What President Obama has done for me and my family.

[GOPBasher]

I’m sorry that President Obama is being attacked mercilessly from both sides of our nation’s increasingly polarized political spectrum. I knew he would be vilified by the right, but I’m a bit surprised at the condemnation from the left.

Well, I appreciate what President Obama has done for my family and me. Because of his massive stimulus program, our tax return was somewhere between $800-$1200 more than it would have been otherwise. We used this money to pay back bills, so it immediately went back out into the economy, providing a real stimulus. Without his auto bailout, three – count them, three – of my in-laws would have lost their jobs. We live with my mother-in-law, and we split the household bills. Without that bailout, she wouldn’t have a job, and we’d be out in the streets.

I lost my job in March of 2009, and although I thankfully didn’t need the unemployment insurance extensions, I’m certainly glad my friends who still haven’t found jobs will be getting their extensions now. I didn’t like the tax cut extensions for the rich, but if that’s what it took to keep my friends from getting evicted, I’ll talk them. As for me, I’m working part-time now and going to school. I’ll be applying for student loans fairly soon, and because Obama overhauled the student loan program, I’ll be paying far less back in the future because I’m borrowing directly from the government, not Sally Mae or some other company.

The president also enacted the toughest set of regulations on the financial industry since the great depression, in an effort to prevent another economic meltdown. If these regulations had been in place in, say, 2002, we likely wouldn’t have been in this situation in the first place. It’s nice knowing an effort is being made to ensure that my children will not have their own great recession through which they’ll suffer because Wall Street got drunk.

It’s also nice knowing that if my kids get sick, no insurance company can ever turn them away because of a pre-existing condition. And it’s nice knowing that in the future, if they can’t afford health insurance, the government will provide them subsidies so they can buy some. It’s nice knowing, furthermore, that businesses are getting tax breaks to do the right thing and cover their employees.

Thank you, President Obama, for the greatest expansion of the social safety net since the great society.

[niceypoo]

1. A lot of the 'consternation' on the left stems from Obama's attacks on the left

The CBO states that tax cuts are the least stimulative thing that can be done. Democrats used to be about doing what is right for the country.

[stray cat]

7. If it were even correct - mommy he hit me first!

[great white snark]

14. Yeah, yeah. You "criticize" and Obama "attacks".

"Democrats used to be about doing what is right for the country."

Extending unemployment benefits aren't right for the country?

[CakeGrrl]

35. Thanks for pointing that out.

When the President is called all sorts of names by the Left, the name-callers hide behind it as "criticism" or "holding his feet to the fire".

But to them, the President is "arrogant" and "condescending" when he returns a VERY MILD observation about what his detractors are saying.

[intheflow]

78. Unemployment should never have been paired with

tax cuts for the rich. They throw us pennies and corporations billions. Unemployment benefits will still run out loooooong before those billionaires' and corporations' hand outs will. That is not doing what is right for the country.

[mkultra]

86. extending UI at ANY cost is whats right

what wouldn't be right is letting them go to deny the rich more money. You essentially want to feed the unemployed to the rich.

[intheflow]

87. I never said we should deny UI to anyone.

And certainly not just so we can deny money to the rich. I said giving extending UI should never have been paired with the tax cuts. That's very different from saying "Fuck unemployed people as long as it fucks the rich." :eyes:

[mkultra]

89. so what your doing is essentially howling at the wind

because that's what was needed to get UI done. and now its done. Shoulda coulda woulda.

[intheflow]

91. What is it to you that I observe

that Obama/Congress made a shitty for the vast majority of American citizens? I can say what I want, and it's not like I wasn't railing against it before it went down.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

88. Oh please. The same people who never liked him have attacked him since before he was inaugurated.

The CBO states that UI is one of the most "stimulative thing that can be done." President Obama was less interested in denying the wealthy than helping those truly in need. It was the right thing to do. Just ask any 99er.

Democrats are still "about doing what is right for the country" much more so than when Bubba was Prez. If 42 hadn't caved to Republicans like Phil Gramm (McCain's 2008 campaign economic advisor before he resigned in disgrace) on repealing Glass-Steagall, the meltdown wouldn't have happened.

[bushisanidiot]

2. +100000

Excellent post! It's good to see someone else here appreciates our President.

