Sorry to burst everyone's bubbles around here, but by objective standards Obama has been a successful POTUS and a far more competent one than his predecessor. The primary such standard is the amount of legislation proposed/passed/implemented, a value that makes Obama far above average.
His foreign policy has been a success: his election instantly boosted world public opinion, which matters to the extent that it feeds into our soft power, or ability to influence others. His emphasis on multilateralism is sound and the operation in Libya to secure those oil resources for the world (no, democracy was not and almost never is the primary goal) was a stellar success that cost zero American lives and a mere $2 billion (we each payed a little over $6 for it). On the other hand his administration's emphasis on drone strikes and covert operations has won the war on terror: Al Qaeda has been genuinely ravaged and barely functions as an organization. Such operations included the personally-authorized killing of OBL, an important symbolic victory.
Things are more complex at home. Banking regulation was passed, which includes the Volcker Rule banning proprietary trading and other measures that are seemingly necessary to prevent another bailout, but nobody knows just how much regulation is optimal. Obama also stepped up and addressed the issue predecessors pussied out on, healthcare. The resultant legislation was a centrist plan (anyone who calls it 'socialist' has never been to Europe or examined their public policy) based on a conservative policy proposal that originated with the Heritage Foundation (a mandate to tackle the free riders that increase costs). That it may get struck down does not reflect on Obama as he has no control over SC deliberations to begin with. He can only be evaluated for his specific actions.
Finally, we come to the economy, which is what actually dtermines elections anyway. There is an extraordinary amount of confusion about this as certain posters think we live in a system where the POTUS wields magical powers that determine the course of the economy. The misunderstanding is reinforced by presidents who take credit for growth and pundits who blame/credit everything happening to a president. The fact is this: we live in a capitalist where private actors control productivity. Corporations invest and hire/fire according to their plans, households only spend according to their perceptions of wealth, and banks lend in response to demand. Presidents do not control any of these variables, and can at best moderately nudge them in one or another direction.
Even considering this, CBO estimates put the number of jobs saved by the stimulus in the hundreds of thousands. The subsequent recovery has been tepid and has disappointed Obama and everybody else. But the point is, if the economic variables are all controlled by exogenous factors outside the WH, how can we lump all of the blame against Obama all the same? There is no evidence at all that a Republican president would have done anything differently, especially not since the stimuls contains much Friedman-esque monetary policy as is (the continued actions of the Fed belie the notion that the stimulus has been purely Keynesian).
In short, Obama has been an above-average president and performed admirably given the inherent limitations on the office (the position just isn't as powerful as many make it out to be) and the simply unprecedented circumstances inherited. People focus on the POTUS as a convenient symbol for everything the USG is doing and everything happening in the economy; the position is a convenient beacon for love and hate with a human face, when the real causality is mostly reserved for faceless machines comprised of the decisions of millions of individual actors (the USG + markets). People ought to understand as such when evaluating a US president.
Disagree.
Sorry to burst everyone's bubbles around here, but by objective standards Obama has been a successful POTUS and a far more competent one than his predecessor. The primary such standard is the amount of legislation proposed/passed/implemented, a value that makes Obama far above average.
His foreign policy has been a success: his election instantly boosted world public opinion, which matters to the extent that it feeds into our soft power, or ability to influence others. His emphasis on multilateralism is sound and the operation in Libya to secure those oil resources for the world (no, democracy was not and almost never is the primary goal) was a stellar success that cost zero American lives and a mere $2 billion (we each payed a little over $6 for it). On the other hand his administration's emphasis on drone strikes and covert operations has won the war on terror: Al Qaeda has been genuinely ravaged and barely functions as an organization. Such operations included the personally-authorized killing of OBL, an important symbolic victory.
Things are more complex at home. Banking regulation was passed, which includes the Volcker Rule banning proprietary trading and other measures that are seemingly necessary to prevent another bailout, but nobody knows just how much regulation is optimal. Obama also stepped up and addressed the issue predecessors pussied out on, healthcare. The resultant legislation was a centrist plan (anyone who calls it 'socialist' has never been to Europe or examined their public policy) based on a conservative policy proposal that originated with the Heritage Foundation (a mandate to tackle the free riders that increase costs). That it may get struck down does not reflect on Obama as he has no control over SC deliberations to begin with. He can only be evaluated for his specific actions.
Finally, we come to the economy, which is what actually dtermines elections anyway. There is an extraordinary amount of confusion about this as certain posters think we live in a system where the POTUS wields magical powers that determine the course of the economy. The misunderstanding is reinforced by presidents who take credit for growth and pundits who blame/credit everything happening to a president. The fact is this: we live in a capitalist where private actors control productivity. Corporations invest and hire/fire according to their plans, households only spend according to their perceptions of wealth, and banks lend in response to demand. Presidents do not control any of these variables, and can at best moderately nudge them in one or another direction.
Even considering this, CBO estimates put the number of jobs saved by the stimulus in the hundreds of thousands. The subsequent recovery has been tepid and has disappointed Obama and everybody else. But the point is, if the economic variables are all controlled by exogenous factors outside the WH, how can we lump all of the blame against Obama all the same? There is no evidence at all that a Republican president would have done anything differently, especially not since the stimuls contains much Friedman-esque monetary policy as is (the continued actions of the Fed belie the notion that the stimulus has been purely Keynesian).
In short, Obama has been an above-average president and performed admirably given the inherent limitations on the office (the position just isn't as powerful as many make it out to be) and the simply unprecedented circumstances inherited. People focus on the POTUS as a convenient symbol for everything the USG is doing and everything happening in the economy; the position is a convenient beacon for love and hate with a human face, when the real causality is mostly reserved for faceless machines comprised of the decisions of millions of individual actors (the USG + markets). People ought to understand as such when evaluating a US president.
Good post, although prepare to be flamed.
Counterfactual history is almost never considered. A case in point is the Clinton Administration's involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo. How many lives were saved?
So many among us would bash the bailout, but imagine if it hadn't happened. Where would the economy be today?
If it were worse, there would be just as much noise.
Sorry to burst everyone's bubbles around here, but by objective standards Obama has been a successful POTUS and a far more competent one than his predecessor. The primary such standard is the amount of legislation proposed/passed/implemented, a value that makes Obama far above average.WARNING: Your post has triggered a fifty page 333386 meltdown.
His foreign policy has been a success: his election instantly boosted world public opinion, which matters to the extent that it feeds into our soft power, or ability to influence others. His emphasis on multilateralism is sound and the operation in Libya to secure those oil resources for the world (no, democracy was not and almost never is the primary goal) was a stellar success that cost zero American lives and a mere $2 billion (we each payed a little over $6 for it). On the other hand his administration's emphasis on drone strikes and covert operations has won the war on terror: Al Qaeda has been genuinely ravaged and barely functions as an organization. Such operations included the personally-authorized killing of OBL, an important symbolic victory.
Things are more complex at home. Banking regulation was passed, which includes the Volcker Rule banning proprietary trading and other measures that are seemingly necessary to prevent another bailout, but nobody knows just how much regulation is optimal. Obama also stepped up and addressed the issue predecessors pussied out on, healthcare. The resultant legislation was a centrist plan (anyone who calls it 'socialist' has never been to Europe or examined their public policy) based on a conservative policy proposal that originated with the Heritage Foundation (a mandate to tackle the free riders that increase costs). That it may get struck down does not reflect on Obama as he has no control over SC deliberations to begin with. He can only be evaluated for his specific actions.
Finally, we come to the economy, which is what actually dtermines elections anyway. There is an extraordinary amount of confusion about this as certain posters think we live in a system where the POTUS wields magical powers that determine the course of the economy. The misunderstanding is reinforced by presidents who take credit for growth and pundits who blame/credit everything happening to a president. The fact is this: we live in a capitalist where private actors control productivity. Corporations invest and hire/fire according to their plans, households only spend according to their perceptions of wealth, and banks lend in response to demand. Presidents do not control any of these variables, and can at best moderately nudge them in one or another direction.
Even considering this, CBO estimates put the number of jobs saved by the stimulus in the hundreds of thousands. The subsequent recovery has been tepid and has disappointed Obama and everybody else. But the point is, if the economic variables are all controlled by exogenous factors outside the WH, how can we lump all of the blame against Obama all the same? There is no evidence at all that a Republican president would have done anything differently, especially not since the stimuls contains much Friedman-esque monetary policy as is (the continued actions of the Fed belie the notion that the stimulus has been purely Keynesian).
In short, Obama has been an above-average president and performed admirably given the inherent limitations on the office (the position just isn't as powerful as many make it out to be) and the simply unprecedented circumstances inherited. People focus on the POTUS as a convenient symbol for everything the USG is doing and everything happening in the economy; the position is a convenient beacon for love and hate with a human face, when the real causality is mostly reserved for faceless machines comprised of the decisions of millions of individual actors (the USG + markets). People ought to understand as such when evaluating a US president.
WARNING: Your post has triggered a fifty page 333386 meltdown.But hey, he's got time.
Sorry to burst everyone's bubbles around here, but by objective standards Obama has been a successful POTUS and a far more competent one than his predecessor. The primary such standard is the amount of legislation proposed/passed/implemented, a value that makes Obama far above average.
His foreign policy has been a success: his election instantly boosted world public opinion, which matters to the extent that it feeds into our soft power, or ability to influence others. His emphasis on multilateralism is sound and the operation in Libya to secure those oil resources for the world (no, democracy was not and almost never is the primary goal) was a stellar success that cost zero American lives and a mere $2 billion (we each payed a little over $6 for it). On the other hand his administration's emphasis on drone strikes and covert operations has won the war on terror: Al Qaeda has been genuinely ravaged and barely functions as an organization. Such operations included the personally-authorized killing of OBL, an important symbolic victory.
Things are more complex at home. Banking regulation was passed, which includes the Volcker Rule banning proprietary trading and other measures that are seemingly necessary to prevent another bailout, but nobody knows just how much regulation is optimal. Obama also stepped up and addressed the issue predecessors pussied out on, healthcare. The resultant legislation was a centrist plan (anyone who calls it 'socialist' has never been to Europe or examined their public policy) based on a conservative policy proposal that originated with the Heritage Foundation (a mandate to tackle the free riders that increase costs). That it may get struck down does not reflect on Obama as he has no control over SC deliberations to begin with. He can only be evaluated for his specific actions.
Finally, we come to the economy, which is what actually dtermines elections anyway. There is an extraordinary amount of confusion about this as certain posters think we live in a system where the POTUS wields magical powers that determine the course of the economy. The misunderstanding is reinforced by presidents who take credit for growth and pundits who blame/credit everything happening to a president. The fact is this: we live in a capitalist where private actors control productivity. Corporations invest and hire/fire according to their plans, households only spend according to their perceptions of wealth, and banks lend in response to demand. Presidents do not control any of these variables, and can at best moderately nudge them in one or another direction.
