|
On October 10 2010 08:44 Elegy wrote:
The expectations that went into the Obama presidency were (and still are to some extent) simply ridiculous.
I like that perspective. And I am not claiming to be a know it all, but rather I want to ask what the expectations of Bush were when he first got elected and what promises he made (a first glance googling fails me, giving me political trash talk that is not historical but current).
|
On October 10 2010 08:42 CaucasianAsian wrote:
All he has done is spend gross amounts of money pretending to save our economy and then waste all of our time on other issues as the post-crisis recession has lingered on without any responsible response from government. I think "epic fail" is about right.
One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America
But what i hate most, is that people blame him for the countries economic situation. it wasn't bush's fault. it wasn't obamas fault. it was the investment bankers, and those that give out loans. we brought on this situation on ourselves. the president can only do so much given the way america is heading.
I just find it funny that people blame him for everything from taxes to less money. The fact that 55,000 jobs at $245,000 /year have been created thanks to obama is a victory in itself.
Obama isn't a bad president, he just came at the wrong time.
I don't think you can call Obama's presidency "epic fail" in terms of post-crisis economic management. What do you think he can do? He already tried a stop-gap stimulus bill, which was crucial during the crisis situation, and he's been railed horribly in the media and in polls for it. Could you imagine what the political reaction would be if he tried to create a long-term initiative for government spending to boost job production?
I just don't get it. There are a scant number of tools with which the Presidency can affect the economy on a macro-scale. You can't expect some type of initiative that will pull us out of 17% underemployment/unemployment in two years, without rapidly increasing the deficit. On one hand, people want to villify Obama for spending, on the other, they don't realize that by telling a President to spend no money, they're effectively taking away all the tools he has to effect change. Even if he was the Wayne Gretzky of economics, you can't tell him to go out there and win the game, then take his skates and hockey stick away.
Also, while some might not understand the connection between the Healthcare bill and economics, as the son of business owners, I can tell you that is a HUGE deal to small business. If only they had managed to pass an actual government provider of health care, you know how ridiculous that would have been? Tons of employees work jobs for the benefits. If we could offer health insurance to them at lower rates, that'd allow us to hire maybe 10% more workers. With that increase, we might even be able to expand because people aren't being overworked.
Too bad it was a total failure. Again, not Obama's fault. His own party turned on him. The American public was massively retarded and believed Republican lies about Democratic death squads killing grandma. Then again, perhaps it is Obama's fault because he allowed the Republicans to torpedo his initiative and let the law turn into this bloated pork belly mess. But, I find it hard to blame Obama. He can't control the legislative branch. That's what the separation of powers is all about. The ones who should be blamed for the disaster that was the Healthcare bill is Congress. The Senate royally fucked everything with their corrupt process of garnering votes.
It also shows the weakness at the core of the Democratic party. Here is a party that basically consists of everyone NOT republican. You can't expect to do very well when all you stand for is not them. Which is sad as the former Republican party, which had solidarity and a tangible set of ideals, has since been reduced to Tea Partyists, and other riff-raff who are turning into basically anti-Democrats, or the party of NOT Democrat. Basically, US politics is getting worse and worse.
I think it'll take huge reforms within both political parties, or maybe just toss both of them and replace them with two more contemporary and suitable major parties, based on actual comprehensible ideals, and then actually have some sort of consensus and cooperation in government. At this point, it's become a ridiculous feud as if the two parties were divorced parents fighting for custody of a child, and neither one actually gives two shits about the child.
|
He could be a lot better. There's been a lot worse. I'm still hoping for a viable 3rd party, because I'm simply not crazy enough to vote Republican in order to "teach the dems a lesson."
Anyone wanna start one up?
|
Our government bodies are too divided to make any real progress in areas remotely controversial. When something goes wrong we blame the other side instead of trying to fix it. I doubt our politics will solve anything over the next 8 or 12 years.
|
On October 10 2010 08:09 orgolove wrote:
He's fine. Certainly much better than Bush. And he has probably achieved more legislative breakthroughs than almost any other president in the history of US.
