Barry Obama, pathetic excuse of leadership

[oneway]

Please liberals only.

Please explain in detail one example of a plan & decision Barry Obama has made that had actual concrete results that made a positive difference on a National level.

It must be a specific national program that he alone created, passed and supported that made things better on a National level.

Just one, with details.

This man has done nothing, and is critical of everything....especially America.

He is a still the abandoned confused & needy child with absolutly no direction of his own.

[asroc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bills_sponsored_by_Barack_Obama_in_the_Uni ted_States_Senate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama

[oneway]

2% of his sponsored bills are law...did not have time to read what great bill he passed, please describe!

[asroc]

2% being average for the Senate.

Please take the time to read things instead of asking others to walk you through it by the hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Barack_Obama#109th_ Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Barack_Obama#110th_ Congress

[Moby]

I'm curious if you're doing the double standards here.

Can you offer an example to help us understand? Maybe try something that Bush accomplished (obviously not on a national level) before he started running for President in 2000. Maybe McCain in the past few years or whoever you support for President.

Bush signed 3 of Obama's bills into law but he had cosponsors on all of them which is normal and actually 3 is pretty damn good for a first term senator.

[asroc]

Yeah, basically if you think a senator single-handedly writes a bill and somehow also single-handedly gets it passed and signed, you have a very serious misunderstanding about the basics of how our government is supposed to work.

Nobody is supposed to be able to do all of that on their own, that's kind of the point.

[oneway]

again the resounding sound of the empty headed singing praises to the needy empty headed one himself. barry Obama.

Please describe one piece of legislation that barry can be proud of as a Senator? Just one, and yes you must tell what he did lazy linkers!

[oneway]

2% is not average for the Senate. If you were in sales and had a 2% closing ratio you would be out of a Job. If you were a running back in the NFL and was held to only 2 yars in a game you would be named Barry Obama. Obama's Bolwing score was even a higher %! This man is the real Chancey Gardener!!!!!!!

[oneway]

Sir Moby, Bush ran the State of Texas. Most people agree this is far better preparation for the presidency than the Senate.

[asroc]

oneway just read the urls, jesus christ

are you fucking retarded?

[oneway]

Barry is a do nothing taker. Any legislation he was a part of was to take from the hard working and give to the lazy. He is a scumbag.

[Moby]

Barry is a do nothing taker. Any legislation he was a part of was to take from the hard working and give to the lazy. He is a scumbag.
And you can't name a single bit of legislation that anyone you voted for or will vote for has created. You're a brilliant man. Really. I mean that.

[LogicallyYours]

Sir Moby, Bush ran the State of Texas. Most people agree this is far better preparation for the presidency than the Senate.

Really???...then maybe you should spend time learning about the weak governor system in Texas.

In perhaps one of his most important duties, reviewing Death Penalties, Bush shirked his moral responsiblities...seems like he just couldn't be bothered:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17670

Bush had no experience period.

[Smurf-Herder]

Please describe one piece of legislation that barry can be proud of as a Senator? Just one, and yes you must tell what he did lazy linkers!

Oh! Oh! Oh! :hi: I got something Barry's proud of, for ya ............

Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote

"A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

The bill, which is item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body."

"Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

Obama's bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate."

"The House version (H.R. 1302), sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), had only 84 co-sponsors before it was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars.

It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member. Lugar has worked with Obama in the past to promote more foreign aid for Russia, supposedly to stem nuclear proliferation, and has become Obama's mentor. Like Biden, Lugar is a globalist. They have both promoted passage of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, for example.

The so-called "Lugar-Obama initiative" was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program, also known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which was designed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. But one defense analyst, Rich Kelly, noted evidence that "CTR funds have eased the Russian military's budgetary woes, freeing resources for such initiatives as the war in Chechnya and defense modernization." He recommended that Congress "eliminate CTR funding so that it does not finance additional, perhaps more threatening, programs in the former Soviet Union." However, over $6 billion has already been spent on the program.

Another program modeled on Nunn-Lugar, the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), was recently exposed as having funded nuclear projects in Iran through Russia."

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

[bairdi]

Oh! Oh! Oh! :hi: I got something Barry's proud of, for ya ............

Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote

"A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

The bill, which is item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body."

"Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

Obama's bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate."

"The House version (H.R. 1302), sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), had only 84 co-sponsors before it was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars.

It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member. Lugar has worked with Obama in the past to promote more foreign aid for Russia, supposedly to stem nuclear proliferation, and has become Obama's mentor. Like Biden, Lugar is a globalist. They have both promoted passage of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, for example.

The so-called "Lugar-Obama initiative" was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program, also known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which was designed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. But one defense analyst, Rich Kelly, noted evidence that "CTR funds have eased the Russian military's budgetary woes, freeing resources for such initiatives as the war in Chechnya and defense modernization." He recommended that Congress "eliminate CTR funding so that it does not finance additional, perhaps more threatening, programs in the former Soviet Union." However, over $6 billion has already been spent on the program.

Another program modeled on Nunn-Lugar, the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), was recently exposed as having funded nuclear projects in Iran through Russia."