Even considering this, CBO estimates put the number of jobs saved by the stimulus in the hundreds of thousands. The subsequent recovery has been tepid and has disappointed Obama and everybody else. But the point is, if the economic variables are all controlled by exogenous factors outside the WH, how can we lump all of the blame against Obama all the same? There is no evidence at all that a Republican president would have done anything differently, especially not since the stimuls contains much Friedman-esque monetary policy as is (the continued actions of the Fed belie the notion that the stimulus has been purely Keynesian).
In short, Obama has been an above-average president and performed admirably given the inherent limitations on the office (the position just isn't as powerful as many make it out to be) and the simply unprecedented circumstances inherited. People focus on the POTUS as a convenient symbol for everything the USG is doing and everything happening in the economy; the position is a convenient beacon for love and hate with a human face, when the real causality is mostly reserved for faceless machines comprised of the decisions of millions of individual actors (the USG + markets). People ought to understand as such when evaluating a US president.
Obama also stepped up and addressed the issue predecessors pussied out on, healthcare. The resultant legislation was a centrist plan (anyone who calls it 'socialist' has never been to Europe or examined their public policy) based on a conservative policy proposal that originated with the Heritage Foundation (a mandate to tackle the free riders that increase costs). That it may get struck down does not reflect on Obama as he has no control over SC deliberations to begin with. He can only be evaluated for his specific actions.From Truman to Nixon to Clinton, it has been tried, all to no avail.
________________________ _______________
Absurd on so many levels.
obamaCare was passed on a huighly partisan basis w no input from the GOP. Its a result of corruption w Big Pharma as reported by many sources and was 100% the opposite of obama's promises. No public option, a mandate, no drug re-importation to lower costs. Causing health costs to spike, not to mention ridiculous medical device tax. And if it gets thrown out all it shows is that obama delegating this task to thuglosi and reid proved a massive FAIL.
And spare my the heritage foundation nonsense. Their recomendation was far more limited and was an idea as opposed to what Hillary was proposing at the time behind closed doors.
ObamaCare also resulted in the GOP winning in a massive landslide in 2010 thus ending is legislative and governing mandate or ability.
ObamaCare is a massive fail on so many levels its not funny that now 2/3, which includes many democrats as well.
From Truman to Nixon to Clinton, it has been tried, all to no avail.
Like it or not, he got it through.
Might fall in the Supreme Court, but no one got it through before.
BTW, your assertion that it was a result of "big pharma" might just be THE most ridiculous thing you've ever posted.
And that's saying something.
From Truman to Nixon to Clinton, it has been tried, all to no avail.To be fair, big PHrMA was a huge backing to Obamacare, lots of money spent, not to mention Obama's WH deal with them preventing generic imports from Canada after he promised to make it more affordable for people.
Like it or not, he got it through.
Might fall in the Supreme Court, but no one got it through before.
BTW, your assertion that it was a result of "big pharma" might just be THE most ridiculous thing you've ever posted.
And that's saying something.
One time you said that Obama had "Saudi handlers" while he was in Jr. High, btw.
Never gonna forget that one.
An estimated 45,000 people die each year from lack of healthcare.
That is literally more than a 9/11 every month, every year, forever.
How much did we spend after that day to fight back?
STFU - go respond to the thread I bumped about your messiah and the pharma bribes he and axelrod got.Tell you what, tough guy.
Tell you what, tough guy.
I'm leading a study tour of Chinese students in July in NYC. Why don't you come down (unarmed, like a man) and you can tell me to STFU to my face?
No excuses. No clips. No weapons.
I'll do it now instead - STFU and go respond to the bribes obama got from the dug companies to get obamacare passed.
By the way - how to the Chinks treat the Twinks in China?
Break you off a piece, son.]
You're so tough.
Totally disagree.
Is your post meant to be a purposely contrarian one?
Well it certainly is contrarian the audience. That is not my primary intention, however. Really, I think the post speaks for itself.
All this blather was simply a long-winded way to say "It's Bush's fault".
Thanks for the laugh.
Try a 43% approval rating, at least 8% unemployment for 41 straight months, at least 9% unemployment for 33 months.
The only president to get us downgraded, the first in 70 years tho have his party bleed 60 House seats and 6 Senate seats.
The first president in nearly 80 years to have a month with literally ZERO jobs.
The only president that will LOSE more jobs than he created in his first (and likely LAST term).
Try having his approval rating PLUNGE to the 30s, three months after killing Bin Laden.
Two major scandals, the unions proclaiming they won't fund his campaign, and at least half a dozen vulnerable Democrats who will NOT show up at the DNC in Charlotte.
The only president to get us downgrade
It's a bit silly to place that scarlet letter squarely on Obama's arm. Even if we ignore the decades of gluttonous deficit spending before Obama took office and start from 0 at the time of his inauguration, the Congress is just as much at fault; or, one could make the argument, moreso than Obama, as only they have the power of the purse in our system of Government.
Foreign policy is in shambles and the world does not look better upon us.
His foreign policy has been a success: his election instantly boosted world public opinion, which matters to the extent that it feeds into our soft power, or ability to influence others. His emphasis on multilateralism is sound and the operation in Libya to secure those oil resources for the world (no, democracy was not and almost never is the primary goal) was a stellar success that cost zero American lives and a mere $2 billion (we each payed a little over $6 for it).
________________________ ________
1. Egypt is a mess.
2. Syria is a mess
3. Relations w Russia suck
4. Relations w Chinese are no better and Obama get embarassed by the Premier
5. Europe and USA are blaming each other for the coming recession/depression
6. Lybia? GMAFB. 10,000 missles just went into the hands of Al Queada which are going to be used by Hamas and smuggled into the Gaza.
7. Pakistan is a mess.
8. Afghanistan we just passed out 2,000th casualty, 80% of which occurred under Obama.
9. Drone strikes? Fine, but for obama to claim that as his own is laughable.
So spare me the foregin relations nonsense. Obama has been a DISASTER for foregin policy.
You have to define "foreign policy" and "shambles" in order for that first claim to be evaluable. The second claim is plainly false:
http://worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/views_on_countriesregions_bt/680.php?lb=btvoc&pnt=680&nid=&id= (http://worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/views_on_countriesregions_bt/680.php?lb=btvoc&pnt=680&nid=&id=)
"Views of the US continued their overall improvement in 2011"
"There seems to be a consolidation of the 'Obama effect' here," notes Steven Kull, Director of PIPA at the University of Maryland, which worked on the poll together with GlobeScan."
(http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/mar11/BBCEvals_Mar11_graph18.jpg)
Worst "recovery" since the great depression.
You = FAIL
I'm glad you're at least trying to substantiate your claims. Unfortunately, "foreign policy" doesn't just mean "everything that's happening in the world." It means, rather, the specific set of policies the USG initiates to protect/expand its perceived national security interests. Your use of vague terms like "mess" doesn't help things, either.
In short, there are two problems with your post: one, the president isn't responsible for everything that happens around the world at all times (just like I wouldn't blame Bush for North Korea being an intransigent mess), and two, no one has any idea what you mean by "mess" and it's not clear how Obama could be responsible for the said "messes" (e.g., is Obama somehow responsible for the Arab Spring that has spread populist agitation against governments in Syria and Egypt? Lol, again, presidents don't have magical powers that affect the whole world. Get over this fantasy).
P.S. It's spelled "Libya"
I'm afraid you might not have read my post (it is a bit long, sorry for that). I said repeatedly that in a capitalist society, private actors control economic variables. If the economy were somehow the responsibility of a single shitty office in the WH then we could blame Obama, Bush, and all the rest ad nauseum. But this is just false. Why do you pretend that presidents powers that they do not? I think this is a big reason so many people end up dissatisfied with presidents; they have insane expectations regarding the magical causal powers of a single man to harness the entire economy and make all the bad things in their lives go away.
Had Obama pushed for Simpson Bowles as hard as he did ObamaCare, which was gathering bi-partisan support, we would not have been downgraded. Erskin Bowles himself said Obama played politics on that.
So yes, Obama does deserve a lot of blame there.
Obama also stepped up and addressed the issue predecessors pussied out on, healthcare. The resultant legislation was a centrist plan (anyone who calls it 'socialist' has never been to Europe or examined their public policy) based on a conservative policy proposal that originated with the Heritage Foundation (a mandate to tackle the free riders that increase costs). That it may get struck down does not reflect on Obama as he has no control over SC deliberations to begin with. He can only be evaluated for his specific actions.
________________________ _______________
Absurd on so many levels.
obamaCare was passed on a huighly partisan basis w no input from the GOP. Its a result of corruption w Big Pharma as reported by many sources and was 100% the opposite of obama's promises. No public option, a mandate, no drug re-importation to lower costs. Causing health costs to spike, not to mention ridiculous medical device tax. And if it gets thrown out all it shows is that obama delegating this task to thuglosi and reid proved a massive FAIL.
And spare my the heritage foundation nonsense. Their recomendation was far more limited and was an idea as opposed to what Hillary was proposing at the time behind closed doors.
ObamaCare also resulted in the GOP winning in a massive landslide in 2010 thus ending is legislative and governing mandate or ability.
ObamaCare is a massive fail on so many levels its not funny that now 2/3, which includes many democrats as well.
Even if he does deserve a lot of the blame, he doesn't deserve all the blame. Almost every politician deserves the blame, some more than others. And ultimately, those who deserve all the blame are the American people, who voted and kept voting these people into power.
Obama put a wet blanket on the economy w the passage of obamacare and dodd/frank.
Talk to any local bank and they will tell you dodd frank is killing access to credit for business.
Obama is not to blame for the recession of 2007-2009 - but his actions hindered any possibility of recovery, and we are seeing the worst since the great depression.
True - but again - its called leadership. Obama had a chance to tell his fringe base to fuck off and do the right thing by getting behind Simpson Bowles , but he chose politics instead.
As the head of the executive branch, he is expected to lead on issues like this when such a massive and immediate problem is pressing, not punt and blame everyone else.
Remember what he said about the debt celieng crisis of 2006 as being a "Leadership Failure"?
Right. He should be held accountable, and he shouldn't punt and blame. But I'm not Obama, and for me to say that he doesn't deserve all the blame isn't the same as Obama punting and blaming everyone else.
Not specifically, but it sounds like politics as usual to me.
This is from a speech Obama made in 2006:
(speech snipped)
That it may get struck down does not reflect on Obama as he has no control over SC deliberations to begin with. He can only be evaluated for his specific actions.
________________________ ________________
Obama campaigned specifically against the mandate on many occasions and used his opposition to said mandates to hammer Hillary in tjhe primary.
He knew it was wrong then, knows it is wrong now, and only included it at the behest of the insurance industry who now has a free hand to jack rates to whatever they want and there is no opt out available unless you pay a fine.
FAIL
Obama specifically pressured Mubarak to leave and step down many times remember? we paid $200,000,000 for the elections over there and now the MB is about to take over and is promising an islamist shift. You call that a success?