FDR probably led a more legislative breakthroughs. i haven't really studied much us history but FDR opened up a lot of new government sectors.
|
You can't stimulate an economy by taking money from some people and giving it to others, not even if they are doing things we wouldn't normally pay people to do in a free market.
Nor can health care costs be controlled by bringing them under the efficiency of government, because almost any business operates tighter then the government does. Never does a business say "if we don't use all the money, they will cut our budget".
Obama is a horrible president, he will not keep the Bush tax cuts. He talked cap and trade when the economy was already uncertain. He also is spending billions upon billions of dollars that the government doesn't have to keep public sector union jobs in place. Even with all the extra spending, the latest unemployment numbers put government job losses way above the private sector.
But hey, I'm with the crowd that says Obama is TRYING to destroy the country, not trying to do any good what so ever. About the only positive thing you can say, is if you are a public sector union employee, he is probably looking out for you.
|
Is Obama a good President... good question. I'll leave you with a statement.
No country can achieve a government that surpasses the intelligence of the people.
You can quote me on that..
|
He's still alive, that's quite an accomplishment, if you were in his shoes.
|
He was voted in to change things but that doesn't mean every change will please everyone.
I think Obama knows this but given his position and the things he can do, he is just battling to roll out the things that he can do and probably have to fight teeth and nails for each one.
You all can bitch as much as you want but at the end of the day, it is what it is.
|
You people expect too much, nobody can change the way things have been going for decades/centurys in just 2 years. Still what he got done is impresive considering the amount of shit thrown at him. He was hyped more that the Dark Knight and it was obvious to any halfwway smart person that exactly this would happen, people are just way to impatient.
|
On October 10 2010 09:05 mardi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 08:09 orgolove wrote:
He's fine. Certainly much better than Bush. And he has probably achieved more legislative breakthroughs than almost any other president in the history of US. FDR probably led a more legislative breakthroughs. i haven't really studied much us history but FDR opened up a lot of new government sectors.
FDR had a lot of stuff to build at the time. Stuff like the CCC could only be created and implemented because there were no major government-supported community infrastructure programs at the time, whereas we live today after having all what they have done in place. How do you urbanize the already very urbanized?
He also had an extremely helpful congress at the time, because EVERYBODY knew that they were fucked if they didn't do something quick, and political parties mattered far less (they still did have a majority but even the republicans voted for their agenda a bit). There were only a couple of bills that didn't pass in the first new deal afaik. And tbh the main reason for America's economic rebound was the start of WWII and the sudden availability of many jobs to many people (arms manufacturing etc.) instead of FDR's new deal bills.
People seem to criticize Obama, thinking shit like "why doesn't he make another CCC so i can have a job etc." but not only is there far less to do in today's sprawling suburbs but the political parties right now are also preventing him from getting any major bills out right now. Political agendas are still very much more powerful than economic recovery in the current political atmosphere.
|
For the situation he was put in, I'd say he's doing a fine job. If anything I'd call myself a Republican, and although I feel Obama was very overhyped when he was running for the presidency he's been doing a good job at keeping America from going into another depression. All in all I can't criticize him, but I don't agree with everything he's been doing so I can't praise him either.
|
On October 10 2010 08:58 StorkHwaiting wrote:Too bad it was a total failure. Again, not Obama's fault. His own party turned on him. The American public was massively retarded and believed Republican lies about Democratic death squads killing grandma. Then again, perhaps it is Obama's fault because he allowed the Republicans to torpedo his initiative and let the law turn into this bloated pork belly mess. But, I find it hard to blame Obama. He can't control the legislative branch. That's what the separation of powers is all about. The ones who should be blamed for the disaster that was the Healthcare bill is Congress. The Senate royally fucked everything with their corrupt process of garnering votes.
