« prev   random   next »

4
0

President Obama's report card: Solid "F"

By Strategist follow Strategist   2014 Jun 18, 3:00am 18,418 views   64 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2014/04/04/barack-obama-legacy/

As Barack Obama moves toward the end of his career, expect to hear lots of talk about his legacy. I believe the first African-American president will be remembered kindly by the academic establishment, writing from their ivory towers, because of the historic nature of his election. But for average Americans, itll be a different story. Most Americans judge a president based on what he promises versus what he delivers, and they judge him using the question Ronald Reagan asked voters in 1980: Are you better off today than you were four years ago? At this point in the Obama presidency,...

#politics

« First    « Previous    Comments 25 - 64 of 64    Last »

25   Analyzer   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 18, 9:52am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

Heraclitusstudent says

Obama is too kind. He doesn't have the badassness necessary for this job.

Yeah, he needs an edge...............

26   mell   ignore (6)   2014 Jun 18, 10:29am     ↓ dislike (3)   quote   flag      

CL says

That's why I'd give Obama a better than 50/50 on a hypothetical 3rd term. The public doesn't buy what the GOP is selling, and they can't resist the crappiest candidates and platforms.

Nobody said you have to buy what the GOP is selling, there's more than Republicrats and Demoplicans. In the grand scheme of things, they are one and the same - throw in some public theater on fringe issues, but when the US needs to go to yet another war or the bankstas need yet another Fed bailout they stand united.

27   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 18, 10:37am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

indigenous says

mell says

In the grand scheme of things, they are one and the same - throw in some public theater on fringe issues, but when the US needs to go to yet another war or the bankstas need yet another Fed bailout they stand united.

Spending is the only real issue and the only one neither party will bend on.

Not that this is newsworthy but it illustrates more of the same on and on, this time for opulent spending on the facilities to house Frank Dodd to the tune of 200 million spent autonomously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfRc8Sn5hiY&feature=youtu.be

28   mmmarvel   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 18, 10:47am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Strategist says

Jonathan Johnamp; NSA .............A He has done his best to keep us safe.

Obamacare .............? Too hard for me to decipher.

Golf skills ..............? Too hard to decipher

Reducing Crime .............. C Hasn't done much. Recession?

Reducing Welfare .............. C Hasn't done much. Recession?

No - let's really grade these areas:

National Security and NSA - C he's gotten lucky on National Security and NSA has WAY overstepped it's bounds WITH his approval.

Obamacare - F only because there isn't a lower grade. Lied about the cost, lied about keeping your own insurance. Quality is lower, more government regs ... a dismal failure.

Golf skills - C despite spending LOTS of time on the course, he's still not that good.

Reducing crime - F haven't seen anything that makes it look like crime has been reduced OR that he's had anything to do with it (beyond a beer summit).

Reducing welfare - F sort of depends on what you classify as welfare, LOTS more people getting government handouts of one type or another, the man is a walking disaster.

29   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 18, 10:55am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

mmmarvel says

Reducing welfare - F sort of depends on what you classify as welfare, LOTS more people getting government handouts of one type or another, the man is a walking disaster.

Where he really fails and is a liability to this country is with legislation that will do nothing but grow. Same as LBJ and FDR. The lefties think the ACA or Consumer Protection Act will not grow, but they are denying history.

30   Bellingham Bill   ignore (5)   2014 Jun 18, 11:34pm     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag      

Objectively, Obama hasn't been that good a president.

Reagan took a $600B government and nearly doubled it to $1.1T

W, same thing, $1.8T to $3.5T

On Obama's watch, gov't spending has only gone up 10%, to $3.9T.

Can't continue to have the greatest nation on the planet with such a paltry increase in its spending.

Having lost his Congressional supermajority after less than a year in office, and the House completely after 2 years -- and the Republican House one of the most comically hostile (to the Executive) bodies in all of history AFAIK -- Obama's been pretty much a "nothing burger" for the nation.

His greatest failure was not being the man we needed in 2009, after the Bush Economy went to complete shit on us.