Again, I'm not here to defend Obama's specific failures of leadership, which are very real. Rejecting Simpson-Bowles is a major one. Nor am I here to say he fulfilled every single campaign promise. What I am saying is that by most objective criteria the man has been successful at his job, proposing and passing legislation to deal with policy issues and adhering to a (relatively) responsible foreign policy. His job does not entail magically making everything better for everyone, which is a major theme I shall repeat. It is a fanciful narrative too many have lodged in their minds that a single man can harness the entire economy, or make their lives 'better' on a day-to-day basis. Thus, the overly negative evaluations are based on expectations that the POTUS office can do more than it really can.
I don't know what the future holds for Egypt and neither do you. A more democratic regime with an Islamic tinge (ala Indonesia) maybe be better for Egypt and for American security interests or it may not. In any case, your judgment is premature in the extreme as the military is acting like it wants to retain power in lieu of a MB government.
The situation's impact on American interests as such is inconclusive, not a 'demonstrable failure.'
I have read the Financial Times of London every day except Sunday for several years now and you know what, I missed that story about all those dastardly Europeans telling Obama to "shut the fuck up." In any case, how do the words of a few European ministers constitute evidence that world public opinion is somehow changed from the statistics I cited? The fact is, they don't. There are some good things here for us to disagree on but your grasping at straws on this one.
Sorry to burst everyone's bubbles around here, but by objective standards Obama has been a successful POTUS and a far more competent one than his predecessor. The primary such standard is the amount of legislation proposed/passed/implemented, a value that makes Obama far above average.
His foreign policy has been a success: his election instantly boosted world public opinion, which matters to the extent that it feeds into our soft power, or ability to influence others. His emphasis on multilateralism is sound and the operation in Libya to secure those oil resources for the world (no, democracy was not and almost never is the primary goal) was a stellar success that cost zero American lives and a mere $2 billion (we each payed a little over $6 for it). On the other hand his administration's emphasis on drone strikes and covert operations has won the war on terror: Al Qaeda has been genuinely ravaged and barely functions as an organization. Such operations included the personally-authorized killing of OBL, an important symbolic victory.
Things are more complex at home. Banking regulation was passed, which includes the Volcker Rule banning proprietary trading and other measures that are seemingly necessary to prevent another bailout, but nobody knows just how much regulation is optimal. Obama also stepped up and addressed the issue predecessors pussied out on, healthcare. The resultant legislation was a centrist plan (anyone who calls it 'socialist' has never been to Europe or examined their public policy) based on a conservative policy proposal that originated with the Heritage Foundation (a mandate to tackle the free riders that increase costs). That it may get struck down does not reflect on Obama as he has no control over SC deliberations to begin with. He can only be evaluated for his specific actions.
Finally, we come to the economy, which is what actually dtermines elections anyway. There is an extraordinary amount of confusion about this as certain posters think we live in a system where the POTUS wields magical powers that determine the course of the economy. The misunderstanding is reinforced by presidents who take credit for growth and pundits who blame/credit everything happening to a president. The fact is this: we live in a capitalist where private actors control productivity. Corporations invest and hire/fire according to their plans, households only spend according to their perceptions of wealth, and banks lend in response to demand. Presidents do not control any of these variables, and can at best moderately nudge them in one or another direction.
Even considering this, CBO estimates put the number of jobs saved by the stimulus in the hundreds of thousands. The subsequent recovery has been tepid and has disappointed Obama and everybody else. But the point is, if the economic variables are all controlled by exogenous factors outside the WH, how can we lump all of the blame against Obama all the same? There is no evidence at all that a Republican president would have done anything differently, especially not since the stimuls contains much Friedman-esque monetary policy as is (the continued actions of the Fed belie the notion that the stimulus has been purely Keynesian).
In short, Obama has been an above-average president and performed admirably given the inherent limitations on the office (the position just isn't as powerful as many make it out to be) and the simply unprecedented circumstances inherited. People focus on the POTUS as a convenient symbol for everything the USG is doing and everything happening in the economy; the position is a convenient beacon for love and hate with a human face, when the real causality is mostly reserved for faceless machines comprised of the decisions of millions of individual actors (the USG + markets). People ought to understand as such when evaluating a US president.
No, I am pointing out specific areas where obama has gotten involved and things have gotten worse.
Let's not lose track of the discussion on this particular issue: I said Obama has improved world opinion of the U.S., which affects soft power. You said this was false and that opinion has not gotten any better under Obama. I cited the world public opinion poll which proves that opinion has improved significantly; you said that it was illegitimate because ... a few European finance ministers "told Obama to STFU" (something they did not do). These non-existent words magically wipe away the cited statistics.
You'll never be able to point to contrary evidence on this matter because it does not exist. I already indicated the statistics and you don't have to accept them but it's what somebody who cares about what's really true will do. Again, this isn't even the most interesting issue to discuss here so I suggest you just pretend you never challenged me on it and drop it.
Going by what he campaigned and promised in 2008 - he has done the exact opposite on almost all fronts in each of the legislative "accomplishments" he is taking credit for.
Clinton switched things up and adopted his "triangulation" policy to great success; essentially zero of Bush's foreign policy came to fruition once in office; even Reagan's almighty revolution (discussed in another thread of mine) petered out and regular tax increases/increased welfare spending became the norm. As I said, I'm not evaluating a president based on magical promises that serfs think are convincing, but actual performance in office.
Hahaha, this post is rich. LOL
Obama has been successful for OBAMA. He's been a disaster for the rest of the country except for Obama apologists like yourself. Gotta admit. This is your best gimmick reppingfor20, JTsunami.
Hahaha, this post is rich. LOL
Obama has been successful for OBAMA. He's been a disaster for the rest of the country except for Obama apologists like yourself. Gotta admit. This is your best gimmick reppingfor20, JTsunami.
Oh snap, Mr. Counting-to-sweet-potato has entered the arena!!! These are pretty convincing points you've made here, and the logic/evidence behind them is compelling. I'll get back to you once I've had time to digest them.
Keep calling me a gimmick homie, it just doesn't change a thing.
Obama put a wet blanket on the economy w the passage of obamacare and dodd/frank.
Talk to any local bank and they will tell you dodd frank is killing access to credit for business.
The the MB rejects the camp david accords w Israel - would you then say we helped set in motion a major failure of policy?
His actual performance in office has been a disaster for everyone but himself. 2/3 wanted Obamacare repealed, 65% feel the nation is on the wrong track, 60% still feel we are in a recession, he has a 43% approval at gallup, stalemate in the congress, etc.
Just remember this ad Reagan ran in 1984. If Obama tried to run it - what do you think the reaction would be?
It's a bit silly to place that scarlet letter squarely on Obama's arm. Even if we ignore the decades of gluttonous deficit spending before Obama took office and start from 0 at the time of his inauguration, the Congress is just as much at fault; or, one could make the argument, moreso than Obama, as only they have the power of the purse in our system of Government.
:). How can anyone argue obama has been effective when his signature law gets overturned and is hated and that after losing the congress, there is stalemate for two years due to his refusale to be centrist?
refusing to be a centrist?
Obama's idea of a compromise it to give the Repubs 80% of what they want
Repubs vote against legislation they themselves are sponsoring as soon as Obama gets on board
:). How can anyone argue obama has been effective when his signature law gets overturned and is hated and that after losing the congress, there is stalemate for two years due to his refusale to be centrist?
And how much compromising did Obama do, when the Dems had both houses of Congress, again?
he speaks like a lawyer and you speak like someone who spends way to much time on getbig
:-\ lots of words and nothing specific.
Sorry to burst everyone's bubbles around here, but by objective standards Obama has been a successful POTUS and a far more competent one than his predecessor. The primary such standard is the amount of legislation proposed/passed/implemented, a value that makes Obama far above average.
The entire foundation of your argument is inaccurate. Proposed and passed legislation is not the primary measure of a successful presidency. What if the legislation he proposes is crap and harmful to the country? That is not success.
Like any CEO, manager, etc., you measure success by the health of the company. With presidents, you have to ask whether the country is better off today than it was four years ago. In this case, the answer is clearly no. The economic indicators are worse. Unemployment is up. Job growth is down. Businesses are afraid to expand. Spending, the deficit, and debt have exploded. He failed to submit a balanced budget. Gas prices are up. Consumer confidence is down. Home prices are down. Our credit rating has been downgraded. His signature, partisan "achievement" is not only unpopular, it's likely going down in flames in the supreme court.
Polls show the overwhelming majority of the country believe the economy is headed in the wrong direction.
That's failure.
No, I would not say Obama's encouraging Mubarak to step down "helped set in motion a major failure." Mubarak was gone regardless and therefore whether Obama encouraged him to go or not is just not relevant. Further, the MB isn't in power yet, and is set up for a confrontation with the military (run by the SCAF, Supreme Council of the Armed Forces) at the current moment. It will be months before a stable regime is established and thus months before we can firmly issue an evaluation of the "results" of Mubarak's stepping down. As such, it is terribly premature to issue proclamations and worse still to pretend the situation is Obama's responsibility.
How is Obama responsible for how Muslim nations vote?
If Bush were still in office, would they have all changed their minds?
I've mentioned the specifics repeatedly throughout the thread. This last post was meant to explain the criteria I'm using, which is more or less what you asked for. If it's just a 'bunch of words' to you then that reflects something about you, not the post. It's pretty clear in its meaning.
Obama helped push mubarack fro power remember? Of course you don't remember since you are still all stary eyed and in love w the messiah.Why shouldn't he have been?
Obama helped push mubarack fro power remember? Of course you don't remember since you are still all stary eyed and in love w the messiah.
Maybe Obama's Saudi handlers in Jr. High also influenced the entire nation of Egypt. - 333386
333's brain can only recognize word, concepts, ideas, facts that mirror his preconceived beliefs
Often his brain will dissasemble the content and reassemble it as something he agrees with
This is why he can watch a video, listen to a recording or read text and see and hear things that aren't there
[/quote
LOL. - I refuted everything he cited , as did others w specifics.
Sorry to burst everyone's bubbles around here, but by objective standards Obama has been a successful POTUS and a far more competent one than his predecessor. The primary such standard is the amount of legislation proposed/passed/implemented, a value that makes Obama far above average.
His foreign policy has been a success: his election instantly boosted world public opinion, which matters to the extent that it feeds into our soft power, or ability to influence others. His emphasis on multilateralism is sound and the operation in Libya to secure those oil resources for the world (no, democracy was not and almost never is the primary goal) was a stellar success that cost zero American lives and a mere $2 billion (we each payed a little over $6 for it). On the other hand his administration's emphasis on drone strikes and covert operations has won the war on terror: Al Qaeda has been genuinely ravaged and barely functions as an organization. Such operations included the personally-authorized killing of OBL, an important symbolic victory.