Of course it's Obama's fault. It's his job as a politician to sell his proposals to the public and stop his allies from watering them down. I thought it was one area where his lack of experience really showed. He got outplayed by people who knew the game better than him.
|
People who are disgruntled with Obama severely overestimate the power of the presidency in the American government system. A president is more or less a figurehead, and voters usually elect him or her based on his or her personality and ideals. It's not like presidents can do whatever they want. They can't even make laws.
|
He's done a lot of good things, but not nearly enough. I was glad that he vetoed auto-notarization of foreclosures, which helped to halt foreclosure fraud.
You aren't seeing more out of him due to constant Republican filibustering and "moderate" Democrats that are triangulating because of the midterm elections. The supposed supermajority really isn't when enough of your own party switches sides in every legislative vote.
|
On October 10 2010 08:10 eLiE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 08:04 naonao wrote:
I'm not sure if it was Obama specifically but recently a bill was passed so TV commercials can no longer be louder than TV shows, which is A+. i was jealous when i heard about that. i hope theres a law passed in canada, cause it gets ridiculous sometimes. EDIT: and people are prob mad because: 1) FAUX NEWS likes spreading misinformation 2) Change doesn't happen overnight (especially when half of America is automatically against everything you stand for) 3)RE-EDIT Oh and he had to fix the damage caused by past administrations.... But cmon, he's trying to fighting an uphill battle against every needs change. Healthcare is a wonderful example of a really good policy that got battered and battered until it was only a shadow of its former self. Even so, it's better than what was there before, but it could have been so much more. **and take what I say with a grain of salt, cause I don't follow American politics that closely, so I may be slightly off**
Crying about fox news the one flavor of shit you don't enjoy? they're all shit.
On October 10 2010 08:28 dcberkeley wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 08:21 Hikko wrote:On October 10 2010 08:02 Kezzer wrote:
But, when I ask them if they really know anything bout his policies or what hes done, they give me blank faces. I also really don't know what he's done.
Call me ignorant and unlearned, but how is not settling the war and getting the economy back in shape not failure of policy, even if many things aren't his fault? Not to support Bush, but a lot of things that he failed at just weren't directly his fault either. Still, though, we associate things with our president because the executive really does have THAT much power and influence. From what I have seen, the Health Care bill has done absolutely nothing. He's wrecking the future of the Space program by driving it in a completely different direction. The bailout for the big corporations would have been better spent by just giving every American a share of that money. I am glad that he played along with the damage control for the oil spill, though. Obama was the better option than any chance of Palin being second-in-line for President, but I feel like McCain would have been more effective as President. Just a thought concerning the bill, don't you have to wait to see what it does? I'm pretty sure the reforms don't happen immediately.
Who would enact 2000 page bill and then "wait and see" to find out what it does. How do you buy into that train of thought?
We just watched and sat through the government "punishing" the bankers they blame for the housing crash, by giving them billions and billions, in order to "add liquidity to the markets".
|
On October 10 2010 09:15 Williowa wrote:
1.You can't stimulate an economy by taking money from some people and giving it to others, not even if they are doing things we wouldn't normally pay people to do in a free market.
2.Nor can health care costs be controlled by bringing them under the efficiency of government, because almost any business operates tighter then the government does. Never does a business say "if we don't use all the money, they will cut our budget".
3.Obama is a horrible president, he will not keep the Bush tax cuts. He talked cap and trade when the economy was already uncertain. He also is spending billions upon billions of dollars that the government doesn't have to keep public sector union jobs in place. Even with all the extra spending, the latest unemployment numbers put government job losses way above the private sector.