He was a centrist, like Carter appointing Volcker in 1979, and his advisors did not (apparently) understand the severity of the bomb the previous administration's utter incompetence had set up for him, 2003-2008:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=DJW

shows credit was expanding at a sustained ~20% pa clip during this period, something not seen ever. Losing this money showering upon the entire economy was going to really hobble the 'recovery', but nobody apparently understood this simple dynamic.

Commander-in-Chief-wise, I don't see any intelligent criticism to make of his performance. He's appointed Republican DOD secretaries FFS, and followed a centrist line.

Like Nixon, he's had to extract the Army from a loser of a war. Two, actually.

The Dems have been lackluster for a very long time, but the GOP has been a total clownshow for even longer.

This is not a (D) vs (R) issue as much at is a left vs. right thing.

Conservatism -- anti-abortion, anti-evolution, anti-labor, pro-corporatism, anti-redistribution, pro-globalism, pro-guns, pro-war, pro-racism -- is destroying this country, and since conservatives have taken over the GOP, this cancer is a largely GOP thing now, though of course there are still a few conservative Dems rattling around.

31   dublin hillz   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 19, 3:13am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag      

It's amusing to hear those on the right acting like barack is the second coming of marx/lenin because when you listen to real "leftist" outlets like KPFA radio from their perspective Barack is the same old american imperialist war monger like all other presidents who also bows down to corporate interests.

32   HydroCabron   ignore (1)   2014 Jun 19, 3:15am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag      

It's also amusing to hear them pretend to think Bush was a disaster - not that they'll say it very often. They're too busy whining that liberals won't renounce Obama.

The next Republican president we get, there will be war. And every staunch conservative and pretend libertarian will support it wholeheartedly.

33   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 19, 3:24am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

HuggyBumbers McLovkins says

The next Republican president we get, there will be war.

Funny all but the Iraq/Afghanistan war were started by Democrats.

I think the stage is set for war above the presidents pay grade.

Partly by defense contractor lobbyists, but mostly by mercantilism. I would be leery of China leaning toward war.

34   Analyzer   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 19, 3:27am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

Bellingham Bill says

Objectively, Obama hasn't been that good a president.

Objectively is the problem.................I don't have any reason to lean toward one particular party. As was said above at the end of the day they are not that different and really don't care about you anyway.

35   BoomAndBustCycle   ignore (1)   2014 Jun 19, 3:34am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

On a purely economic standpoint... Obama should have an A+.

March 4th, 2009 - DOW 6000 ( 3rd month of Barack's presidency).
June 19th, 2014 - DOW 16871

Name another president who would have been deemed a failure when the stock market increased that much in 5 years!?

October 2009 - Unemployment rate was 10% (Barack caught a falling knife).
May 2014 - Unemployment rate is 6.3%

Name another president with unemployment rate that falls nearly a 1% a year, that would be deemed bad president?

******

Anyway... You can say all you want about the FED and inflation... But until the house of cards collapses... On paper.. Obama is an economic Houdini who deserves an A+ in that department.

36   BoomAndBustCycle   ignore (1)   2014 Jun 19, 3:43am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

komputodo says

They get upset if you disparage their team. Why bother. Your favorite team doesn't give a crap about you.

I always said politics was the same as rooting for your favorite sports team. Blind faith and allegiance isn't the way you should support a political party though.

But then again, while i played sports as a kid.. I never had a favorite sports team. I will admit, my college football team I felt some of that "US against THEM pride". But i didn't lose any sleep over them losing.

Maybe i don't have the same desire to BELONG to a group as some sports fans. I guess I can see the benefits of communal celebration and pride.

Similar to patriotism.... But people always take it to the extreme that I never could. Now when i GAMBLE on a team... and lose.. THAT can make me lose sleep... and money :)

37   Analyzer   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 19, 3:52am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Call it Crazy says

Yep, a real Houdini!!

Houdini was famous for smoke and mirrors, right?

38   Strategist   ignore (2)   2014 Jun 19, 3:57am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

komputodo says

hmm..Let me see..those that are doing well in this economy are going to give him a higher grade and those that aren't are going to give him a lower grade..I think that pretty much explains it.

There is also disappointment with any President when someone gets their high expectations not panning out. The perfect example is right here on these boards where many voters voted for Obama because of his opposition to the Patriot Act, Gitmo and American boots on foreign lands. After coming to power Obama realized his intentions are just not feasible, leaving a very disappointed voter in its wake.