Things are more complex at home. Banking regulation was passed, which includes the Volcker Rule banning proprietary trading and other measures that are seemingly necessary to prevent another bailout, but nobody knows just how much regulation is optimal. Obama also stepped up and addressed the issue predecessors pussied out on, healthcare. The resultant legislation was a centrist plan (anyone who calls it 'socialist' has never been to Europe or examined their public policy) based on a conservative policy proposal that originated with the Heritage Foundation (a mandate to tackle the free riders that increase costs). That it may get struck down does not reflect on Obama as he has no control over SC deliberations to begin with. He can only be evaluated for his specific actions.
Finally, we come to the economy, which is what actually dtermines elections anyway. There is an extraordinary amount of confusion about this as certain posters think we live in a system where the POTUS wields magical powers that determine the course of the economy. The misunderstanding is reinforced by presidents who take credit for growth and pundits who blame/credit everything happening to a president. The fact is this: we live in a capitalist where private actors control productivity. Corporations invest and hire/fire according to their plans, households only spend according to their perceptions of wealth, and banks lend in response to demand. Presidents do not control any of these variables, and can at best moderately nudge them in one or another direction.
Even considering this, CBO estimates put the number of jobs saved by the stimulus in the hundreds of thousands. The subsequent recovery has been tepid and has disappointed Obama and everybody else. But the point is, if the economic variables are all controlled by exogenous factors outside the WH, how can we lump all of the blame against Obama all the same? There is no evidence at all that a Republican president would have done anything differently, especially not since the stimuls contains much Friedman-esque monetary policy as is (the continued actions of the Fed belie the notion that the stimulus has been purely Keynesian).
In short, Obama has been an above-average president and performed admirably given the inherent limitations on the office (the position just isn't as powerful as many make it out to be) and the simply unprecedented circumstances inherited. People focus on the POTUS as a convenient symbol for everything the USG is doing and everything happening in the economy; the position is a convenient beacon for love and hate with a human face, when the real causality is mostly reserved for faceless machines comprised of the decisions of millions of individual actors (the USG + markets). People ought to understand as such when evaluating a US president.
The entire foundation of your argument is inaccurate. Proposed and passed legislation is not the primary measure of a successful presidency. What if the legislation he proposes is crap and harmful to the country? That is not success.actually it is..... a president shows how effective he is by being able to persuade people to jump onto and vote for his agenda....the president can't wave a magic wand and make gas prices go down....he has no power over gas prices whatsoever....our credit rating was downgraded because the republicans did not want to go along with anything Obama wanted to do......and also our credit should have never been downgraded in the first place because America has never defaulted on anything or missed a debt payment....all of the pundits said that....Businesses are not afraid to expand....they don't hire because they have found they can get by with less workers.....
Like any CEO, manager, etc., you measure success by the health of the company. With presidents, you have to ask whether the country is better off today than it was four years ago. In this case, the answer is clearly no. The economic indicators are worse. Unemployment is up. Job growth is down. Businesses are afraid to expand. Spending, the deficit, and debt have exploded. He failed to submit a balanced budget. Gas prices are up. Consumer confidence is down. Home prices are down. Our credit rating has been downgraded. His signature, partisan "achievement" is not only unpopular, it's likely going down in flames in the supreme court.
Polls show the overwhelming majority of the country believe the economy is headed in the wrong direction.
That's failure.
this post is genius.......notice the person who posted a rebuttal after you could only muster a weak one word responseOr I just didnt feel like writing a page on why I disagree with what was written, when everyone here has heard all the reasons 10,000x.
I've mentioned the specifics repeatedly throughout the thread. This last post was meant to explain the criteria I'm using, which is more or less what you asked for. If it's just a 'bunch of words' to you then that reflects something about you, not the post. It's pretty clear in its meaning.
How is Obama responsible for how Muslim nations vote?
If Bush were still in office, would they have all changed their minds?
Why shouldn't he have been?
When you have democracy in a country, those people determine whom they elect.
The same thing happened under Bush with Hezbollah. Bush didn't control the minds of individual Lebanese.
I never blamed Bush for the way other people voted.
Your pathalogical history has removed any semblance of rationality you may have once held.
Get a job, develop human realtionships and things might start looking up for you.
actually it is..... a president shows how effective he is by being able to persuade people to jump onto and vote for his agenda....the president can't wave a magic wand and make gas prices go down....he has no power over gas prices whatsoever....our credit rating was downgraded because the republicans did not want to go along with anything Obama wanted to do......and also our credit should have never been downgraded in the first place because America has never defaulted on anything or missed a debt payment....all of the pundits said that....Businesses are not afraid to expand....they don't hire because they have found they can get by with less workers.....
your post is ludicrous except for the unemployment stuff..Obama deserves blame for that
Repubs get plenty of blame too
they didn't do anything to help employment and they prevented Obama from increasing government employment in spite of the fact the 3 former Republican POTUS's grew government employment as one means to reduce unemployment and effectively stimulate a recovery
Unlike the recession during Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2, government employment has actually gone down under Obama
Obama’s Muslim World Fantasy: Early Hopes Undermined by Drone WarBut he's still a secret Muslim?
Looking at the latest Pew poll from the Middle East, the promise of a reboot in relations after the president’s vaunted 2009 Cairo speech is history.
by Elise Jordan (/contributors/elise-jordan.html) | June 24, 2012 4:45 AM EDT
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/24/obama-s-muslim-world-fantasy-early-hopes-undermined-by-drone-war.print.html
Three years ago this month, President Barack Obama promised a transformation in America’s relations with the Muslim world. He gave the first television interview of his presidency to the Al Arabiya news channel six days after his inauguration, and sent a Persian New Year video address to the people of Iran a few months later. The high water mark of his stated quest to rehab our reputation occurred in Cairo, in a speech titled “A New Beginning.” (/articles/2009/06/05/the-arab-world-reacts.html) There, Obama apologized for past sins against the Muslim world (like colonialism) and heralded the religion’s historical “tolerance and racial equality.”
To stay on message, Obama avoided mentioning some of the more uncomfortable realities—that our most significant terrorist threat is from those using Islam as a shield, as well as the gender discrimination Muslim women face, one of the world’s most egregious and systematic abuses of human rights.
But despite these efforts, it’s now clear that his platitudes didn’t get him very far. The men and women of the region, it seems, have seen through the Obama hype. According to a recently released Pew poll on Obama’s favorability in the Muslim world
(http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/global-opinion-of-obama-slips-international-policies-faulted/) , 76 percent of Egyptians would like to make him a one-termer. Majorities in Pakistan, Lebanon, and Jordan don’t want to see Obama re-elected, either. “Respondents in predominantly Muslim countries continue to have a low opinion of Obama, and the American leader’s ratings have slipped significantly since 2009 in the five Muslim countries where trends are available, including a 13 percentage-point poll drop in Egypt,” according to Pew. “Opinion is generally against Obama in most of the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed.”
Why the backlash against Obama?
In Cairo, Obama promised a relationship with the Muslim world built on “mutual interest and mutual respect.” He avoided any strong calls for the democratic movements that would sweep the region two years later, leaving dissidents feeling like they were standing alone. “What touched on democracy and human rights in the speech was far less than we wanted,” said Ayman Nour, a prominent Egyptian political prisoner, after the remarks.
Obama then missed a series of opportunities to be on the right side of history. First, in real time, he didn’t lend support for democratic dissidents in Iran in 2009, where today’s nuclear endgame might be quite different if he did so. His policy of non-interference left Tehran’s leadership empowered to torture and imprison leaders of the Green movement and closer than ever to obtaining a nuclear weapon. Obama was behind the eight ball on Egypt, largely silent on the Saudi crackdown on Bahrain
(http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grCsXLkRIB9gZHMeL8q-zYdqdVMw?docId=0d768417377049eeab301bb80ef8b9c3) , and appears at a loss about who to back in Syria.
Supporters of Pakistani religious party Sunni Tehreek raise their hands condemning President Obama during an anti-American rally in September in Hyderabad, Pakistan. (Pervez Masih / AP Photo )
Although he did choose to bomb Libya and oust Gaddafi—a despot, but one who had renounced his nuclear program to avoid Saddam Hussein’s fate—support on the Arab Street was fleeting because of our inconsistent policy of ousting dictators who serve no American interest, but tolerating despotic royals in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain (/articles/2011/05/19/stop-defending-saudi-arabia-obama.html) .
Obama did, however, promise the Muslim world he’d respect “principles of justice and progress”—exactly the opposite of our policy of a remote-controlled drone war, the most hated policy, according to the Pew poll. Unsurprisingly, of 20 countries surveyed, majorities in 17 nations disapprove of the U.S. military’s use of drones in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
That kind of widespread anger used to be a major talking point when it was President George W. Bush who was blamed for it. But now among Democrats and so-called progressives, there’s a particularly egregious double standard. Bush’s detention policies were universally condemned by liberals, while Obama’s outright killing of suspected terrorists, including an American citizen turned al Qaeda operative, with no due process, was applauded.
During Obama’s presidency, the use of drones increased fivefold. Once in office, he’s decided to fight terrorism with no accountability or transparency—and yet he still wants to win hearts and minds in the Muslim world.
It’s telling that despite the pomp and circumstance surrounding Obama’s reconfiguring relations, our approval rating hasn’t even held steady, but plummeted because of an over-reliance on the drone campaign.
There might be a way to do this, but it has more risk attached to it than giving a well-written speech. To pursue a terrorism policy that’s based on capturing and interrogating the bad guys, rather than just randomly blowing up a bunch of people who might be threat. It’s a lot harder to capture a terrorist, keep them alive for interrogation, and figure out to do with them afterward than it is to kill by remote control thousands of miles from the battlefield.
When war—as our bombing campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen should be called—becomes anonymous, un-measurable in its outcome, and relatively risk-free in human cost on our end, it’s unsurprising that the Pakistanis and Yemenis we ostensibly don’t want to radicalize are angered by our targeting campaign (/articles/2012/06/02/a-son-carries-benazir-bhutto-s-mantle-after-her-death.html) .
After all, there’s no illusion that America was beloved in Pakistan in 2008. But it’s telling that despite the pomp and circumstance surrounding Obama’s reconfiguring relations, our approval rating hasn’t even held steady, but plummeted because of an over-reliance on the drone campaign. Obama’s dithering has sent more than 120,000 Syrian refugees into Jordan, intensifying Jordan’s chronic water shortage and state fiscal crisis, as well as raising fears that Assad loyalists are infiltrating the Hashemite Kingdom. Like Americans who bought into “change you can believe in,” audiences abroad are frustrated by Obama’s habit of overpromising in rhetoric. When Obama accepted his Nobel Peace Prize, he gave lip service to multilateral institutions, when in reality America’s foreign policy will not ever be subjugated to the whims of flawed international organizations.
The world has wised up to the harsh reality of Obama’s leadership. The Nobel laureate is all words and no deeds, save anonymous strikes. And where the Muslim world senses weakness, Europe sees decline. According to the Pew poll, the rest of the world increasingly shares agreement that China is the leading economic superpower.