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

http://www.bread.org/take-action/ol2008/gpa-fact-sheet.pdf

[Smurf-Herder]

http://www.bread.org/take-action/ol2008/gpa-fact-sheet.pdf

I'd rather see something with more detail, from somebody who does not have a vested interest in this. Because I have found nothing in any standard news service, other than the info I posted so far.

It's like Media Matters and News Busters accusing each other of partisan spin.

BTW, has Obama authored any legislation that helps this country?

[bairdi]

I'd rather see something with more detail, from somebody who does not have a vested interest in this. Because I have found nothing in any standard news service, other than the info I posted so far.

It's like Media Matters and News Busters accusing each other of partisan spin.

BTW, has Obama authored any legislation that helps this country?
And the information you posted was inaccurate on many counts. Here is a speech by Republican Spencer Bachus on the Global Poverty Act.

This is a bipartisan bill with a goal that should bring all of us together. That goal is to make the reduction of extreme poverty a foreign policy priority for the United States.

Today in dozens of poor countries all over the world, little boys and girls are born into poverty, disease, and hunger. Hopelessness and despair are their daily companions. Their burdens are day-to-day, they are painful, and they are heavy.

In debating debt relief, I quoted Sister Rebecca Trujillo. She was asked – how do the poor get through the day, how do they survive? Her answer was: “Since being in Nicaragua, I have taken to answer in a matter of fact way, ‘Often they do not.’ ”

We’re fond of saying we’ve had a really bad day. But we ought to be reminded that for billions of people throughout the world that even on our worst days, we have more food, more shelter, more clothes, more security, more health care, more of everything than our poor brothers and sisters have on their best days.

A lot of people say the reality is overwhelming. Half the world lives on two dollars a day. But we can make a difference and do so at a very small cost.

We’ve had successes. Debt relief has been a success. It has improved the lives of millions of people for almost no monetary cost to this country.

Since the Millenium Development Goals were set seven years ago, the poverty rate in sub-Saharan Africa is down 6%. There are more children receiving health care and medical treatment, in fact over a million more children in that area alone, vaccinations are up, and throughout Africa the percentage of students of students enrolled in primary school has gone up considerably.

Cost should never be the overriding consideration. Doing the right thing is the imperative. But when we consider the cost, let us realize that the cost of not acting is not only hopelessness and unrest throughout the world, but also terrorism, confrontation, and wars that can be avoided if these programs work.

Reducing global poverty is in our economic interest and our national security as well. The bill will focus our battle against global poverty. It is a powerful statement that Americans are committed to making this world a better place for all.

http://www.one.org/blog/2007/09/26/rep-bachus-on-the-global-poverty-act/#more-1162

[Smurf-Herder]

And the information you posted was inaccurate on many counts. Here is a speech by Republican Spencer Bachus on the Global Poverty Act.

This is a bipartisan bill with a goal that should bring all of us together. That goal is to make the reduction of extreme poverty a foreign policy priority for the United States.

Today in dozens of poor countries all over the world, little boys and girls are born into poverty, disease, and hunger. Hopelessness and despair are their daily companions. Their burdens are day-to-day, they are painful, and they are heavy.

In debating debt relief, I quoted Sister Rebecca Trujillo. She was asked – how do the poor get through the day, how do they survive? Her answer was: “Since being in Nicaragua, I have taken to answer in a matter of fact way, ‘Often they do not.’ ”

We’re fond of saying we’ve had a really bad day. But we ought to be reminded that for billions of people throughout the world that even on our worst days, we have more food, more shelter, more clothes, more security, more health care, more of everything than our poor brothers and sisters have on their best days.

A lot of people say the reality is overwhelming. Half the world lives on two dollars a day. But we can make a difference and do so at a very small cost.

We’ve had successes. Debt relief has been a success. It has improved the lives of millions of people for almost no monetary cost to this country.

Since the Millenium Development Goals were set seven years ago, the poverty rate in sub-Saharan Africa is down 6%. There are more children receiving health care and medical treatment, in fact over a million more children in that area alone, vaccinations are up, and throughout Africa the percentage of students of students enrolled in primary school has gone up considerably.

Cost should never be the overriding consideration. Doing the right thing is the imperative. But when we consider the cost, let us realize that the cost of not acting is not only hopelessness and unrest throughout the world, but also terrorism, confrontation, and wars that can be avoided if these programs work.

Reducing global poverty is in our economic interest and our national security as well. The bill will focus our battle against global poverty. It is a powerful statement that Americans are committed to making this world a better place for all.

http://www.one.org/blog/2007/09/26/rep-bachus-on-the-global-poverty-act/#more-1162

Even if all that is true (and I'm willing to take that into account), shouldn't we be getting our own house in order first, to be able to do more efficently?

I mean seriously, we waste more than we already give abroad. And we already give more foreign aid than any country on earth as it is. And I still want the pure facts on what this would actually cost - from a government source. And I will not search through who knows how many pages of some huge government paper on it, just from a link. If you find a source, link to it and and give an excerpt from the numbered page the excerpt is from - showing complete cost, with no omissions.