I'm glad you were able to get the relief you needed last year and this year. Goodness knows, you wouldn't have gotten that kind of help from a "president McCain" or "president Palin". I shutter at the thought!!!!

thankfully, through the hard work of President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, our economy is improving and on the right track toward recovery.

- A PROUD, AND LONELY, PRESIDENT OBAMA SUPPORTER AND LONG TIME DU'ER

[GOPBasher]

8. Thank you. n/t

[dave29]

3. very happy for you and yours

and kudos for seeing the glass half-full.

[GOPBasher]

9. Thanks. n/t

[Still a Democrat]

4. Thank you

Nice piece.

[GOPBasher]

10. Thanks. n/t

[girl gone mad]

5. Nothing in the supposedly tough financial reform bill..

will prevent the next meltdown.

I'm heartsick to know that my child will be forced to buy shitty health insurance. He will be tens of thousands of dollars poorer in his lifetime as a direct result of this bad policy.

[GOPBasher]

12. All consumer groups love that bill.

I'm no expert, so I defer to the experts. Every major consumer group liked it. If you have an MBA in finance or something, and you demonstrably know something I don't, please tell me. But going by what the consumer groups said, it seems that it was a great bill.

And your child will receive subsidies for insurance, and having it will be far better than being in debt for the rest of his/her life because of an emergency surgery.

[golfguru]

76. Here are a few things I do not like in the HCR bill:

For profit private insurers (FPPI) get a gift of millions of additional paying
customers with mandates.

There is not a single restraint on premium hikes by FPPI in the bill.
The FPPI's are free to increase your premiums as high as necessary until
their profit goals are met.

The HCR bill prohibits drug importation! WOW what a bonanza for big pharma!
Drug importation clause would have saved millions to consumers.

No competition to FPPI from PUBLIC OPTION to keep rate hikes under control.
This was the only effective means of restricting run away rate hikes.

Competition to FPPI from across the state lines by other FPPI's is prohibited.
So each state has it's FPPI's operating as a monopolies without outside competition.

Nothing in the HCR bill to restrain frivolous malpractice suits which end up
costing all consumers of health care more.

To be sure there are some very good things in the bill such as no cancellations
and no rejections. However both of these are NOT mutually exclusive with the
above listed items now missing from the bill.

[frazzled]

15. A quick question for you

You say you're heartsick to know your child will be forced to buy shitty health insurance. Does that mean your child is not covered under even shittier insurance today? (It will be less shitty in the future because the new law requires insurers to hew to certain standards, forces them to spend no less than 85% of premiums directly on health benefits, provides no copays on preventative care, forbids recisions when you get sick, accepts everybody, etc. etc. etc.).

Do you not have insurance? I'm curious about this, because I can't imagine anyone would fail to carry health insurance unless they were utterly destitute or had been turned down for a pre-existing condition.

I ask because there were two options: the really shitty commercial insurance we have now, completely unregulated; and less shitty commercial insurance, with subsidies for people to purchase it and exchanges that will help to keep rates down.

There were no other choices that were going to be able to pass in Congress.

P.S.: My child (now a young adult) decided not to buy the dental insurance offered him when he entered graduate school a few years ago. He would be covered by health insurance, but he didn't want to spend the extra $400 a year (I think) on the dental. Well, low and behold, a pumpkin seed in a bowl of pumpkin soup attacked him, he had to go to the dentist: and the bill (crown, etc.) came to more than $2,000. He (and we, because we had to help him pay the dental bill) were soooo sorry he hadn't gotten the shitty dental insurance.

[girl gone mad]

23. The truth is that the vast majority of people in their 20s and 30s will be far worse off..

financially because of this bill.

They were sacrificed at the altar of big insurance.

I did the math over the summer and going uninsured in my 20s while paying for medical costs out of pocket saved me over $80,000 in the long run. Most of the people I know who went through bankruptcy as a result of medical bills were insured. I do know one uninsured person who had major surgery and paid for it through an installment plan he negotiated with the doctor and the hospital. He still came out ahead.

Many people would simply be better off without the parasitic middle man. Insurance companies exist to make a profit. They achieve that by paying out less than they take in from consumers. Now, one of the most effective market price controls has been removed. In theory, forcing young people to buy insurance is supposed to spread risk and lower rates for older people. In practice, insurers are certain to continue squeezing as much as they can out of everyone. I hope that young people realize how they are being screwed by this reform and fight back.