39   Paralithodes   ignore (1)   2014 Jun 19, 4:28am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Bellingham Bill says

W, same thing, $1.8T to $3.5T

On Obama's watch, gov't spending has only gone up 10%, to $3.9T.

That's awesome... Include within government spending the allegedly one-time bailout/stimulus funds, as the baseline level for government spending left by Bush. Then despite years of continuing resolutions, essentially keeping high spending levels in place, give Obama credit for not increasing government spending that much despite having a nearly consistent $.5 Trillion or more per year above the last actual budget to spend.

Yep, that's "objective."

Of course, one can't claim Obama was responsible for the stimulus as a member of Congress because he simply didn't vote at all on it. Too bad Congress didn't double the one-time stimulus and then allow half of it to expire after one year. Then you could claim Obama cut government spending by XX%... "objectively" that is...

40   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 19, 4:31am     ↓ dislike (4)   quote   flag      

Arguing over Bush vs Obama is like arguing over who was worse FRD or LBJ IOW they both suck so bad that it is hardly worth trying to figure out which is worse.

41   Strategist   ignore (2)   2014 Jun 19, 4:59am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

The perfect example is right here on these boards where many voters voted for Obama because of his opposition to the Patriot Act, Gitmo and American boots on foreign lands. After coming to power Obama realized his intentions are just not feasible, leaving a very disappointed voter in its wake.

And STILL defend him even AFTER he failed to deliver on virtually every promise he made while campaigning..

That's a sign of a die hard party supporter. Works for repub too.
That's why I like being an independent. I can go by the issues and not by political affiliations.

42   CL   ignore (0)   2014 Jul 1, 2:53am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag      

Call it Crazy says

Because midterm elections are more a referendum on the White House occupant than anything else

Cook can be foolish sometimes. If Midterms are referendums on the White House occupant, then wouldn't it stand to reason that Americans NEVER approve of the resident in the Whitehouse--the one they just elected or re-elected?

If I recall, when Clinton and the Ds gained seats in 1998 it was the first time that had occurred since FDR. Of course, he was also the first Democrat re-elected since FDR too. We could just as easily posit that 2nd term midterms always go the opposite of the President's party, unless it's a Democrat.

The sun rising is a referendum on Obama.

43   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jul 1, 4:08am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Call it Crazy says

I think what they were getting at is that only the informed people or pissed off people are the ones who turn out for midterms... I suspect it's more the pissed off ones who are unhappy with the direction of the previous 2 years, which is why you get the change of parties...

The bulk of the voting "sheep" could care less for midterms, as long as they have the newest iThingy....

I went to school on that post

44   edvard2   ignore (1)   2014 Jul 1, 4:24am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag      

indigenous says

Reducing welfare - F sort of depends on what you classify as welfare, LOTS more people getting government handouts of one type or another, the man is a walking disaster.

I carefully explained this before. The growth in welfare recipients is primarily a cause and effect of an economy that shifted from solid, middle class jobs at factories and entry level white collar jobs to jobs at big box stores and fast food chains- the largest employers of Americans at this point. As seen these companies pay so little that a huge percentage of those workers are on welfare by necessity.

So ask yourselves: Which party has been against raising the minimum wage steadfast from day one? There you go... blame the President and "Lefties" all you want. The real reason is exactly as I mentioned above.

45   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jul 1, 5:31am     ↓ dislike (3)   quote   flag      

edvard2 says

I carefully explained this before.

No matter how carefully you explain it, does not make it correct. You mutts want a sound byte explanation, unfortunately there are a more moving parts than that.

It has to do with advances in technology, demographics, mercantilism, and most of all not allowing the market to clear. (this includes welfare at both ends of the spectrum)

46   Ceffer   ignore (6)   2014 Jul 1, 5:41am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Well, one thing you can safely say about Obama and his legacy, it's all his fault.

47   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jul 1, 6:00am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag      

Ceffer says

Well, one thing you can safely say about Obama and his legacy, it's all his fault.

That is not what Obama says?

