Barack Obama is the worst president in the history of the United States

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Grandluxe, Feb 8, 2013.

  1. 2/07/2013 @ 10:02PM |
    Forbes
    The Worst Five Years Since the Great Depression

    The results are in, and under President Obama the American people have now suffered the worst 5 years since the Great Depression.

    Even though the employment age population has increased by nearly 12 million since January, 2008, there are now 3 million fewer Americans working, with employment declining from 146.3 million in January, 2008 to 143.3 million in December, 2012.

    If America enjoyed the same labor force participation rate as in 2008, the unemployment rate in December, 2012 would have been 11.4%, compared to 4.9% in December, 2007, under President George Bush and his “failed” economic policies of the past.

    Before this latest spooky downturn, since the Great Depression recessions in America have lasted an average of 10 months, with the longest previously at 16 months. The latest recession began in December, 2007. Yet here we are 62 months after the recession began, and there is hardly any recovery at all.

    During the last 5 years, real median household income has declined nearly 9%, from $54,489 at the end of 2007, to $50,020 at the beginning of 2012. That was the most precipitous plunge on record, with a greater fall after the recession ended than before, which is unprecedented in American history.

    Poverty has soared under Obama, with the number of Americans in poverty increasing to the highest level in the more than 50 years that the Census Bureau has been tracking poverty. Over the last 5 years, the number in poverty has increased by nearly 31%, to 49.7 million, with the poverty rate climbing by over 30% to 16.1%. Obama has also been the food stamp President, with the number on food stamps increasing during his Administration to an all time record high of 47.7 million, up 80% over the past 5 years.

    Over the last 5 years, the economy has grown at an average annual rate of 0.6%, less than one fifth the long term American growth rate.

    The Census Bureau publishes the Gini Index, which is the official measure of income inequality. That index has climbed every year President Obama has been in office. It was flat during the 8 years under President Bush (which means inequality did not increase).

    Inequality is increasing under Obama because the incomes of the top 20% of income earners are increasing, while the incomes for everyone else have been declining. That is right, Progressives, what all your huffing and puffing has achieved is the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. That didn’t happen under Reagan, where the rich got richer, and the poor got richer.

    Congratulations, Progressives. You have proven the truth of Winston Churchill’s observations, “The great vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The great virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.”

    Read More: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...orst-five-years-since-the-great-depression/2/
     
  2. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    An inconvenient truth
     
  3. pspr

    pspr

    The Obamabots don't understand such complicated thinking. They just want to know if they will get their EBT card, their Obama phone and their welfare check.

    It was obvious that Obama was going to usher in the worst years for America even before he was elected in 2008. He is, after all, just a Saul Alinsky community organizer.
     
  4. [​IMG]

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/drRRKR-5SeM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



    [​IMG]





    [​IMG]





    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]





    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]





    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/the-terrorist-notches-on-obamas-belt/


    Sep 30, 2011 8:08am



    The Terrorist Notches on Obama’s Belt



    The list of senior terrorists killed during the Obama presidency is fairly extensive.

    There’s Osama bin Laden, of course, killed in May.

    Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leader Anwar al-Awlaki as of today.

    Earlier this month officials confirmed that al Qaeda’s chief of Pakistan operations, Abu Hafs al-Shahri, was killed in Waziristan, Pakistan.

    In August, ‘Atiyah ‘Abd al-Rahman, the deputy leader of al Qaeda was killed.

    In June, one of the group’s most dangerous commanders, Ilyas Kashmiri, was killed in Pakistan. In Yemen that same month, AQAP senior operatives Ammar al-Wa’ili, Abu Ali al-Harithi, and Ali Saleh Farhan were killed. In Somalia, Al-Qa’ida in East Africa (AQEA) senior leader Harun Fazul was killed.

    Administration officials also herald the recent U.S./Pakistani joint arrest of Younis al-Mauritani in Quetta.

    Going back to August 2009, Tehrik e-Taliban Pakistan leader Baitullah Mahsud was killed in Pakistan.

    In September of that month, Jemayah Islamiya operational planner Noordin Muhammad Top was killed in Indonesia, and AQEA planner Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan was killed in Somalia.

    Then in December 2009 in Pakistan, al Qaeda operational commanders Saleh al-Somali and ‘Abdallah Sa’id were killed.

    In February 2010, in Pakistan, Taliban deputy and military commander Abdul Ghani Beradar was captured; Haqqani network commander Muhammad Haqqani was killed; and Lashkar-e Jhangvi leader Qari Zafar was killed.

    In March 2010, al Qaeda operative Hussein al-Yemeni was killed in Pakistan, while senior Jemayah Islamiya operative Dulmatin - accused of being the mastermind behind the 2002 Bali bombings – was killed during a raid in Indonesia.

    In April 2010, al Qaeda in Iraq leaders Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi were killed.

    In May, al Qaeda’s number three commander, Sheik Saeed al-Masri was killed.

    In June 2010 in Pakistan, al Qaeda commander Hamza al-Jawfi was killed.

    Remember when Rudy Giuliani warned that electing Barack Obama would mean that the U.S. played defense, not offense, against the terrorists?

    If this is defense, what does offense look like?

    -Jake Tapper









    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21156.html


    Obama signed off on taking out pirates




    President Barack Obama issued a standing order to use force against pirates holding an American captain hostage — including giving a Navy commander the authority to act if he believed the captain’s life was in danger, two senior defense officials said Sunday night.