[frazzled]

28. Good thing you didn't ...

incur a sudden severe brain injury, as happened this year to the twenty-something son of friends of ours, who has been hospitalized for the last seven months (nearly four of them in intensive care), and will need years more worth of health care and therapies. Or cancer.

I used to think there was no need for a mandate, until I started realizing from posts here the number of people who choose not to be insured.

[girl gone mad]

36. Actually, I did end up in the hospital.

I was insured at the time but my insurance company denied the claims, then dropped me. I ended up paying my bills out of pocket.

Most who choose to go without insurance have good reason. Most of these people pay their own expenses and are not a burden on the system. Most people who end up in bankruptcy because of medical debt actually have insurance.

It's interesting that your instinct is to control the behavior of people who have made a rational choice not to operate within a deeply corrupted and dysfunctional system, rather than to fix what's broken in that system. Do you also want to force doctors to accept insurance? A large and growing number of doctors have chosen not to participate in the for-profit health insurance scam, and can offer their patients very competitive rates for their services as a result.

[GOPBasher]

30. And if you required some emergency surgery, you'd be in debt for the rest of your life.

It is better to have insurance. And yes, we do need healthy people in the system to spread the risk, or else we cannot tell insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions.

[girl gone mad]

34. I could declare bankruptcy..

and be in the exact same place as many insured people, or pay it off through installments, as my uninsured friend did.

[GOPBasher]

38. Does your reply not make you see why it's better for everyone to have insurance?

When people go into the ER without insurance, and they can't pay, they're still treated (obviously, I don't think anyone with any political beliefs would want it any other way). But then, the patient may declare bankruptcy, or may pay in installments with no interest. Other times, the hospital simply has to eat the costs. Any of those situations causes the hospital to lose money, which in turn causes them to increase the price on the other patients who either have insurance or can pay. THAT is one of the major problems with health care costs in this country; one of the biggest factors in the unrelenting cost explosions. So, if we require everyone to have health insurance, and then simply provide subsidies for those who can't pay, we fix it. That's what they do in many other countries, and it works very well. As just one example, Germany has a very similar system to what this will usher in (they don't have single payer or anything like that), and it works very well for them. They spend about 10-11% of their GDP on health care (compared to our roughly 18%) and they cover everyone.

[girl gone mad]

43. uncompensated care accounts for a tiny amount of the nation's total health care expenses..

Less than 3% of total health care expenditures last time I checked. The uninsured account for only 1/3 of that 3%.

And you really believe the mandate is going to impact health care costs?

You are seriously misinformed on this topic.

[GOPBasher]

45. If those stats are true, then that's a good point. There is also the issue of

pre-existing conditions. And I'm not absolutely certain that a mandate will impact health care costs, but I do know that countries that have one spend far less and get far better results than we do.

[Sheepshank]

41. If having no insurance was such a great deal

then how come wealthy people obtain health insurance? By your estimation, you'd think that the odds would be in their favor not to get it when they are managing their wealth and wanting to maximize what they keep vs. spend on excess frivolous stuff. Surely their CPA's and accountants would be steering them in the direction that is the money maker. I know at least 5 people who make much more that $250K/year and obtain health insurance.

[girl gone mad]

46. A financial adviser would consider..

many factors when determining whether or not and what type of insurance a wealthy person should carry. I think high deductible catastrophic policies with no cap are popular with the upper class. They can pay for most care out of pocket, but their assets will be shielded from major medical costs. For people without assets to protect, these policies make much less sense.

[Sheepshank]

58. But carrying health insurance, non the less.

going without insurance is NOT sound advice nor recommended.

One may get lucky and not get sick or injured, one may also win at the slots. It's a game of chance and some would lose big.

Giving out advice to avoid insurance, is dangerous. You say that it's a good idea to avoid insurance if one has no assets, but collections agencies don't need assets to garner payment. Your thought process assumes that the patient would only assets in the current defaulted billing year. Not so. Future wages could be garnished. Credit destroyed with documented court filings and future interest rates hiked for home purchases, auto financinig etc, and future insurance premiums hiked because of risk. Your advice is all the way around bad for those who would not be able to pay a bill and have no insurance and plan on having a future that includes assets.

