might be racists. Once again, let me explain the racist angle away Joe. Your messiah is bi racial, white and black. How can one be half racist? And as I am also bi racial, does that make me a quarter racist? Simply disagreeing with the chosen one's policies which we are sure to lead us down an un-American, socialistic path that we don't want, does not make us racist, it makes us Americans. And sad little xyz. If the opopsing party does not agree with your policies, why on earth would they vote anything but NO? Should they sell their principles down the river just because your messiah is in office. I know they don't have many principles left, but come on, they have to vote for your idiots proposals or they are wrong? The American people do not want a Socialistic take over of our country, read the polls. Your boy is slipping, and his fellow dems are scrambling to get away from him and hang on to their seats. I HOPE HE FAILS

Barb's picture

Paul, I don't think you will

Paul, I don't think you will be happy to hear that the USS Truman has been taken from it's support duty in Afganastan and is positioned opposite the straights of Hormuz wtih thousands of marines aboard as tensions escalate in the middle east. Did you hear about this? I think not.

Old Bill's picture

Sorry, but the USS Harry

Sorry, but the USS Harry Truman is an aircraft carrier, NOT an amphibious warfare ship. The Marine Detachment on board is little more that a company; about 150 men, tops. That's far from "thousands".

fixit001's picture
verified

Welcome to the UNITED

Welcome to the UNITED SOCIALIST STATES OF AMERICA did you not read OBAMA's book and his record, nor the warnings that Obama is after all is a communist wraped up in a blanket of Socialist Agenda!!!!

Lil's picture
verified

and...

You forgot he's a Kenyan Muslim Nazi!!!!

woose's picture
verified

real intellegent comeback,

real intellegent comeback, eh?

Voisine's picture

Correcting Policies of Republicans

Republicans nearly brought America into a Great Depression and now, they want to return to the same policies. They voted against Wall Street reform which was a way to avoid the same situation in the future that cost Americans dearly. They voted against health care reform but did nothing about costs while costs hit the root while they held Congress and the Presidency. Republicans are a plague upon America. President Obama is a brilliant man doing a great job correcting the failures of the worst President in U.S. History: George W. Bush.

rstonge's picture
verified

What do you consider a success?

Voisine,
I have read many of your post and I cannot figure out your logic. You claim the President is correcting the failure of the Bush administration. I'm sorry, but as bad as the economy was under the Bush administration, it was better than today. Today, unemployment is nearing 10% and deficits are rising. Once the tax increases kick in next year, you will reduced revenue to the Treasury, higher unemployment and a contracting economy. If that happens, will you still be blaming President Bush or will you finally admit that President Obama's policies are a failure? Exactly when does President Obama take ownership of the economy?

Mac antSaior's picture
verified

Health care is the biggest

Health care is the biggest crisis that never was. Obama ran on and continued to push this herring to cover for the fact that he knew he couldn't fix the war, economy, or anything else for that matter. Now, all his minions can do is continue the tired line of "inheriting" these problems. What did he do to fix the economy? He spent our future on building projects that didn't create any jobs. Heavy equipment operators and ditch diggers were already employed when he threw more money into the hole. I was never a fan of Bush, but to call this man anything other than the horror of an excuse for a leader that he is shows just how far Democrats heads are up their bums.

verified

How do we know?

How do we know this is not some more racist rhetoric? As a Liberal-Democrat you must read the BBC and check the RSS feeds which it displays freely in that Obama is slowly pulling out troops and forcing both Iraq and Afghanistan to stand on their own. This boils down to the logic that you never truly checked sources. Which means another tired sob story from a misinformed hack.

frnchmn's picture

xyz...are you kidding me? Is

xyz...are you kidding me? Is that the best rebuttal you could come up with? Why didn't you just say: "I know you are but what am I?". When will you understand that these issues are adult issues and you should learn how adults converse regading them. Do you think the child-like discord you plaster on these sites gives you any credibility? I bet during President Bush's administration you and the ilk left had many moments where the only thing you could mutter was "NO". "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" You are just funny and I don't mean haha.

maineiacs9's picture
verified

xyz.....lmnop.........

it appears the truth that gil states about the President is hard to digest for those who refuse to see the truth for what it is. reality bites. true to form you the name calling and slanderous comments are not addressed by the SJ. left is as left does.

xyz's picture

No, I think you really need to be drug tested.

Put your whine back into your bong or this, do you want some cheese to go with that whine? Boo hoo.......................like you could do better?

Pirate's picture
verified

X...some of your posts cause

X...some of your posts cause me to question your age. Your 2:57 smaks of something from a 14 year old. But then, the question comes up, would 14 be your age or your IQ?

Gil's picture

Getting there

Paul, but you've got a ways to go. You say you voted for the messiah because you believed in him, but why? Where and when did he ever give you, or any of those who naively voted for this con artist, a reason to believe in him? Where is his political past? was it the vote after vote that he abstained from while a state Senator in Illinois? Was it in the living room of a terrorist from which he stared his career path? Was it the decades spent under the tutelage of am America-hating, racist, bigoted pastor? Was it as he sat at the knee of his mentor, self proclaimed Communist and pedophile Frank Marshall Davis?? Or was it when he disagreed with your views on the war? Or your views on torture? Have the scales fallen from your eyes now that the chosen one has shown his true nature as a career politician seeking power for himself, following his own socialistic agenda? You say you still like the man, but the man is the same as he ever was. Perhaps you should have looked a little deeper before you marked that ballot.

xyz's picture

By the way Gilligan here this is from your party...

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.................................................
no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no

Pirate's picture
verified

Thank you, X, for displaying

Thank you, X, for displaying your creative side. By the way, everyone of those no's by the Republicans was in response to a moronic question or request for frivolous funding by the democrats. You may have left out a couple, but you've made the point for us.

rstonge's picture
verified

Do you know why?

xyz, do you know why the Republican Party keeps saying no to the bills presented by the Democrats? The reason is the bills are bad bills. The Stimulus was and is a bad bill. "Health Care Reform" was and is a bad bill. Republicans will not and should not take part in the destruction of America. There will come a time, and I believe that it is not that far off, Americans will realize the the Democrats are moving this great country to a socialist economy. Look at the bills the Dems have put forth since President Obama has taken office. We had the Stimulus Package which was suppose to keep unemployment below 8%. See bad bill, unemployment is 9.5%. They want to negate contracts between individuals and companies where they think the individual is paid to much. They did not honor the bond holders of Chyrsler. They proposed socializing health care. When bad ideas are presented, the answer is NO.

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...