    Navy snipers aboard the USS Bainbridge on Sunday shot and killed three of the pirates after the Bainbridge’s commander gave the order, when a pirate was spotted aboard the lifeboat pointing an AK-47 rifle at Capt. Richard Phillips, one defense official said.
     
  5. pspr

    pspr

    <img src=http://i48.tinypic.com/35m4k06.jpg>
     
  6. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20009531-503544.html


    Scholars Rank Obama the 15th Best President




    A group of presidential scholars has ranked President Obama as the 15th best U.S. president of all time, a new survey shows, while his predecessor, President George W. Bush, is relegated to the bottom five.

    Mr. Obama also has an advantage in the rankings over President Ronald Reagan, who came in 18th, but President Bill Clinton beats them both in 13th place.

    The Siena College Research Institute's Survey of U.S. Presidents, which has been conducted five times since 1982, asked 238 presidential scholars to rank the 43 U.S. presidents on a number of characteristics.

    The presidents were given rankings for six personal attributes (background, imagination, integrity, intelligence, luck and willingness to take risks), five forms of ability (compromising, executive, leadership, communication and overall), and eight areas of accomplishment (economic, other domestic affairs, working with Congress, party leadership, Supreme Court appointments, executive branch appointments, avoiding mistakes and foreign policy).

    President Franklin D. Roosevelt was ranked the best president ever, followed by Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

    While he has only been in office a year and a half, Mr. Obama was rated highly in areas such as imagination, communication and intelligence.

    By comparison, Mr. Bush was ranked 23rd when the survey was conducted in 2002, after his first year in office. This year, Mr. Bush was ranked 39th after receiving poor ratings in communication, foreign policy, intelligence, the economy and his ability to compromise. Mr. Bush's best ranking came in the category of "luck," for which he was rated the 18th best president.

    The four presidents who were ranked more poorly than Mr. Bush were Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, and Franklin Pierce.

    © 2010 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
     
  7. pspr

    pspr

    When people say that Barack Obama is the worst president since Jimmy Carter, they’re not kidding; a new Gallup Poll taken between January 7-10 shows that when Americans were asked whether they had a positive view of the country, only 39% agreed. This is the lowest percentage since August 1979, when Carter was president, inflation was out of control and the economy was hurtling toward the abyss. The percentage of those who believe that things will be better in five years is only 48%, the lowest since that same time period under Carter. Another 40% said things will be worse.

    When they were asked whether the United States stood five years ago, 55% said things were better, indicating their belief that the more they have seen of Barack Obama, the worse they have felt. But even that figure is revealing in other ways; the 55% number is the most negative number since 1991.

    In contrast, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s first term, in January 2001, a whopping 73% of those polled were positive about America.

    Most tellingly, 75% of Democrats say that the country will be better off in five years, while only 15% of Republicans do. While Democrats keep drinking the Kool-Aid, Republicans are preparing for the worst.

    The negative numbers for Obama’s stewardship of America are historically low. Normally to a sitting president this would be a cause for concern, but this president has shown he doesn’t care one whit whether people are optimistic or not as long as he can transform the country into his dream socialist state.


    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ericans-Are-Down-On-America-In-Record-Numbers
     
  8. I love the one concerning how big a growth spender obama is. Perfect illustration about how stupid liberals are.

    so, obama startes off spending 3 trillion (more than every other president) and then only spends 3.1 so he shows no spending growth.

    I repeat.

    Liberals are idiots.



     
  9. THERE IS NO INFLATION


    Gasoline Prices More than Double Under Obama: $1.84 to $3.85


    Funny shit. I don't buy gas nor do I buy food. I eat ipad 2s and semi condictors.

    California has a balanced budget (when you don't count unfunded obligations that makes the budget unbalanced)


    Liberals are idiots and the government are a bunch of liars.
     



  10. http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92569/bush-obama-deficit-tax-cut-stimulus-health


    [​IMG]





    The Bush Deficit



    Critics of President Obama never tire of blaming him for today's high deficits. But if blame belongs with one president, it belongs with Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. The chart above, which the New York Times created based upon figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, illustrates this point very clearly. But it's worth reviewing the history here, because while it's familiar to most of us who follow politics it doesn't seem to get a lot of attention in the political debate.

    By the end of the 1990s, the federal budget was in surplus for the first time in decades. Partly that was a product of unusually strong economic growth, during the internet boom, which had swelled tax revenues. But partly that was a product of responsible budgeting, presided over by the most recent two presidents, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In order to reduce deficits, lawmakers and those two presidents had agreed both to raise taxes and to reduce spending.

    In the 2000 campaign, Clinton's would-be successor, Al Gore, campaigned on a promise to, in effect, put those surpluses aside for a rainy day. Bush would have none of it. The government had too much money, he said; the responsible thing was to give it all back to the taxpayers. In office, he did just that, presiding over massive tax cuts that gave, by far, the largest benefits to the very wealthy. Bush promised that the tax cuts would act like a "fiscal straightjacket," preventing government from growing. But then he, and his allies, launched two major wars and enacted a drug benefit for Medicare, all without paying for them.

    Today's fiscal gap is largely a product of those decisions, as the graph above shows. It has very little to do with anything Obama did while in office. In fact, the contrast between the two administrations could not be more striking. Obama's primary undertaking has been comprehensive health care reform. But he insisted that it pay for itself, through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.










    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html


    What’s also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary — the stimulus is over now — while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.
     
    #10     Feb 8, 2013