[intheflow]

79. "How come wealthy people obtain health insurance?"

Simple answer: they can afford it without thinking about the cost.

[martymar64]

71. It's much better to have Single Payer.

But Obama wouldn't even let advocates of Single Payer sit at the negotiating table.

He sold us out from the get-go.

[martymar64]

70. None of this would be an issue with Single Payer. But oh no, that would be too humane.

[Clio the Leo]

6. And there's far more who agree with you than we realize. nt

[GOPBasher]

39. I think you're right. n/t

[jaxx]

11. Big K&R for a really good post.

There are many of us who appreciate what the President has done for this country and it's good to see someone bringing it out.

Change, it's happening.

[GOPBasher]

32. Thanks. Yes, it's still 45% or so. I hope it's up by 2012. n/t

[treestar]

13. Rec'd. I have always been a glass half full person myself

And ready to move onto to even greater victories. The POTUS is like that too.

[GinaMaria]

16. You were helped at the cost of hurting others

The middle class is being destroyed rapidly. By the middle of next year my little family will no longer be middle class because this president decided to 'fix' healthcare. We will deplete our savings (and still owe more) to pay the high deductible, higher co-pays, increased premiums and to offset the lower percentage of covered costs by our insurance.

So Obama can celebrate some fictitious woman who can now get chemotherapy while we cut my husband's medication to 1/3 of what he should take because that is all that our "reformed" insurance will pay for this year. They paid for all of it before it was 'reformed', but that's because it was a "cadillac" plan.

Transferring the cost of these 'reforms' to the middle class instead of to everyone is where this fails. I don't wish you ill. I want you and others to have the help you need but it shouldn't cost my husband's health and eventually his life to do it. HCR, for those who are sick, means hurry up and die, you cost too much and your family feels it.

While this is called the Affordable Care Act, it does nothing to make healthcare affordable. It only made healthcare accessible for more people. The good news is that eventually, we will fall out the bottom and then will be eligible for subsidies. Before that time there will be a lot of suffering and probably death. Which if wide spread enough, might lead to real reform. So much to look forward to (do I need the sarcasm tag?)

[GOPBasher]

25. The Health Care bill didn't affect us personally yet.

I thought I made it clear that in the case of HCR and financial regulation, we weren't affected directly yet. I was just "happy knowing" that those reforms took place, for many reasons, including the ones I cited. So, the HRC had nothing to do with me, personally. I'm sorry that your insurance is getting worse. However, it had nothing to do with HRC, as health care costs have already been exploding for thirty years. With exploding costs, insurance companies have been charging more and paying less. Obama didn't cause any of that, so I have no idea how you're blaming HRC for that. Did you not pay attention the previous thirty years. In the long run, you'll be much better off with the new system; this is because tens of millions more people will be in the system, spreading the risk. As more healthy people are in the system, paying premiums, there will be less that you have to pay.

Thanks for the well wishes, but I want to stress that HRC is not one of programs I cited as having directly helped me as of yet, but I know it will help all of us in the future.

[GinaMaria]

44. Actually, it has everything to do with HCR

However, it had nothing to do with HRC, as health care costs have already been exploding for thirty years. With exploding costs, insurance companies have been charging more and paying less. Obama didn't cause any of that, so I have no idea how you're blaming HRC for that.

I work for an insurance company. To meet MLR requirements, employee benefits were slashed. The reason I work here is for the benefits for my husband. But you know, people like us had 'cadillac' plans, we didn't deserve. :eyes:


so I have no idea how you're blaming HRC for that.

Healthcare reform stipulated MLR rates and what contributed to them and what didn't. This is a direct result of the legislation. Even better is that it is called the Affordable Care Act, when it does nothing to address cost. It only addresses access, the thought of which makes you happy. Costs will not be lowered over time. In the next 3-5 years insurance companies project that at least 1/3 of businesses that provide medical benefits now will stop. The individual market will explode (the biggest profit area for insurers). Many people will be on their own to provide their own insurance. Their employers will not pay even part of the premium. Do you expect them to pay you the difference? Now that you will be footing 100% of the bill for your own insurance with the same take home pay, you will essentially be poorer.

Think also about what kind of individual policy you will buy in the future. The only one you may be able to afford is one with a super high deductible, high co-pays, 40-50% of services covered while you pay the rest. But at least your premiums are stable. :eyes: so you are happy.