48   anonymous   ignore (null)   2014 Jul 1, 6:25am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

edvard2 says

indigenous says

Reducing welfare - F sort of depends on what you classify as welfare, LOTS more people getting government handouts of one type or another, the man is a walking disaster.

I carefully explained this before. The growth in welfare recipients is primarily a cause and effect of an economy that shifted from solid, middle class jobs at factories and entry level white collar jobs to jobs at big box stores and fast food chains- the largest employers of Americans at this point. As seen these companies pay so little that a huge percentage of those workers are on welfare by necessity.

So ask yourselves: Which party has been against raising the minimum wage steadfast from day one? There you go... blame the President and "Lefties" all you want. The real reason is exactly as I mentioned above.

What's wrong with allowing costs of living, to realign with wages? Why are demsheep so hell bent on keeping everything so expensive? A simpler solution would be to allow housing costs to find their level, rather than subsidizing landlords and exhorbitant rents. Everyone knows that any raise in minimum wage will be instantly swallowed by rising rents

49   Strategist   ignore (2)   2014 Jul 9, 3:09am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

errc says

What's wrong with allowing costs of living, to realign with wages? Why are demsheep so hell bent on keeping everything so expensive? A simpler solution would be to allow housing costs to find their level, rather than subsidizing landlords and exhorbitant rents. Everyone knows that any raise in minimum wage will be instantly swallowed by rising rents

Nothing wrong, except It needs to be done at the individual level called "living within your means"
We need to realize money is limited, we can't have everything in life.

50   Strategist   ignore (2)   2014 Jul 9, 3:15am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

errc says

Why are demsheep so hell bent on keeping everything so expensive?

Who are "dem sheep" ???

51   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2014 Jul 9, 3:17am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Strategist says



We need to realize money is limited, we can't have everything in life.

... Says the guy who thinks his house value should go up 50% just because it's there.

52   edvard2   ignore (1)   2014 Jul 9, 3:25am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

indigenous says

No matter how carefully you explain it, does not make it correct. You mutts want a sound byte explanation, unfortunately there are a more moving parts than that.

It has to do with advances in technology, demographics, mercantilism, and most of all not allowing the market to clear. (this includes welfare at both ends of the spectrum)

I didn't even have to "carefully" explain it. Its super easy to see where that conclusion came from. So if you want to spend 2 seconds, look up what the largest employers in the country are. Then after that look at what those companies pay and how little they provide in profits and wages. Then look up the percentage of those employees on welfare. Great. Big. Duh.errc says

What's wrong with allowing costs of living, to realign with wages? Why are demsheep so hell bent on keeping everything so expensive

Why is the GOP and their eager and loyal subjects so hell-bent on racing to the bottom? Why is is that any and all suggestions made in which to perhaps improve the situation for the working, middle, and even the wealth classes are instantly berrated by the GOP with their bullshit reasons- that everything will get more expensive? So the answer is to keep everyone on such low wages they have to accept welfare? I mean- if this supposed Conservative utopia is all about keeping wages low and the populace impoverished then maybe they should go live in X number of 3rd world countries where people are really poor. Maybe then they would be realllly happy...

53   Strategist   ignore (2)   2014 Jul 9, 5:05am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Heraclitusstudent says

Strategist says

We need to realize money is limited, we can't have everything in life.

... Says the guy who thinks his house value should go up 50% just because it's there.

Because it's undervalued. Just ask the Chinese.

54   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2014 Jul 9, 5:22am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Strategist says

Heraclitusstudent says

Strategist says

We need to realize money is limited, we can't have everything in life.

... Says the guy who thinks his house value should go up 50% just because it's there.

Because it's undervalued. Just ask the Chinese.

You say "It needs to be done at the individual level called "living within your means""

Except you support policies that are guarantied to get the opposite results.

Chinese people bringing large sums in the US leads to higher dollar/yuan and bigger trade deficit with China, through less savings in the US.

Bigger mortgages is the opposite of living within your means.

55   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jul 9, 7:03am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag      

edvard2 says

I didn't even have to "carefully" explain it. Its super easy to see where that conclusion came from. So if you want to spend 2 seconds, look up what the largest employers in the country are. Then after that look at what those companies pay and how little they provide in profits and wages. Then look up the percentage of those employees on welfare. Great. Big. Duh.

