Obama has been a successful POTUS

[garebear]

Break you off a piece, son.

You're so tough.

[Soul Crusher]

Break you off a piece, son.

You're so tough.

]

Good, spend a few nights in the tombs on an assault and battery charge.  I'm sure that will go over well w the Chinks.   

[syntaxmachine]

Totally disagree.

Is your post meant to be a purposely contrarian one?

Well it certainly is contrarian given the audience. That is not my primary intention, however. Really, I think the post speaks for itself.

[Soul Crusher]

Well it certainly is contrarian the audience. That is not my primary intention, however. Really, I think the post speaks for itself.

no it doesnt - i already offered a brief takedown of two sentences that are provably false. 

[syntaxmachine]

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.

Please indicate where I say anything to the effect that 'it is all Bush's fault.' The bit about world public opinion is demonstrable fact (via polling), while the bit about 'circumstances inherited' refers to the economy, which I acknowledge did not melt down because of Bush.

As I also indicated, presidents do not control economic variables. So, Clinton was wrong to take claim credit for growth, and it is wrong to blame Obama for today's sluggish economy. Haven't you ever taken anything in economics? The state doesn't control the economy in capitalist systems. HTH

Finally, public approval does not make a president good. I hope it's clear that a really popular president might be crap or mediocre -- Clinton -- and a really good one might be unpopular. So, your reference to approval ratings just isn't relevant here.

[avxo]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.

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. 

[syntaxmachine]

Foreign policy is in shambles and the world does not look better upon us.

 

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=

"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."

[Soul Crusher]

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 

[syntaxmachine]

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.  

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"

[Soul Crusher]

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=

"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."

Alot has changed since 2012 and Europe is increasingly looking unfavorably upon Obama.   Did you mis the story last week where the finance ministers were all telling Obama STFU on the blaming Europe for the economies' woes? 

[syntaxmachine]

Worst "recovery" since the great depression.   


You = FAIL 

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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"

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? 

[Soul Crusher]

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.

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. 

[avxo]

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. 

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.

[syntaxmachine]

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.  



 

Just to clarify, I don't even think Obamacare was a good idea. But we're talking about successful presidential performance, whether the particular successes are one we agree about or not. The fact is that Obamacare was a massive success in this sense, successfully tackling an issue (indeed, it wasn't bipartisan. Since when is all successful politicking bipartisan?) presidents were scared to handle for decades. It's ultimate fate, I think, is not in the president's hands.

Finally, regardless of when the Heritage Proposal was espoused, it is a plan focused on personal responsibility, i.e., getting people to get on their own insurance and stop costing everybody else money. It's this proposal that ended up at the core of Obamacare, regardless of its genesis.

[Soul Crusher]

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.

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"?

[avxo]

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 didn't pass Dodd-Frank because the President doesn't get a vote in Congress. The members of the House and the Senate passed Dodd-Frank. Obama signed the bill, but let's be realistic - the President's signature on a bill is a mere formality. Unless a President chooses to veto a bill, withholding his signature has no effect and the bill will become law soon thereafter (unless it's towards the end of the session of Congress, turning the withholding into a pocket veto).

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.

I don't disagree with that, but again, laying the blame on one person is unrealistic. Obama (and Bush before him) and the Congress all royally fucked up and are all to blame for the mess we're in.

[avxo]

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.

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.

Remember what he said about the debt celieng crisis of 2006 as being a "Leadership Failure"?

Not specifically, but it sounds like politics as usual to me.

[Soul Crusher]

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:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006


http://geekpolitics.com/obama-on-raising-the-debt-ceiling

[avxo]

This is from a speech Obama made in 2006:
(speech snipped)

Right and? I'm afraid I don't see how this applies to the discussion at hand?

As a sidenote, there's nothing in that snipped that I disagree with; and I don't often agree with Obama. I'm curious, what's our take on this particular snippet 33?

[syntaxmachine]

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 

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.

[syntaxmachine]

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?  

I don't know what the future holds for Egypt and neither do you. A more democratic regime with an Islamic tinge (ala Indonesia) may be 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.'

[Soul Crusher]

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.

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.   

[Soul Crusher]

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.'

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