In the long run, you'll be much better off with the new system; this is because tens of millions more people will be in the system, spreading the risk. As more healthy people are in the system, paying premiums, there will be less that you have to pay.

What an insulting comment. In the long run I will be better off? Why? because my husband will die sooner!! We will not be better off now or in the future. This will get worse. Nothing about this controls costs, it just mandates people have insurance. It doesn't do much good to have insurance you can't afford to use or have to go into debt to use.

This entire 'reform' was about shifting costs. The middle class took the biggest hit.

But at least your happy knowing you have all this!


Thanks for the well wishes, but I want to stress that HRC is not one of programs I cited as having directly helped me as of yet, but I know it will help all of us in the future.

Your welcome. Do I now thank you for your ignorance and insults? It will not help all of us as I've pointed out. Enjoy your bliss.

[GOPBasher]

51. I have no idea why you think I'm being insulting.

I actually found you quite insulting, by implying that I only like HCR because I somehow need health insurance access. I'll reiterate: I have not required any provision in HCR; my family and I have been lucky to have good, private health insurance for years. So it is not a selfish need that is forming my opinion. Even after I said that, you still keep implying that I only like HCR because because more access makes me "happy." I do want more access, for everyone. But I haven't needed it myself. So, you were insulting me, and I was, for the record, being sarcastic when I thanked you for the "well wishes."

All I was saying to you was that when more people are in the system, it spreads the risk, and therefore helps control costs. Even if you don't think it's true, why the hell would you think I was being insulting? You can disagree, but that has nothing to do with you personally, so how did I offend you?

[GinaMaria]

56. Your words

I was just "happy knowing" that those reforms took place

I never implied that you needed access, but instead addressed your comments directly, something I noticed you did not do in your recent post. So go ahead and feel insulted at believing I thought you needed access to healthcare when I clearly thought no such thing. :crazy: No need to reiterate anything. I understand you are happing knowing this 'reform' happened. I am not and clearly explained why and also pointed out that your reasons for being happy don't work for everyone.

All I was saying to you was that when more people are in the system, it spreads the risk, and therefore helps control costs. Even if you don't think it's true, why the hell would you think I was being insulting? You can disagree, but that has nothing to do with you personally, so how did I offend you?

No that was not all you were saying.

I'm sorry that your insurance is getting worse. However, it had nothing to do with HRC, as health care costs have already been exploding for thirty years.

As I've pointed out, this statement is false.

With exploding costs, insurance companies have been charging more and paying less. Obama didn't cause any of that, so I have no idea how you're blaming HRC for that.

As I've pointed out, this statement is false also.

Did you not pay attention the previous thirty years.

Are you fracking kidding me? You don't see this as insulting? When you don't know anything about the person you are engaging, something like this is insulting. I've worked in health care related fields my entire career.

But this was the worst:
In the long run, you'll be much better off with the new system; this is because tens of millions more people will be in the system, spreading the risk. As more healthy people are in the system, paying premiums, there will be less that you have to pay.

A) As I've pointed out, in the long run my husband will be dead. I do not consider that 'better off'. Do you?

B) The spreading the risk statement is wrong: More people will be in individual plans where the risk is not spread at all making these plans very expensive and quite profitable for those who sell them.

So, instead of telling me how much better off I'll be, why not extend some empathy? Is it because it doesn't fit your 'happy knowing' narrative? Do you prefer not to know, when policies hurt people? My family got burned by this and we're scrambling for solutions to protect ourselves. We haven't found any yet.

[GOPBasher]

61. I just reread our conversation, and you're right. I'm wrong.

I apologize. I'm actually sending you a message.

[GinaMaria]

65. Thanks. No need to send a message

Just remember, that someone can be less satisfied than you with a policy. Their reasons are no less valid than yours.

OTOH, Unemployment Benefits in theory should benefit everyone, even those currently employed or retired. Every dollar spent on UE benefits returns 1.64 to the economy. It's an excellent bang for the stimulus buck. Wish more was spent here and food stamps.

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/assissing-t ...