4.But hey, I'm with the crowd that says Obama is TRYING to destroy the country, not trying to do any good what so ever. About the only positive thing you can say, is if you are a public sector union employee, he is probably looking out for you.
my translation:
1. fuck that foo be taking my money cause im rich and giving it to the poor! massive hate >
2. profit-oriented businesses are clearly more beneficial for the general public because they don't say "if we don't use all the money, they will cut our budget" instead they say "we need more money because they won't cut our budget"
3. fuck dat ho be making me more taxed!!11! he spending money to keep more public sector union jobs! when it could instead not be taxed from me!!!!11! what a ho
4. OBAMA IS EVIL GONNA GIVE THE COUNTRY TO THE ISLAMIC ARMY BECAUSE HE MUSLIM!!1! (but for some reason he lieks taking care of public sector union who are trying to raise standards of living for some of the most underpaid workerz like teachers o.O wut a fag) BETTER JOIN THE OHIO DEFENSE FORCE
+ Show Spoiler +okay this is too harsh but still you remind me too much of my super right wing rich friend X_x
|
He has a tough job of cleaning up our last president's mess and yet people expect him to offer instant change. He can't undo 8 years of damage that quickly.
|
On October 10 2010 08:10 eLiE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 08:04 naonao wrote:
I'm not sure if it was Obama specifically but recently a bill was passed so TV commercials can no longer be louder than TV shows, which is A+. i was jealous when i heard about that. i hope theres a law passed in canada, cause it gets ridiculous sometimes. EDIT: and people are prob mad because: 1) FAUX NEWS likes spreading misinformation 2) Change doesn't happen overnight (especially when half of America is automatically against everything you stand for) 3)RE-EDIT Oh and he had to fix the damage caused by past administrations.... But cmon, he's trying to fighting an uphill battle against every needs change. Healthcare is a wonderful example of a really good policy that got battered and battered until it was only a shadow of its former self. Even so, it's better than what was there before, but it could have been so much more. **and take what I say with a grain of salt, cause I don't follow American politics that closely, so I may be slightly off**
well im an American and althoguh i dont follow politics the healthcare plan was a form of socialism but when it was battered down it became a lesser version of socialism that might not be called socialism but it still has some of it (basically why it was is that once you switched to national healthcare plan you couldn't get out of it so you would have problems getting a doctor ect ect) the main reason i dont agree with this is that doctors are already having problems running their hospitals and if national healthcare went abroad the doctors wouldn't get paid as much and would have to work the same amount = not good for doctors since with that there it would mean less people want to be doctors
|
On October 10 2010 09:15 Williowa wrote:
You can't stimulate an economy by taking money from some people and giving it to others, not even if they are doing things we wouldn't normally pay people to do in a free market.
Nor can health care costs be controlled by bringing them under the efficiency of government, because almost any business operates tighter then the government does. Never does a business say "if we don't use all the money, they will cut our budget".
Obama is a horrible president, he will not keep the Bush tax cuts. He talked cap and trade when the economy was already uncertain. He also is spending billions upon billions of dollars that the government doesn't have to keep public sector union jobs in place. Even with all the extra spending, the latest unemployment numbers put government job losses way above the private sector.
But hey, I'm with the crowd that says Obama is TRYING to destroy the country, not trying to do any good what so ever. About the only positive thing you can say, is if you are a public sector union employee, he is probably looking out for you.
Your first point is wrong because the government has the ability to print money, which means they're not taking it from any particular group. Rather, they're taking a small percentage from all US currency holders (of which China is the largest, not the US citizens).
Your second point is an opinion.
You follow this with more opinions.
Then you erroneously state that Obama is responsible for gov't job losses, when in fact many of the losses have been at the local and state level, which the federal gov't has zero authority over. His only influence on those levels of government is by giving them more money, which he has not been able to do based on voter sentiments and political interests. Which leads back to the first point you incorrectly identified.
And the government has an infinite amount of dollars. They run the Federal Reserve. I'm not sure what you mean by "they don't have" them. Dollars are IOU's from the gov't so I'm pretty sure they can always write more of them.
It's always interesting to see what drivel Obama-haters come up with. You can claim he's not doing the best job, and offer ways for him to improve, but this type of hate is always bred by the parents ignorance and stupidity. Sorry if that's insulting, but you are doing a disservice to the community by spreading lies and falsehood, which personally affects my life. You should stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