But it’s not all doom and gloom. The depressing irony is in what the Muslim world does respect about America. More than half of Jordanians, Egyptians, Tunisians, and Lebanese respond favorably about our capitalistic model. They like the way we do business—more trade, less drones might not be a bad policy for the president to pursue.
Straw - where does the money come from to fund more govt employment at the state level?
various sources and as you well know, many states receive more in federal funds than they pay in taxes
net increase in dollars from the federal goverment allows other state resources to be used to maintin or increase employment
As you also well know, some of the stimulus money was targeted specifically to increase employment at the state level
And I don't agree w that at all since all it is is a band aid. We have a Federal system and the Fedzilla should not be propping up bloated state govts that need to be cut anyway whether they are in NY, Cali, or WV or Miss.
yet Repubs had no problem with it when their party was in power during prior recessions
Maybe they understood that more employment especially in the lower and middle classes is a de facto stimulus because when the poor and middle class have money they spend it.
When the rich get more money they save it or invest it in ways that don't do anything for the economy
Savings and investments held in the bank are used for what by banks again?
no comparison to $'s paid in wages being spent for goods and services
For shit made in China. Savings is used to lend to business and expand existing operations. We need growth and production, not more consumption.
Do you even know how banking works?
When you deposit money into the bank - they use it to lend to business or other loans.
I have a feeling I'm much more familiar with how banking works than you are
If you think all consumption is shit from china and that we need less consumption than its pointless to continue trying to educate you as is almost always the case
Businesses don't borrow without having a reason and banks don't create demand by lending
Btw - in spite of having money to lend credit is still tight
Bernake has talked about the need for banks to loosening up but to no avail
Yeah, just what we need - more consumption funded by borrowed money - got it. ::) ::)
feel free to find me any economist that says less consumption will be good for our economyKrugman approved.
Repubs get plenty of blame too
they didn't do anything to help employment and they prevented Obama from increasing government employment in spite of the fact the 3 former Republican POTUS's grew government employment as one means to reduce unemployment and effectively stimulate a recovery
Unlike the recession during Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2, government employment has actually gone down under Obama
Krugman approved.
To be fair though, I dont really think any economist that I know of believes an economy will get stronger by everyone holding on to their money.
good post and very accurate......we have much less gov't workers now than we have had the past 30 years or so....most under Republican presidents....people spread so much untrue propaganda about Obama it's crazy.......name one thing the Repubs did?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/201262412445190400.html
MB just won.
That doesn't change my assessment that their achieving a "stable regime" will take months. Having a single presidential candidate selected does not a stable regime make. For example, the military disbanded the Islamist parliament not too long ago. That problem must be resolved, a constitution must be drawn up, and the military's ultimate role in politics determined. This is going to take a while.
After the dust is settled, we can begin to evaluate the consequences of Mubarak's stepping down.
The entire foundation of your argument is inaccurate. Proposed and passed legislation is not the primary measure of a successful presidency. What if the legislation he proposes is crap and harmful to the country? That is not success.
Like any CEO, manager, etc., you measure success by the health of the company. With presidents, you have to ask whether the country is better off today than it was four years ago. In this case, the answer is clearly no. The economic indicators are worse. Unemployment is up. Job growth is down. Businesses are afraid to expand. Spending, the deficit, and debt have exploded. He failed to submit a balanced budget. Gas prices are up. Consumer confidence is down. Home prices are down. Our credit rating has been downgraded. His signature, partisan "achievement" is not only unpopular, it's likely going down in flames in the supreme court.
Polls show the overwhelming majority of the country believe the economy is headed in the wrong direction.
That's failure.
I'm afraid you just aren't engaging my larger point at all, either because I haven't communicated it very well (unlikely), you haven't actually read any of my posts (possible), or there is a genuine failure of comprehension on your part (the likeliest scenario).
The larger point relates to what presidents are capable of, and thus what it makes sense to hold them accountable for. Presidents set the agenda for the country by proposing legislation (or, "suggesting" it, since only the Congress formally develops it), appointing people to governmental positions that they feel are qualified, and running a responsible foreign policy. So, it makes sense to hold them accountable for their legislative agendas, their appointments, and the foreign policies they choose to pursue.
(Obviously, when I say that proposed/passed legislation is an objective measure of success, I do not mean that it is just the statistical ratio that matters. Clearly, the actual policies matter. And there is a discussion going on here about whether such legislation has been successful or not, plus the merits of Obama's foreign policy, stemming from my OP.)
Once we understand what presidents can do, an important negative point is made: they cannot be held accountable for what they cannot do. So no, you should not evaluate presidents on the basis of whether things are "better" than they were four years ago: only a fool thinks that presidents are powerful enough to harness the economy. If they were dictators that controlled everything, then it might be fair to evaluate them as such.
Ironically, your list of "things not better" here is chalk full of examples that prove my point (as well as inaccuracies: I already indicated the poll showing that stagnant lending and hiring is a result of a lack of demand, not uncertainty or "fear" of expanding, as you put it). I will take one of these examples in-depth rather than discuss them all: gas prices. Are you really naive enough to think the POTUS controls gas prices?
The price of oil is the primary determinant of gas prices (65 cents for every dollar spent on gas). As of 2011, the US produces about 7.8 million bpd of oil, or 8.9% of the worldwide total. Thus, even in an utterly miraculous scenario that is humanly impossible in which a president instantly doubled US oil production -- something approving the Keystone XL pipeline and all the rest would not come remotely close to doing -- the price of oil (which, for simplicity's sake we are assuming is determined solely by supply and demand, something that isn't quite true) would shift from $90.71 a barrel to $82.64 a barrel. This in turn would mean the US average gas price would go from $3.533 a gallon to ... wait for it ... $3.33 a gallon.
Oil, the primary determinant of gas prices, is a global commodity and no POTUS can do a damned thing about that. You are a fool for indicating Obama has any control over gas prices.
P.S. "Oil 101" by Morgan Downey is the industry standard and is a good place to start if you want to get informed on this particular topic.
I'm afraid you just aren't engaging my larger point at all, either because I haven't communicated it very well (unlikely), you haven't actually read any of my posts (possible), or there is a genuine failure of comprehension on your part (the likeliest scenario).
The larger point relates to what presidents are capable of, and thus what it makes sense to hold them accountable for. Presidents set the agenda for the country by proposing legislation (or, "suggesting" it, since only the Congress formally develops it), appointing people to governmental positions that they feel are qualified, and running a responsible foreign policy. So, it makes sense to hold them accountable for their legislative agendas, their appointments, and the foreign policies they choose to pursue.
(Obviously, when I say that proposed/passed legislation is an objective measure of success, I do not mean that it is just the statistical ratio that matters. Clearly, the actual policies matter. And there is a discussion going on here about whether such legislation has been successful or not, plus the merits of Obama's foreign policy, stemming from my OP.)
Once we understand what presidents can do, an important negative point is made: they cannot be held accountable for what they cannot do. So no, you should not evaluate presidents on the basis of whether things are "better" than they were four years ago: only a fool thinks that presidents are powerful enough to harness the economy. If they were dictators that controlled everything, then it might be fair to evaluate them as such.
Ironically, your list of "things not better" here is chalk full of examples that prove my point (as well as inaccuracies: I already indicated the poll showing that stagnant lending and hiring is a result of a lack of demand, not uncertainty or "fear" of expanding, as you put it). I will take one of these examples in-depth rather than discuss them all: gas prices. Are you really naive enough to think the POTUS controls gas prices?
The price of oil is the primary determinant of gas prices (65 cents for every dollar spent on gas). As of 2011, the US produces about 7.8 million bpd of oil, or 8.9% of the worldwide total. Thus, even in an utterly miraculous scenario that is humanly impossible in which a president instantly doubled US oil production -- something approving the Keystone XL pipeline and all the rest would not come remotely close to doing -- the price of oil (which, for simplicity's sake we are assuming is determined solely by supply and demand, something that isn't quite true) would shift from $90.71 a barrel to $82.64 a barrel. This in turn would mean the US average gas price would go from $3.533 a gallon to ... wait for it ... $3.33 a gallon.
Oil, the primary determinant of gas prices, is a global commodity and no POTUS can do a damned thing about that. You are a fool for indicating Obama has any control over gas prices.
P.S. "Oil 101" by Morgan Downey is the industry standard and is a good place to start if you want to get informed on this particular topic.
1. Has obama swayed the american electorate to the progressive viewpoint? No.
2. Has obama helped or hurt the democrat party electorally? Hurt
3. Has obama passed bi-partisan bills that most of the electorate wants or likes? No, despite the fact that LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, GWB did.
4. Has obama improved or worsed our foreign policy? Ask Russia or China about that one
5. If ObamaCare goes down, what will obama's legacy be?
6. Has obama inspired confidence in the economy for growth or expansion? no.
7. Has obama been faithful to the USC overall? No
8. Has obama been true to his promises of bringing people together and having a transparent admn? No
9. Has obama addressed the most serious issues of the day? Simpson Bowles anyone?
10. If obama is so effective, why his is blaming everyone for everything as opposed to running on his record?
11. If Obama is so effective, why are increasin numbers of democrats running away from him?
12. If Obama is so successfull, why have 3 million democrats left the part since he was elected?
13. What specific criteria are we looking at? By most measures everything is worse than when he came in by his own measure 3 years ago.
Your entire premise is wrong. I can't really it make any simpler for your to understand.
Regarding the items I listed, which are all factual, it doesn't really matter whether the president has direct control or a direct impact on all of them. What matters is the country's performance as a whole (just like the performance of a business as a whole) is primarily how you judge a leader. It's not amount of legislation proposed and passed.
This is true of leadership in general, whether you're talking about business, politics, or even sports. The buck stops at the top.
In addition to the other items I mentioned, job approval ratings give you a sense of whether the public believes the administration has been successful. The president's approval ratings stink.
Good try but not true.....in a business the CEO/ Leader doesn't have a faction of his company that is totally against his policies and fights him tooth and nail on the things he proposes to get the company functioning well......
Good try but not true.....in a business the CEO/ Leader doesn't have a faction of his company that is totally against his policies and fights him tooth and nail on the things he proposes to get the company functioning well......
Yes, it is true that a business leader's tenure is judged by the success of the business. And it's not true that a business leader doesn't have to deal with factions. That's absurd. There are often board members, fellow executives, and/or employees who don't like the leader and want to see him or her fail. That's part of the reality of business.
I would say nice try, but it that was pretty weak. :)
good try again....yes a business leader has some guys who want him, to fail but not over 250-300 guys who march in lockstep and openly defy the leader..also corporate CEO's simply fire those who are insubordinate...the Prez can't do that
good try again....yes a business leader has some guys who want him, to fail but not over 250-300 guys who march in lockstep and openly defy the leader..also corporate CEO's simply fire those who are insubordinate...the Prez can't do that
Guys, stop fighting.
