Is this guy a joke or a bad dream? Why travel so much, call a summit and it only seems to be getting worse? Cap and tax, health care? How about tax cuts and some real stimulus.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thega...best-idea.aspx

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11...y5618462.shtml

<h1>Obama Heads to Asia, Breaks Foreign Travel Record</h1>Posted by Mark Knoller

Even before President Obama sets foot on Air Force One tomorrow to begin a 9-day trip to Asia, he has traveled to more countries in his first year in office than any of his predecessors.

Since taking office, he has made 7 foreign trips and visited 16 countries, 3 of them twice.

The Asia trip – which takes him to Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea – will bring his total to 8 foreign trips and 20 countries.

The only other president to come close to Mr. Obama's first-year-in-office globe-trotting numbers is President George H. W. Bush, who took 7 foreign trips to 14 countries.

His son traveled abroad five times to 11 countries during his first year. President Clinton only did 2 foreign trips to 3 nations in 1993.

Foreign travel by American presidents is a relatively new practice. No sitting U.S. president left the country until Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. He made a single foreign outing: a 3-day visit to Panama in November of that year to inspect construction of the Panama Canal.

First Year Foreign Travel By U.S. Presidents
<table><tbody><tr align="left"><td width="25%"># of foreign trips</td><td width="25%"># of nations visited</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>Barack Obama (so far)</td><td>7</td><td>16</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>George W. Bush</td><td>5</td><td>11</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>Bill Clinton</td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>George H.W. Bush</td><td>7</td><td>14</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>Ronald Reagan</td><td>4</td><td>2</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>Jimmy Carter</td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>Gerald Ford</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>Richard Nixon</td><td>3</td><td>13</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>Lyndon Johnson</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>John F. Kennedy</td><td>4</td><td>6</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>Dwight Eisenhower</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>Harry Truman</td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>Franklin Roosevelt</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>Herbert Hoover</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>Calvin Coolidge</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>Warren Harding</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>Woodrow Wilson</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>William Howard Taft</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr align="left"><td>Theodore Roosevelt</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>
Source: Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State

<h4> The Obama Jobs Summit: Perhaps Not the Best Idea </h4> Katie Connolly

oday, just before jumping on Air Force One for his nine-day trip to Asia, the president announced that he'll convene a "jobs summit" in December. Amid rising joblessness, the summit will ostensibly aim to figure out ways to create new jobs and stem the flow of recession-induced layoffs. The president will invite CEOs, economists, unions, and small-business leaders to meet with administration officials at the White House to discuss the issue. "It's important that we don't make any ill-considered decisions—even with the best intentions—particularly at a time when our resources are so limited. But it's just as important that we are open to any demonstrably good idea to supplement the steps we've already taken to put America back to work. That's what this forum is about," Obama told reporters today.

Is it a good idea? Yes. Having key stakeholders put their heads together, or at least communicate about the problem, will undoubtedly produce some interesting ideas and spark important conversations. But is it a good idea for Obama? That's questionable. The "optics" of the summit—those elusively defined, fuzzy readings of events that pundits like to bang on about—might just work against him.

The president has recently been accused of "dithering." Of course, that particular criticism was in regard to his impending decision of Afghanistan strategy—arguably the most important decision of his presidency so far, given the potential for loss of life. But the word has stuck in people's minds because, depending on your perspective, dithering and deliberating can be interchangeable. And Obama is undeniably a deliberative president. He shares none of his predecessor's brash decisiveness—a fact that I, for one, am happy about. I'm pleased to hear of any president who takes time to weigh options and map out their implications. But I'm not sure the public finds that tendency comforting anymore.

 

Originally Posted by watson5j

Fuck yea, we breaking records yall!

Absolutely true, and none of them are worthy of bragging at all.

 

Originally Posted by Quartersack

Do we not have enough problems domestically to worry about?

It just seems to me that our president should be concentrating on problems in our own backyard rather then worrying about the rest of the world. Lets get a hold of our econonmy, create jobs, clean up the inner city, work on poverty, slow down the violent crimes that happen thousands of times a day, capture and prosecute homegrown-terroist, fix our public education system, etc etc.

Maybe that just makes too much sense.....I dunno

yeah the mofo should call a job summit or something.

i can't recall Bush doing one thing about any of these issues in eight years in office, yet Obama hasn't been in office for a year and he's blamed for all of america's issues.