On Page 4
Table 1: Fiscal Economic Bang for the Buck
One year $ change in real GDP for a given $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase
in spending

Tax Cuts

Non-refundable lump-sum tax rebate 1.02
Refundable lump-sum tax rebate 1.26

Temporary tax cuts

payroll tax holiday 1.29
Across the board tax cut 1.03
Accelerated depreciation 0.27

Permanent tax cuts

Extend alternative minimum tax patch 0.48
Make Bush income tax cuts permanent 0.29
Make dividend and capital gains tax cuts permanent 0.37
Cut in corporate tax rate 0.30

Spending Increases

Extending UI benefits 1.64
Temporary increase in food stamps 1.73
General aid to state governments 1.36
Increased infrastructure spending 1.59

Permanent tax cuts are the worst for the economy and return .29 - .48 cents for every dollar cut.
But, 4 specific areas of spending are the best at stimulating an economy.

[livetohike]

47. Really? Because my insurance (BC/BS) is not going up

and my deductibles are not changing, and my prescription coverage is the same as it has been. So you received paperwork telling you that all these negative things were happening to you BECAUSE of the new health insurance changes, or are you just predicting this?

[GinaMaria]

54. Just went through open enrollment

It's my reality. We will be 'lucky' to pay 10K out of pocket next year.

On Edit:
Not all BC/BS plans are created equal

[livetohike]

59. Oh no.....

I wish there was an emoticon for pulling out hair. I'm sorry this is changing for you. We are early retired and self-insured(and we are not on a family plan because I was considered a "risk" due to migraine headaches) so our premiums are different. High deductibles, too

:hug:

[GinaMaria]

62. thanks

It's getting scary. I'm looking into some freelance work in my off hours to pull in some extra $. The thought of losing DH keeps me up at night.

[Aramchek]

17. Every post like this with a true personal anecdote is worth ten thousand "Obama is a Caver" threads

[bowens43]

24. No, they're really not . .........nt

[Aramchek]

26. says the Caveman

[KansasVoter]

19. And the billionaires are thrilled also!

[ProudDad]

20. Silly anecdotal screed...

That means nothing in the long run...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x568677

[zalinda]

21. Nothing he has done has helped me or

my son and the 3 extra people living in my house, who would not have a place to live if I hadn't taken them in. Luckily I get food stamps, but that may end up being cut, because of Obama.

There are more poor than middle class, and more middle class than rich, but it seems Obama thinks the trickle down theory is the only one that is viable.

zalinda

[GOPBasher]

27. That may be true, but I honestly find it hard to believe.

None of you had bigger tax returns from his stimulus program? Really? Have any of you received unemployment for longer than the 26 weeks? Are any of you in school, getting some financial aid from his programs?

[zalinda]

48. None of them get unemployement

Each had their employer fire them over something trivial, so they could hire some one cheaper. None of them qualify for government help, they all fall between the cracks. We are starting to run out of things to sell, to keep afloat.

We need JOBS not government hand outs. And Obama has said that it's not the government's responsibility to create jobs.

zalinda

[onenote]

29. your food stamps are significantly higher now than they would otherwise be

because of Obama. Yet somehow that doesn't count as helping you. And if they end up being "cut" in October 2013, they will be cut to where they would have been had Obama and Recovery Act not boosted them.

[GOPBasher]

31. That's right, thank you. I completely forgot about that provision in the stimulus program. n/t

[zalinda]

49. My food stamps amount has not changed

in a year and a half, since I first applied for them. I get $700 a month on disability. You try living on that in the city.

zalinda

[onenote]

53. the maximum benefit payable under the food stamp program increased by 13.6 percent

under the Recovery Act, which was enacted in February 2009. If you've been receiving benefits since June of 2009 (18 months) you've been receiving more than you would have received if that provision wasn't in the law. In fact, without the Recovery Act, benefits would be below what they were in June 2008, since under the pre-Recovery Act law, the benefit level was tied to an inflation adjusted "Thrifty Food Plan" amount calculated by the Dept of Agriculture and that amount actually declined from June 2008 to June 2009 and again from June 2009 to June 2010.

I'm not at all suggesting that the current benefit levels are adequate. But they're significantly higher than they would have been had the President not been successful in pushing through the Recovery Act.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

63. Actually, Obama nearly doubled the amount allocated for food stamps.

[OhioBlue]

75. I thought the stimulus bill expanded food stamps.. n/t

[firedupdem]

22. K&R

That's excellent! I'm happy for you and your family. I know my family has benefited as well and we are happy we have a president who understands the plight of everyday americans. Best Wishes to you and yours!