Either add to the discussion or f off. your trolling amd. Tourettes is annoying.Be nice, skippy.
Your entire premise is wrong. I can't really it make any simpler for your to understand.
Regarding the items I listed, which are all factual, it doesn't really matter whether the president has direct control or a direct impact on all of them. What matters is the country's performance as a whole (just like the performance of a business as a whole) is primarily how you judge a leader. It's not amount of legislation proposed and passed.
This is true of leadership in general, whether you're talking about business, politics, or even sports. The buck stops at the top.
In addition to the other items I mentioned, job approval ratings give you a sense of whether the public believes the administration has been successful. The president's approval ratings stink.
The conversation has reached its peak if you are unable to recognize facts. The facts must regulate our discourse: we can't just assert whatever fits our worldview, ignoring reality all the while (actually, you can, but then you'll be in here by yourself and 3333 pretty quickly). For example, if the facts indicate that the MB is a disaster for Egypt and US security interests, then I will concede the point to 3333.
You stated that businesses are afraid to grow (presumably because of some policy or other of Obama's). I cited the WSJ poll indicating that expert opinion on the matter is that hiring/lending is stagnant due to weak demand, not uncertainty over government policy. So what you say is exactly the opposite of what the evidence indicates. Therefore it isn't justifiably called "factual."
Saying 'this is the way it is' when it comes to evaluating presidents does nothing to advance the conversation. Maybe a majority of people do use the 'am I better off now' method. What we need to figure out is, should they? Should presidents be held accountable for things they have literally no influence over? I'm more interested in objectively analyzing performance in office, not pretending the POTUS is a football coach. If you need to think in these terms and you want to praise/blame a POTUS for virtually everything as if he has magical powers, then go right ahead. Just don't pretend that such simplistic thinking is indicative of reality.
Sorry to burst everyone's bubbles around here, but by objective standards Obama has been a successful POTUS and a far more competent one than his predecessor. The primary such standard is the amount of legislation proposed/passed/implemented, a value that makes Obama far above average.
His foreign policy has been a success: his election instantly boosted world public opinion, which matters to the extent that it feeds into our soft power, or ability to influence others. His emphasis on multilateralism is sound and the operation in Libya to secure those oil resources for the world (no, democracy was not and almost never is the primary goal) was a stellar success that cost zero American lives and a mere $2 billion (we each payed a little over $6 for it). On the other hand his administration's emphasis on drone strikes and covert operations has won the war on terror: Al Qaeda has been genuinely ravaged and barely functions as an organization. Such operations included the personally-authorized killing of OBL, an important symbolic victory.
Things are more complex at home. Banking regulation was passed, which includes the Volcker Rule banning proprietary trading and other measures that are seemingly necessary to prevent another bailout, but nobody knows just how much regulation is optimal. Obama also stepped up and addressed the issue predecessors pussied out on, healthcare. The resultant legislation was a centrist plan (anyone who calls it 'socialist' has never been to Europe or examined their public policy) based on a conservative policy proposal that originated with the Heritage Foundation (a mandate to tackle the free riders that increase costs). That it may get struck down does not reflect on Obama as he has no control over SC deliberations to begin with. He can only be evaluated for his specific actions.
Finally, we come to the economy, which is what actually dtermines elections anyway. There is an extraordinary amount of confusion about this as certain posters think we live in a system where the POTUS wields magical powers that determine the course of the economy. The misunderstanding is reinforced by presidents who take credit for growth and pundits who blame/credit everything happening to a president. The fact is this: we live in a capitalist where private actors control productivity. Corporations invest and hire/fire according to their plans, households only spend according to their perceptions of wealth, and banks lend in response to demand. Presidents do not control any of these variables, and can at best moderately nudge them in one or another direction.
Even considering this, CBO estimates put the number of jobs saved by the stimulus in the hundreds of thousands. The subsequent recovery has been tepid and has disappointed Obama and everybody else. But the point is, if the economic variables are all controlled by exogenous factors outside the WH, how can we lump all of the blame against Obama all the same? There is no evidence at all that a Republican president would have done anything differently, especially not since the stimuls contains much Friedman-esque monetary policy as is (the continued actions of the Fed belie the notion that the stimulus has been purely Keynesian).
In short, Obama has been an above-average president and performed admirably given the inherent limitations on the office (the position just isn't as powerful as many make it out to be) and the simply unprecedented circumstances inherited. People focus on the POTUS as a convenient symbol for everything the USG is doing and everything happening in the economy; the position is a convenient beacon for love and hate with a human face, when the real causality is mostly reserved for faceless machines comprised of the decisions of millions of individual actors (the USG + markets). People ought to understand as such when evaluating a US president.
1. Has obama swayed the american electorate to the progressive viewpoint? No.
2. Has obama helped or hurt the democrat party electorally? Hurt
3. Has obama passed bi-partisan bills that most of the electorate wants or likes? No, despite the fact that LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, GWB did.
4. Has obama improved or worsed our foreign policy? Ask Russia or China about that one
5. If ObamaCare goes down, what will obama's legacy be?
6. Has obama inspired confidence in the economy for growth or expansion? no.
7. Has obama been faithful to the USC overall? No
8. Has obama been true to his promises of bringing people together and having a transparent admn? No
9. Has obama addressed the most serious issues of the day? Simpson Bowles anyone?
10. If obama is so effective, why his is blaming everyone for everything as opposed to running on his record?
11. If Obama is so effective, why are increasin numbers of democrats running away from him?
12. If Obama is so successfull, why have 3 million democrats left the part since he was elected?
13. What specific criteria are we looking at? By most measures everything is worse than when he came in by his own measure 3 years ago.
Well, thanks. But just because I say these things doesn't mean I can't have conservative tendencies myself. So you shouldn't frame this as truth vs. conservative propaganda; both right and left sides have very intelligent people and oftentimes their views can coalesce, blurring the distinction and making the whole dichotomy of questionable value. Only the simpletons use the 'evil socialists' or 'religious hypocrite warmonger' type labels.
You base your arguments and posts on hatred toward Obama NOT on facts. Syntax gave a very clear coherent statement based on facts, knowledge and analysis. You on the other hand reply with a article where Obama and a German minister debate Euro vs. US deficit control/economy.
The difference is his post is an example of how intelligent people debate and yours is an example of an adolescent would debate(Use any story to support your argumentations even though its unrelated).
If you cant tell the difference and cant base your opinions on facts instead of feelings you dont have the maturity to debate politics with adults. Thats how children debate and you aint a child.
STFU - I am using ACTUAL NEWS EVENTS AND REALITY to rebuff his nonsense. He said obama is successful and effective? At what? I just posted a story from today that Europe is telling obama to STFU about the economy.
I dont know what to tell you. I dont like calling people stupid but intellectually you are on a lower level than Syntax and really have no place posting in his thread.
You take a ACTUAL NEWS EVENTS AND Fit it in to YOUR REALITY. Its how a kids mind works nothing unusual about that but you are a grown man.
:)
Lmfao! Sorry that actual news events clearly destroy the entire premise of this thread.
Compare the post by Syntax to the shit you post. No matter your stand point any remotely intelligent human being can see who is based in facts and who is based in how he feels.
Either add to the discussion or f off. your trolling amd. Tourettes is annoying.
What "facts" has he posted?
The one most relevant to you:
The misunderstanding is reinforced by presidents who take credit for growth and pundits who blame/credit everything happening to a president. The fact is this: we live in a capitalist where private actors control productivity. Corporations invest and hire/fire according to their plans, households only spend according to their perceptions of wealth, and banks lend in response to demand. Presidents do not control any of these variables, and can at best moderately nudge them in one or another direction.
The conversation has reached its peak if you are unable to recognize facts. The facts must regulate our discourse: we can't just assert whatever fits our worldview, ignoring reality all the while (actually, you can, but then you'll be in here by yourself and 3333 pretty quickly). For example, if the facts indicate that the MB is a disaster for Egypt and US security interests, then I will concede the point to 3333.
You stated that businesses are afraid to grow (presumably because of some policy or other of Obama's). I cited the WSJ poll indicating that expert opinion on the matter is that hiring/lending is stagnant due to weak demand, not uncertainty over government policy. So what you say is exactly the opposite of what the evidence indicates. Therefore it isn't justifiably called "factual."
Saying 'this is the way it is' when it comes to evaluating presidents does nothing to advance the conversation. Maybe a majority of people do use the 'am I better off now' method. What we need to figure out is, should they? Should presidents be held accountable for things they have literally no influence over? I'm more interested in objectively analyzing performance in office, not pretending the POTUS is a football coach. If you need to think in these terms and you want to praise/blame a POTUS for virtually everything as if he has magical powers, then go right ahead. Just don't pretend that such simplistic thinking is indicative of reality.
Funniest thread in years
this is were all conversations with Bum will eventually wind up
and I don't think it's because he can't recognize facts
he spends quite a bit of energy choosing not to recognize facts for the very purpose of keeping himself in a totally self created simplistic reality
What facts? Tell me what specfic "facts" and policies show that Obama has been succesfull and effective?War on Terror
War on Terror
What facts? Tell me what specfic "facts" and policies show that Obama has been succesfull and effective?
go back to page 1 of this thread and read any of syntaxmachine posts
Ha ha ha ha - are you joking? You clowns wanted Bush brought to the Hauge for war crimes for waterboarding people, but applaud obama running murder inc. out of the WH with no oversight wghatsoever, and signing the NDAA etc.You know im going to destroy you on this now and make you withdraw from the thread.. (like i do on a daily basis with you)
The hypocrisy of the average obama drone like yourself is breathtaking.
You know im going to destroy you on this now and make you withdraw from the thread.. (like i do on a daily basis with you)
First off. you said I was against water Boarding...Back that up. Find it. You wont, Because I dont give a shit about it.
Also, You call Killing Osama Bin Laden, Murder. Thats your business but its very telling. Politics over national Security, nice.
Now About the Obama drone thing. Do i need to post my stance again on this, you know where its going to go. Im not Pro Obama. Im pro Reason and Logic, which you are very opposed to. Once you start posting like a sensable logical member if American Society, i wont destroy you. Now... im going to write out my response to the "youre black so you like obama shit" (even though ive pubically came out against obama and for Ron Paul... like 90 times on here). I think ill have a cut and paste response to it so i dont have to keep typing it out... i swear.. like in real life, ive told you this maybe 100 times.
Apparently you neglected to read about Obama's 'Murder Tuesday" sesssions in the WH.
great throrough response
Fucking Child ::)
The things obama voters are cheering on are the things they trashed Bush for.
The conversation has reached its peak if you are unable to recognize facts. The facts must regulate our discourse: we can't just assert whatever fits our worldview, ignoring reality all the while (actually, you can, but then you'll be in here by yourself and 3333 pretty quickly). For example, if the facts indicate that the MB is a disaster for Egypt and US security interests, then I will concede the point to 3333.