 

Originally Posted by 4sakenme

i can't recall Bush doing one thing about any of these issues in eight years in office, yet Obama hasn't been in office for a year and he's blamed for all of america's issues.

I didnt say anything about Bush because........well, he is no longer the president. I also never blamed Obama for all or any of America's issues. I simply stated that we have enough problems in our own backyard that we need to concentrate on instead of visiting other countries every 23 days.

 

Originally Posted by Jaybone2315

ahhh yes. The "Bush did it... business as usual" arguement.

If he didnt campaign on promising to be everything Bush wasnt... people wouldnt be on his ass about doing absolutely nothing.

It's not that Bush did it... it's that Bush didn't do anything to help most of these problems.

I'm glad Obama is taking dozens of trips around the world. America needs a much better image after some of our recent debacles (under... Bush).

And he's working to create jobs with this job summit.

What exactly would you do differently right now? Not improve foreign relations? Not call a job summit? Some of you people bitch just to bitch. Grow the fuck up, he can't fix everything in one year, nor did he say he would. Read his speech the night he won the vote, he said it would take many years to fix all of these issues and that's what he's starting to do.

 

Originally Posted by 4sakenme

i can't recall Bush doing one thing about any of these issues in eight years in office, yet Obama hasn't been in office for a year and he's blamed for all of america's issues.

So when will Obama take ownership of this issue? A true leader is presented with a problem and solves it. How is going on a trip to Asia, the largest expansion of government with Obamacare and tax and cap helping us get out of this recession?

 

Originally Posted by Vypirious

I'm glad Obama is taking dozens of trips around the world. America needs a much better image after some of our recent debacles (under... Bush).

How will this create one job?

 

Originally Posted by Vypirious

What exactly would you do differently right now? Not call a job summit?

Can we get a list of attendees? Will only liberal economists and Union leaders be there? Unions decimated the big 3, now you want to go to their leaders for ideas on how to improve the job situation. Makes sense?

 

Originally Posted by Vypirious

 

Originally Posted by ohioschwa

Obama is soon going to announce a "War on Unemployment"

The "war on terror" was a Bush idiom, so this makes no sense.

Lyndon Johnson was the first president who used the the term war on _____, in 1964 with his war on poverty.

 

Originally Posted by ohioschwa

Lyndon Johnson was the first president who used the the term war on _____, in 1964 with his war on poverty.

The War on Terror is a phrase coined by George W. Bush's speechwriters, just after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Bush described the attacks as "acts of war" the following day,<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-0>[1]</SUP> but first referred to a "war on terror" in an address to Congress on the 20th.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-1>[2]

</SUP>

Thanks for playing, but I wasn't talking about the war on poverty. I said war on terror, which someone earlier made a reference to Obama. It was coined by Bush, so his slant made no sense.

 

Originally Posted by Vypirious

The War on Terror is a phrase coined by George W. Bush's speechwriters, just after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Bush described the attacks as "acts of war" the following day,<sup id="cite_ref-0">[1]</sup> but first referred to a "war on terror" in an address to Congress on the 20th.<sup id="cite_ref-1">[2]

</sup>
Thanks for playing, but I wasn't talking about the war on poverty. I said war on terror, which someone earlier made a reference to Obama. It was coined by Bush, so his slant made no sense.

who gives a shit what you're talking about? he said "war on unemployment" in reference to LBJ.

though it doesn't really matter because all the "war on ________"s have failed.

Obama on November, 12 2009

"We have saved or created 1 million jobs"





<a target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://tinypic.com/">
</a>

Don't be mad because republicans can't get invited anywhere.... you guys got Nascar and illiteracy. BE PROUD

 

Originally Posted by Echelon

That could only be funnier if you add Red Foxx saying, "Elizabeth I'm coming to see you."

 

Originally Posted by Vypirious

Obamacare is only going to cover 2% of people in the US. Yea, that's a vast expansion.

I'd love to know the source of where you found this figure please.

 

Originally Posted by Vypirious

Obamacare is only going to cover 2% of people in the US. Yea, that's a vast expansion.

So 1 trillion to cover 2% of the population that sounds like a bargain. Lolz.