[GOPBasher]

33. Thanks! And same to you! n/t

[Sheepshank]

37. very nice +1

to read the *real* live benefits of Obama's programs rather than all the *possible* anecdotal what if's. What a refreshing dose of make sense reality.

[GOPBasher]

40. Thanks. I love your sig line. I never heard that quote before, but I'm going to use it. :-) n/t

[democracy1st]

42. The problem is as a nation we didn't need those tax cuts!

[polmaven]

50. Thank you, GOPBasher...

because President Obama was strong enough to realize that compromise is sometimes necessary for the benefit of the more unlucky among us, I will not face the prospect of losing my home because my UI benefits expired in 26 weeks. I will now have much more time to be able to secure beneficial employment.

I have to think that the stimulus bill is now beginning to show some result as well, because I have suddenly been snagging more interviews and sending more applications than I did all summer.

I have not always agreed with everything he has done, but I do not doubt that he has always had the greater good of the American people at heart.

[Uzybone]

52. Thank you for your post

It is very easy to be "nouveau left" and take pot shots at every thing the Democratic administration has done in the face of unrelenting opposition and a Pravda-like media over the past two years. But real people are getting helped, and for that I am grateful.

Much more could have been done and much more will be done, so we need to keep working.

Hand-wringing and complaining are fine for those few who are invested in living their lives that way, the rest of us will continue to work for progress.

[WiffenPoof]

55. I'm One Of The Harshest Critics Of The....

President...But I'm willing to admit that not everything he has done is bad. However, the scales definitely tip to the Right...which is unfortunate at best.

This is not what I fought so hard for.

-PLA

[MadHound]

57. Meanwhile, another perspective of what Obama has done

Back in 2006 I went back to college in order to become a teacher. I enjoy working with kids, and I see the increasingly desperate need for good teachers in this country. NCLB has taken a huge toll on education, as has Obama's "education reforms".

I was a very good student, wound up with two education degrees, a history degree, and am certified to teach grades K-12. My grades were excellent, allowing me to get into several honor societies along the way. I presented papers at national conferences, I was a model student. My student teaching experience in the fall of '09 went quite well. Praise all around from my cooperating teacher, principle and other fellow teacher and administrators. I was on a fast track for a job this fall. One of the middle school history teachers was moving out of town, and I was already slotted in to take over her job.

Spring of this year, Obama fails to renew the stimulus funding for education, despite the fact that state and local tax revenues are still in the toilet, despite the outcry from school districts around the country. Doesn't matter, no money.

My job that I was slotted in for disappeared. Those one hundred and twenty students were divided up between the remaining two teachers who had to still cope, still produce results, even though their workload went up fifty percent.

I, and thousands of teachers like me, started making the rounds of job fairs and school districts. Nobody was hiring, not one within a thirty mile radius. Sure, if I wanted to move to Wichita or some other such place I could find a job, but my life, my roots, my house and family are all here. Besides, it would not be fair to my wife to have her quit her job that she loves and enjoys so that I can find one somewhere else in this country.

As a direct result of Obama's education policies, I was denied a job.

To add insult to injury, the money that Obama was offering, Race to the Top grants, required states to fight like rats over a crumb and basically open up the entire state to future privatization of their school systems. States were desperate for cash, and thus were grasping at anything. Thankfully, though my state competed for these funds, they weren't picked. I would rather see our state sacrifice a bit of money now than its entire education system later.

Further insult was added in September. After forcing school districts into crisis modes across the country, after forcing thousands of teachers out of work, the Obama administration decided to come up off the original stimulus money. That was nice, but far too late. Hiring, firing and other budget decisions are made in the spring, April, May, June. By September, with school already started, budgets and hiring is already locked into stone.

So while Obama may have helped you, he has harmed me. His inexpert fiddling with education policy, his withholding of much needed funds has cost me a year of unemployment(and no, since I was a student, I don't get UI benefits). And perhaps more. We'll see this spring.

Thus, for every anecdotal tale of how much Obama has helped, there is another one of how Obama has helped. Don't believe me, just asked an unemployed teacher near you.

[Uzybone]

60. so thanks to Obamas stimulus you lost your job?