You stated that businesses are afraid to grow (presumably because of some policy or other of Obama's). I cited the WSJ poll indicating that expert opinion on the matter is that hiring/lending is stagnant due to weak demand, not uncertainty over government policy. So what you say is exactly the opposite of what the evidence indicates. Therefore it isn't justifiably called "factual."
Saying 'this is the way it is' when it comes to evaluating presidents does nothing to advance the conversation. Maybe a majority of people do use the 'am I better off now' method. What we need to figure out is, should they? Should presidents be held accountable for things they have literally no influence over? I'm more interested in objectively analyzing performance in office, not pretending the POTUS is a football coach. If you need to think in these terms and you want to praise/blame a POTUS for virtually everything as if he has magical powers, then go right ahead. Just don't pretend that such simplistic thinking is indicative of reality.
Sorry to burst everyone's bubbles around here, but by objective standards Obama has been a successful POTUS and a far more competent one than his predecessor. The primary such standard is the amount of legislation proposed/passed/implemented, a value that makes Obama far above average.
The conversation has reached its peak if you are unable to recognize facts. The facts must regulate our discourse: we can't just assert whatever fits our worldview, ignoring reality all the while (actually, you can, but then you'll be in here by yourself and 3333 pretty quickly). For example, if the facts indicate that the MB is a disaster for Egypt and US security interests, then I will concede the point to 3333.
You stated that businesses are afraid to grow (presumably because of some policy or other of Obama's). I cited the WSJ poll indicating that expert opinion on the matter is that hiring/lending is stagnant due to weak demand, not uncertainty over government policy. So what you say is exactly the opposite of what the evidence indicates. Therefore it isn't justifiably called "factual."
Saying 'this is the way it is' when it comes to evaluating presidents does nothing to advance the conversation. Maybe a majority of people do use the 'am I better off now' method. What we need to figure out is, should they? Should presidents be held accountable for things they have literally no influence over? I'm more interested in objectively analyzing performance in office, not pretending the POTUS is a football coach. If you need to think in these terms and you want to praise/blame a POTUS for virtually everything as if he has magical powers, then go right ahead. Just don't pretend that such simplistic thinking is indicative of reality.
I think everything you have written about is factual.......as for Egypt..the jury is still out....HOWEVER.....if the goal was to give Egypt democracy, THEN IT HAS ALREADY BEEN A ROUSING SUCCESS......Egypt ACTUALLY had a presidential election.....just because A muslim candidate won is of no consequence as of yet..ALL OF THE CANDIDATES WERE MUSLIM IN SOME WAY
Ha ha ha ha!!!!!
Dear God are you fucked up
as you are an intellectual misfit, I don't expect you to understand reasonable and rational thought.....you still throw around the word "communist"..to your detractors, a term NO ONE uses anymore...
this proves your mind is at least 30 years in the past
Obama forced mubarack out and we got the MB - FAIL
Don't you see it was time for Mubarak to go???......don't you think the US learned its lessons when they tried to back the Shah of Iran even after the people wanted him gone???..look at what happened there....
if Egypt wants the Muslim Brotherhood, thats their business.........we gave them democracy...we did our job....what did you want us to do?..rig the election too???
We handed the country over to the crazies you dope.
Mubarak made his country crazy already..by not reforming or stepping down years ago..you overestimate the influence the U.S. has over there..you are so insane about blaming Obama for everything that you are irrational;.
a shame
Obama forced mubarack out and we got the MB - FAIL
so the people didnt want him out? when i see the people.. im not talking about you or other americans . Im referring to EGYPTIAN citizens
::) ::)
Obama forced him out and gave them 200 million remember?
So when obama forces mubarak out and the people are in the streets - obama did great blah blah blah.
But when the MB takes over - like many of us predicted - its not obama's fault.
Got it. ::) ::) ::)
Typical
Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity all predicted this would happen, well over a year ago. Yet, all the brilliant progressives (Maddow, Maher, et. al) laughed at that happening.
Imagine that.
So wheres the beef... that the MB is in control. What does that mean?
So wheres the beef... that the MB is in control. What does that mean?
It means they're going full bore to blast Israel to bits, with us next in line. That could also mean, once stuff starts jumping off, a SPIKE in gas prices. Not to mention, murdering of Coptic Christians, women, and, darn near anyone else who doesn't feel like bowing before Allah.
It means they're going full bore to blast Israel to bits, with us next in line.
That could also mean, once stuff starts jumping off, a SPIKE in gas prices.
Not to mention, murdering of Coptic Christians, women, and, darn near anyone else who doesn't feel like bowing before Allah.
You really think that Egypt will attack Israel - which has nuclear weapons and will not hesitate to use them? And that they will, after they "blast Israel to bits", attack the United States? Are you delusional?
Gas prices spike when someone in the region gets a bad case of gas after eating hummus. Not to mention that a spike in gas, coupled with a perception of long-term disruptions or uncertainty, is likely to spur innovation and make other techniques (deep-sea drilling, off-coast drilling, fracking, shale oil extraction, drilling in ANWR) more economically lucrative.
If they do that, then why should that be my concern?
Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity all predicted this would happen, well over a year ago. Yet, all the brilliant progressives (Maddow, Maher, et. al) laughed at that happening.
Imagine that.
I think you are actually imagining that
I don't recall Maddor or Maher laughing about the possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood getting in power
If you have some proof of your claim feel free to post it or we can assume this is just your imagination
Most delusional incompetent leftists like madcow, mahr, obama, et al never thought it was going to happen.
Funny too since a few of us here called it exactly to the tee.
I do fully expect antiquities to be destroyed by the islamic filth like they did to that Buddhist carving a few years ago. Islamic savages have zero regard for anything but their blood lust.
That is certainly sad - and hopefully we can avoid the further destruction of the shared history of our species - but it's hardly something confined to Muslims. History is replete with instances of such destruction - from Caesar who caused the destruction of vast numbers of scrolls from the Library of Alexandria, to Christians who destroyed the Serapeum during riots and other priceless ancient Greek writings and artifacts, to the Taliban who destroyed Buddhist mountain carvings.
I seriously doubt 333 gives a rats ass about antiquities
It's just something convenient that he can focus his endless need to bitch and moan about all the "savages" he constantly sees
It means they're going full bore to blast Israel to bits, with us next in line. That could also mean, once stuff starts jumping off, a SPIKE in gas prices. Not to mention, murdering of Coptic Christians, women, and, darn near anyone else who doesn't feel like bowing before Allah.
REally.. you really think all of this is going to happen... like for real.. in real life?
Do you have a projected time table for this?
Hey idiot - I know being a liberal nut means you are generally stupid and incompetent to begin with, but have you not been paying attention to anything at all?
Coptics have been getting killed and christian churches burned down already since Mubarak was forced down by Imam Obama. Egypt has already been used as a staging area for rockets into Israel recently.
You really believe that Egypt will risk an all out war between itself and Irsael, a nation with nuclear weapons that can reduce Cairo to a slab of glass in less than 30 minutes?
No, but I believe Egypt will be turned into a friendly staging area for radical islamists and terrorist to go into Israel as well as turn into an openly hostile place for anyone not muslim.
You really believe that Egypt will risk an all out war between itself and Irsael, a nation with nuclear weapons that can reduce Cairo to a slab of glass in less than 30 minutes?Israel would annihilate Egypt pretty easily.
1. Has obama swayed the american electorate to the progressive viewpoint? No.
2. Has obama helped or hurt the democrat party electorally? Hurt
3. Has obama passed bi-partisan bills that most of the electorate wants or likes? No, despite the fact that LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, GWB did.
4. Has obama improved or worsed our foreign policy? Ask Russia or China about that one
5. If ObamaCare goes down, what will obama's legacy be?
6. Has obama inspired confidence in the economy for growth or expansion? no.
7. Has obama been faithful to the USC overall? No
8. Has obama been true to his promises of bringing people together and having a transparent admn? No
9. Has obama addressed the most serious issues of the day? Simpson Bowles anyone?
10. If obama is so effective, why his is blaming everyone for everything as opposed to running on his record?
11. If Obama is so effective, why are increasin numbers of democrats running away from him?
12. If Obama is so successfull, why have 3 million democrats left the part since he was elected?
13. What specific criteria are we looking at? By most measures everything is worse than when he came in by his own measure 3 years ago.
That is utter horesehit and obama kneepadding.
What facts? Tell me what specfic "facts" and policies show that Obama has been succesfull and effective?
Apparently you neglected to read about Obama's 'Murder Tuesday" sesssions in the WH.
Obama forced mubarack out and we got the MB - FAIL
Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity all predicted this would happen, well over a year ago. Yet, all the brilliant progressives (Maddow, Maher, et. al) laughed at that happening.
Imagine that.
It means they're going full bore to blast Israel to bits, with us next in line. That could also mean, once stuff starts jumping off, a SPIKE in gas prices. Not to mention, murdering of Coptic Christians, women, and, darn near anyone else who doesn't feel like bowing before Allah.
Hey idiot - I know being a liberal nut means you are generally stupid and incompetent to begin with, but have you not been paying attention to anything at all?
Coptics have been getting killed and christian churches burned down already since Mubarak was forced down by Imam Obama. Egypt has already been used as a staging area for rockets into Israel recently.
You fuckin moron. That shit all of the sudden started happening when Mumbarak was ousted by (um.. THE PEOPLE OF EGYPT)? You really think that? Whit was going great and Obama just decided to say that Mumbarak had to go because he felt like it... GET YOUR FUCKING RETARDED INBREAD RACIST ILLOGICAL HEAD OUR OF YOUR FLABBY FAT ASS. Jesus H Christ. Your blind hate for Obama Just defies all logic and reason. If youre going to have a beef.. atleast make it legitimate. You just go flat out stupid when this guy is mentioned. Dude....he has enough fuck ups that i dont like, but what i refuse to do is start making shit up like you pathetic ass. You are one weak punk ass bitch
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/opinion/is-obama-setting-or-following-the-course.html?_r=1
Even the NYT is not buying the false premise of this thread.
So... whats going to happen now.. Predict this one.. Muslim Brotherhood is going to do what?
You stupid ass bitch
Your entire premise is wrong. I can't really it make any simpler for your to understand.
Regarding the items I listed, which are all factual, it doesn't really matter whether the president has direct control or a direct impact on all of them. What matters is the country's performance as a whole (just like the performance of a business as a whole) is primarily how you judge a leader. It's not amount of legislation proposed and passed.
This is true of leadership in general, whether you're talking about business, politics, or even sports. The buck stops at the top.
In addition to the other items I mentioned, job approval ratings give you a sense of whether the public believes the administration has been successful. The president's approval ratings stink.
This was the end of the thread.
Syntax got his grill bitchslapped.
