Obama has been a successful POTUS

[Soul Crusher]

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.

No, I am pointing out specific areas where obama has gotten involved and things have gotten worse.   

[Coach is Back!]

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.

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.  

[syntaxmachine]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.

Its a meaningless poll since obviously it has not translated into anything meaningful.  Ok he is more popular, but where has said popluarity resulted in something positive?   

[syntaxmachine]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.

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. 

The only time Obama was ever able to get anything done was when he had overwhelming majorities in both houses, something no other president has had in decades, and he squandered it on health care, cap n trade, etc, resultintg in his parties loss of more power and seats than any party in 70 years. 

If you want to call that as having a successful presidency, fine, but you are still being ridiculous at the same time. 

Just remember this ad Reagan ran in 1984.  If Obama tried to run it - what do you think the reaction would be? 

   

[syntaxmachine]

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.

[avxo]

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.  

I'M CONVINCED! WHATEVER YOU'RE SELLING, I'LL BUY TEN!

[Straw Man]

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.

great thread and posts

this one made me laugh out loud

[syntaxmachine]

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.

False. The majority of expert opinion points towards a lack of demand as the causal variable most responsible for relatively stagnant lending and hiring, not uncertainty over governmental policy. Here is a WSJ poll of dozens of economists on the issue:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/economy/wsj-survey-lack-of-demand-not-uncertainty-keeps-hiring-down-20110718 (the original article is behind a paywall).

[syntaxmachine]

The the MB rejects the camp david accords w Israel - would you then say we helped set in motion a major failure of policy?

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.

[syntaxmachine]

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.  

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, performance is not essentially "popularity." Popularity can effect POTUS performance but is not equivalent to it. Thus, there can be unpopular yet effective presidents and popular, ineffective presidents. Therefore, none of these numbers is particularly relevant to the discussion.

Just remember this ad Reagan ran in 1984.  If Obama tried to run it - what do you think the reaction would be?  

 

That ad would not be effective at all. In many cases, Americans are not better off than they were four years ago (though, there is an economic recovery in progress, albeit a tepid one). Again, this boils down to my argument that presidents do not have magical powers that subsequently make everyone better or worse depending upon how they wield them. All the same, I indicated that Obama has been an effective president by the majority of objective criteria, even if one disagrees with the particular policies implemented, and indicated that I think he has at times evinced a failure of leadership (I'm not an Obama schill). Your presenting this ad does not touch any of these fundamental points.

[MCWAY]

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.

Obama and the Dems controlled Congress for two years. He did NOTHING to rectify the situation.

That's just one of the things about which Romney's been hammering Obama, that all of these important issues that have needed addressing for years; yet Obama only finds time for it, when HIS job is on the line. He thinks he can make up in four months what he's failed to do in three and a half years.

[Soul Crusher]

 . 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? 

[Straw Man]

. 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

[MCWAY]

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

And how much compromising did Obama do, when the Dems had both houses of Congress, again?

[syntaxmachine]

. 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? 

Because the definition of 'effective' in use is a relative one. That is to say, it is relative to the performance of the other presidents. If you are using an absolute definition which specifies what a truly awesome president would do, then there hasn't be an effective president in a long time (if ever). Part of the problem is the unrealistic expectations of voters, plus the propensity of presidential candidates to make ridiculous promises. My definition takes this into account and focuses on more realistic criteria - the pursuit of a reasonable foreign policy that selectively promotes American interests plus the proposal / passage / implementation of policy meant to address significant domestic issues. The fact that not every policy works out isn't proof that a president isn't effective.

[Soul Crusher]

    lots of words and nothing specific. 

[blacken700]

he speaks like a lawyer and you speak like someone who spends way to much time on getbig

[Straw Man]

And how much compromising did Obama do, when the Dems had both houses of Congress, again?

You mean for approximately 8 weeks before Ted Kennedy got sick
To my recollection he was trying to compromise from the beginning
This was one of the early criticisms from his own party
Remember?

[Soul Crusher]

 


He is using vague criteria while not addressing speific items obama has done that counter is arguments.

he speaks like a lawyer and you speak like someone who spends way to much time on getbig

[syntaxmachine]

   lots of words and nothing specific. 

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.

[Straw Man]

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.

Try taking off the partisan goggles for a moment and think
No POTUS is going to pass legislation that doesn't fit his and his party's objectives which is why you could argue that Bush was a successful president even though almost everything he did harmed the country.  

Regarding your assesment of the economy you might remember (though I doubt it) that when Obama took office the counntry was in the middle of hemoraging jobs at a pace not seen before or since and we were in the dealing with a global banking crisis unlke anything we had seen in eighty years (or perhaps ever).  Objectively the current economy is in fact doing much better though certainly not robust or fully recovered.     Unemployment is better than when he took office, home prices have become stable in many markets and are rising in quite a few (such as where I live).    The cost of gas is a global coomodity and goes up and down (currently going down).    I could go on for paragraghs but it almost certainly wasted on you.   The final note would be that corporate profits have FULLY recovered and are better than ever and that's the real Repub agenda so there is no denying that is a success story

[Soul Crusher]

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.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/201262412445190400.html


MB just won.