Are you saying you would have had your job without the stimulus?

[MadHound]

66. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?

No, what I'm saying is that due to Obama's education policies, the way he has withheld, then doled out modicums of funds, I lost my job. If he had actually released that stimulus money for education to the states last spring, when decisions about hiring and firing were being made by school districts across the country, yes, I would have had a job. Instead he left school districts twisting in the wind all spring and summer, dangling RTTT funds in front of them instead, and didn't provide the stimulus funds for education until it was too late and all the hiring and firing decisions had been made. Clear now?

[Uzybone]

67. So if there never was an Obama stimulus, you'd still have your job?

[MadHound]

68. No,

Are you being deliberately dense?

What I said, and please try to keep up, is if Obama had released those stimulus funds for education this year back during the spring, I would have a job. Instead, he didn't release those funds until September, far too late for any hiring to occur. Got it?

[Uzybone]

69. In short, you are whining about something that would never have existed

If Obama was not president.

Oh and not whining that the stimulus funds were not available, but that the funds were not released exactly when YOU wanted it.

The perfect man/woman might be available in 2012. Good luck sir.

[bigwillq]

64. I'm glad things are working out for your family.

K and R

[martymar64]

72. While the 99ers are starving under freeway underpasses.

The 99er's will only grow, likely another million this upcoming year. Of course they are invisible to Obama, they don't fit into his "recovery" narrative.

But you're doing great so fuck them, right?

[vikegirl]

80. +1000 etc.

Has Obama even said their name?

[avaistheone1]

81. Not to mention how this is going to screw up the future of Social Security for millions.

But evidently those people are not important.

[JamesA1102]

73. K&R nt

[Number23]

74. "Thank you, President Obama, for the greatest expansion of the social safety net"

Agreed! Happy to rec. Love your story and think that it's great that you're valiantly trying to slice through the relentless din of negativity and utter mindlessness that is found here now.

[Bluerthanblue]

77. what a pleasure to rec'd this-

Your post is a breath of fresh air, thank you for the encouragement to look at some of the good, rather than wallowing in doom and negativity.

:grouphug:

[tomp]

82. well, he's done nothing for me.

it is good if somebody is getting something, but frankly i think your position is a little selfish if you're not considering what his policies mean overall (i.e., what has he given away to get the bones and crumbs he has handed out), instead of just for you in particular.

yours is nothing but the most optimistic interpretation of obama's accomplishments and every point could be debated.

he could have done things differently and we would have no disagreement, but then he's a democrat.

[GOPBasher]

83. I didn't really want to kick this again, but I keep getting accused of selfishness.

If you read my original post, I think it's pretty clear that I used that format just to personalize it, but what I'm really trying to argue is that I think most of Obama's policies have been good. If you notice, I specifically mention many things that DID NOT help me personally, but I was just "happy knowing" that others were helped by them. The unemployment extensions are the clearest example. Also, no one has seen the benefits of the financial reform yet, but they may help prevent another economic meltdown. HRC can be debated, but I think it heads in the right direction; either way, I myself have not benefited from HCR; I said I was just "happy knowing" that, as just one example of its many provisions, other kids can't be denied care due to pre-existing conditions. Tell me, why are these things selfish? I just used my personal examples as illustrative debating tools, not because I don't give a shit about anyone else.

You also said:
yours is nothing but the most optimistic interpretation of obama's accomplishments and every point could be debated.

Of course they can be debated; this is usually the case. That's what I was doing, debating my position that Obama has been a good president (not great, but good). Feel free to debate the other side. I promise I won't accuse you of being selfish if you use personal examples.

[vaberella]

84. You're not selfish. You're just glad and I'm sure there are millions of others like you.

Some benefit and some don't. In some cases, some don't even see they've benefited. I'm glad you posted.

[tomp]

85. i also want as many people helped as possible.

it seems obvious to me that so much more was possible. obama is definitely developing a pattern (this is objective, and beyond debate) of compromising with the right. It seems to me we end up giving away much more than we get. this does not a good president make and i don't see why it is necessary.

you also seemed to focus only on the second half of what you quoted from my post. try thinking about the first part. i think i'm right with my very negative take on obama, but at the very least he is less good a president than you seem to suggest.

[mikekohr]

90. BIG KICK