NEXT!!!
quite the opposite
what's the point of continuing to beat an opponent that is unconscious
he just realized it's futile to have a conversation with the likes of Bum, 333 and a few others on this board for whom actual facts and objectively verifiable statements are irrelevent
Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity the three stooges. Mcway you need to stop sucking up to people, and if you have to please pick someone who is worth sucking up to not these 3 retards
Not only are you stupid you are also a frightened little pussy
1. Has obama swayed the american electorate to the progressive viewpoint? No.
2. Has obama helped or hurt the democrat party electorally? Hurt
3. Has obama passed bi-partisan bills that most of the electorate wants or likes? No, despite the fact that LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, GWB did.
4. Has obama improved or worsed our foreign policy? Ask Russia or China about that one
5. If ObamaCare goes down, what will obama's legacy be?
6. Has obama inspired confidence in the economy for growth or expansion? no.
7. Has obama been faithful to the USC overall? No
8. Has obama been true to his promises of bringing people together and having a transparent admn? No
9. Has obama addressed the most serious issues of the day? Simpson Bowles anyone?
10. If obama is so effective, why his is blaming everyone for everything as opposed to running on his record?
11. If Obama is so effective, why are increasin numbers of democrats running away from him?
12. If Obama is so successfull, why have 3 million democrats left the part since he was elected?
13. What specific criteria are we looking at? By most measures everything is worse than when he came in by his own measure 3 years ago.
LMFAO! What facts did he present? He gave a few opinions on obamaCare - which sucks and is ready to be tossed, Dodd Frank - which has the TBTF banks even bigger than ever, and blaming everyone else for the state of the economy. He said Obama has improved opinion of America, yet I presented numerous stories of how said "popularity" does not translate into actual policies or advancement of the cause and interest of the US.
You call that bitch slapping?
Fucking please.
Go Answer the 13 points I made and get back to me.
you live in a virtual dream world and get bitch slapped so often by everyone on this board that you don't even notice it anymore
REALITY bitch slaps you every day when you wake up
http://news.investors.com/article/616219/201206261851/schaeuble-tells-obama-to-pay-debts-before-lecturing-europe.htmYou really should get to sleep.
Yeah, Obama has really swayed others to his side. ::)
Israel would annihilate Egypt pretty easily.
Israel is not a nation to be taken lightly, they're angry, well armed, and not afraid of taking the gloves off.
Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity the three stooges. Mcway you need to stop sucking up to people, and if you have to please pick someone who is worth sucking up to not these 3 retards
War on Terror
Most delusional incompetent leftists like madcow, mahr, obama, et al never thought it was going to happen.
Funny too since a few of us here called it exactly to the tee.
That is certainly sad - and hopefully we can avoid the further destruction of the shared history of our species - but it's hardly something confined to Muslims. History is replete with instances of such destruction - from Caesar who caused the destruction of vast numbers of scrolls from the Library of Alexandria, to Christians who destroyed the Serapeum during riots and other priceless ancient Greek writings and artifacts, to the Taliban who destroyed Buddhist mountain carvings.
This was the end of the thread.
Syntax got his grill bitchslapped.
NEXT!!!
You do know that these "news" stories you post are all from people with a political agenda right? And when you only read these sources it paints a onesided picture? If i post a thread from a liberal blogger who claims repub are demons possessed if lib had the same brain-functions as you they would be running the streets with silver and holy water.
You have actually censored yorself and that prevents you from learning something new. Sad to see a human being end this way
Did you read the quote from Geithner? Yes or no?
Oh yes:
In his new book, The Escape Artists: How Obama’s Team Fumbled the Recovery, New Republic writer Noam Scheiber shows that fatal errors were made even before Obama took office. In a conference call with advisers in December 2008, Tim Geithner, Obama’s designated choice for treasury secretary, warned Obama to focus on the economy. The financial crisis had created conditions that would constrain the president and delay action on some parts of the platform Obama had touted during the campaign. “Your signature accomplishment is going to be preventing a Great Depression,” Geithner said. Obama wasn’t happy. He shot back, “That’s not enough for me.” Geithner persisted, saying, “If you don’t do that, nothing else is possible.” Obama wouldn’t accept that: “Yeah, but that’s not enough.” Obama’s ideology and desire to be a transformative president along the lines of an FDR or an LBJ would trump the reality of the facts on the ground.
and you call yourself a lawyer LO -fucking-L
Didnt they teach you to be critical of your sources in law school?
Hey idiot - that quote has been sourced by many people. Its also in Ron Suskind's brutal takedown of obamas failed presidency "Confidence Men".
Wow, that's definately a tidle wave of a post.
Hey idiot - that quote has been sourced by many people. Its also in Ron Suskind's brutal takedown of obamas failed presidency "Confidence Men".
Wow, that's definately a tidle wave of a post.
Oh yes:
In his new book, The Escape Artists: How Obama’s Team Fumbled the Recovery, New Republic writer Noam Scheiber shows that fatal errors were made even before Obama took office. In a conference call with advisers in December 2008, Tim Geithner, Obama’s designated choice for treasury secretary, warned Obama to focus on the economy. The financial crisis had created conditions that would constrain the president and delay action on some parts of the platform Obama had touted during the campaign. “Your signature accomplishment is going to be preventing a Great Depression,” Geithner said. Obama wasn’t happy. He shot back, “That’s not enough for me.” Geithner persisted, saying, “If you don’t do that, nothing else is possible.” Obama wouldn’t accept that: “Yeah, but that’s not enough.” Obama’s ideology and desire to be a transformative president along the lines of an FDR or an LBJ would trump the reality of the facts on the ground.
and you call yourself a lawyer LO -fucking-L
Didnt they teach you to be critical of your sources in law school?
Ware did you go to low skoole?
been sayin this for atleast 3 years now
been sayin this for atleast 3 years now
Who cares where the info comes from if it is what happened as a matter of fact?
That quote from Obama has been reported many times that he wanted to put his agenda over the need to fix the economy.
Who cares where the info comes from if it is what happened as a matter of fact?
That quote from Obama has been reported many times that he wanted to put his agenda over the need to fix the economy.
Omg... you fuckin idiot.. You failed to research the $200mil/day source, and look at what happened.
Here is the only source you piece of shit Obama voters need to prove he is a failure and liar.Post some more, you're changing the course of history from your mom's basement!
Fail and Fail
Apparently they dont learn research from the Law school were he graduated. Go figure ::)
Look, guys. He's a lawyer.
It's just that in law school, you don't use the word 'definately', so it never came up.
been sayin this for atleast 3 years now
It doesn't change history, but shows the premise of this thread is wrong and anyone who believes Obama is a success is a sad, stupid person. It's fun to prove you idiots wrong.
.
Hahahahahaha the obama losers hate when 33333 exposes the fa.ggot in chief.You sure are intelligent.
Barrack hussein obama performed felatio on larry sinclair. 8)
You sure are intelligent.
yes...a scholar....bar none ::)
Hahahahahaha the obama losers hate when 33333 exposes the fa.ggot in chief.
Barrack hussein obama performed felatio on larry sinclair. 8)
You are pathetic
Why?
You are pathetic
Who helped to fund obama while at harvard? Any of you fucktard obamabots know? Any of you even care?Fellatio?..never heard that one
Calm down tinytits. Why is it a mark of a low iq to mention that barack hussein obama performed felatio on larry sinclair in the back of a limo and he also was an admitted cocaine user and marijuana smoker.
Bump for andre.
the IQ on some of these so-called conservatives is amazing :-X
MehDid you graduate from high school?
Read this and get angry.barack hussein obama let larry sinclair suck his dick while the kenyan loser smoked crack.
Trash pile.
Did you graduate from high school?
WOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Lulz.
Sorry to burst everyone's bubbles around here, but by objective standards Obama has been a successful POTUS and a far more competent one than his predecessor. The primary such standard is the amount of legislation proposed/passed/implemented, a value that makes Obama far above average.
His foreign policy has been a success: his election instantly boosted world public opinion, which matters to the extent that it feeds into our soft power, or ability to influence others. His emphasis on multilateralism is sound and the operation in Libya to secure those oil resources for the world (no, democracy was not and almost never is the primary goal) was a stellar success that cost zero American lives and a mere $2 billion (we each payed a little over $6 for it). On the other hand his administration's emphasis on drone strikes and covert operations has won the war on terror: Al Qaeda has been genuinely ravaged and barely functions as an organization. Such operations included the personally-authorized killing of OBL, an important symbolic victory.
Things are more complex at home. Banking regulation was passed, which includes the Volcker Rule banning proprietary trading and other measures that are seemingly necessary to prevent another bailout, but nobody knows just how much regulation is optimal. Obama also stepped up and addressed the issue predecessors pussied out on, healthcare. The resultant legislation was a centrist plan (anyone who calls it 'socialist' has never been to Europe or examined their public policy) based on a conservative policy proposal that originated with the Heritage Foundation (a mandate to tackle the free riders that increase costs). That it may get struck down does not reflect on Obama as he has no control over SC deliberations to begin with. He can only be evaluated for his specific actions.
Finally, we come to the economy, which is what actually dtermines elections anyway. There is an extraordinary amount of confusion about this as certain posters think we live in a system where the POTUS wields magical powers that determine the course of the economy. The misunderstanding is reinforced by presidents who take credit for growth and pundits who blame/credit everything happening to a president. The fact is this: we live in a capitalist where private actors control productivity. Corporations invest and hire/fire according to their plans, households only spend according to their perceptions of wealth, and banks lend in response to demand. Presidents do not control any of these variables, and can at best moderately nudge them in one or another direction.
Even considering this, CBO estimates put the number of jobs saved by the stimulus in the hundreds of thousands. The subsequent recovery has been tepid and has disappointed Obama and everybody else. But the point is, if the economic variables are all controlled by exogenous factors outside the WH, how can we lump all of the blame against Obama all the same? There is no evidence at all that a Republican president would have done anything differently, especially not since the stimuls contains much Friedman-esque monetary policy as is (the continued actions of the Fed belie the notion that the stimulus has been purely Keynesian).
In short, Obama has been an above-average president and performed admirably given the inherent limitations on the office (the position just isn't as powerful as many make it out to be) and the simply unprecedented circumstances inherited. People focus on the POTUS as a convenient symbol for everything the USG is doing and everything happening in the economy; the position is a convenient beacon for love and hate with a human face, when the real causality is mostly reserved for faceless machines comprised of the decisions of millions of individual actors (the USG + markets). People ought to understand as such when evaluating a US president.
LOL - re-read what you wrote chief.
His foreign policy has been a success: his election instantly boosted world public opinion, which matters to the extent that it feeds into our soft power, or ability to influence others. His emphasis on multilateralism is sound and the operation in Libya to secure those oil resources for the world (no, democracy was not and almost never is the primary goal) was a stellar success that cost zero American lives and a mere $2 billion (we each payed a little over $6 for it). On the other hand his administration's emphasis on drone strikes and covert operations has won the war on terror: Al Qaeda has been genuinely ravaged and barely functions as an organization. Such operations included the personally-authorized killing of OBL, an important symbolic victory.
::)