A mere symptom

edvard2 says

Why is the GOP and their eager and loyal subjects so hell-bent on racing to the bottom? Why is is that any and all suggestions made in which to perhaps improve the situation for the working, middle, and even the wealth classes are instantly berrated by the GOP with their bullshit reasons- that everything will get more expensive? So the answer is to keep everyone on such low wages they have to accept welfare? I mean- if this supposed Conservative utopia is all about keeping wages low and the populace impoverished then maybe they should go live in X number of 3rd world countries where people are really poor. Maybe then they would be realllly happy...

It just is NOT the way the economy works, I'm not stating opinions just the facts.

56   edvard2   ignore (1)   2014 Jul 9, 7:13am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

indigenous says

It just is NOT the way the economy works, I'm not stating opinions just the facts.

Yup, hate to burst yer bubble, but I've pretty much easily and handily explained how the economy works. In reality you should be thanking me for helping you understand that economics as viewed through the glasses of your typical GOP cheerleader isn't all that it was cracked up to be. If anything, the GOP's keen ability to continually wreck the economy should be clear evidence enough of this.

But in any regard I will take your short answers as a sign that you don't have anything meaningful to add to the debate seeing as how I already more or less settled it anyway. But thanks for trying.

57   dublin hillz   ignore (0)   2014 Jul 9, 8:05am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

I think moderation in structuring society is the key. For example, pushing wages down combined with outlawing abortion will result in slums that resemble those of san paolo, brazil. On the other hand, I also don't agree with what they do in norway with their 385 euro annual household de facto tax to own a television that is used to fund public broadcasting.

58   Strategist   ignore (2)   2014 Jul 9, 8:10am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Heraclitusstudent says

You say "It needs to be done at the individual level called "living within your means""

I sure do.

Heraclitusstudent says

Except you support policies that are guarantied to get the opposite results.

Chinese people bringing large sums in the US leads to higher dollar/yuan and bigger trade deficit with China, through less savings in the US.

What are you talking about. That's our dollars coming back home. You purchased made in China crap with US dollars didn't you?

Heraclitusstudent says

Bigger mortgages is the opposite of living within your means.

Please refer back to the first sentence above.

59   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2014 Jul 9, 9:35am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Strategist says

That's our dollars coming back home. You purchased made in China crap with US dollars didn't you?

Yup, but I'm also a big saver.

Chinese buying assets mean there is a change in net foreign assets between the US and China. This can happen only if, outside of these real-estate transactions, the US are running an account deficit with China, meaning the US consume more than they produce.
i.e. In other words the US don't save, and sell real-estate to finance their way of life.

Did you say you studied economics?

60   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2014 Jul 9, 9:40am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Strategist says

Heraclitusstudent says

Bigger mortgages is the opposite of living within your means.

Please refer back to the first sentence above.

The current account is also the sum of accounts in the economy. If a lot of people take a big mortgage, that pushes down the national account.

This is the opposite of "living within one means".

61   Strategist   ignore (2)   2014 Jul 9, 9:56am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Heraclitusstudent says

This can happen only if, outside of these real-estate transactions, the US are running an account deficit with China, meaning the US consume more than they produce.

Not necessarily, eg. 1
We buy $1 million worth of red wine from France.
France buys $1 million worth of toys from China.
China buys $1million worth of American property.
Because international trade takes place with US dollars, that money can come from anywhere. We do not NEED to have a current account deficit with the Chinese.

eg 2.
We do not have a current account surplus with China, yet an American can go to Shanghai and buy an apartment there. We do not need a surplus to buy their property, and they have, but don't need to have, a current account surplus with us to buy American property.

Heraclitusstudent says

meaning the US consume more than they produce.

i.e. In other words the US don't save, and sell real-estate to finance their way of life.

And even more Treasury Bonds.
Us Americans don't know how to save. We are spoilt rotten. :(

62   Strategist   ignore (2)   2014 Jul 9, 9:57am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Heraclitusstudent says

Strategist says

Heraclitusstudent says

Bigger mortgages is the opposite of living within your means.

Please refer back to the first sentence above.

The current account is also the sum of accounts in the economy. If a lot of people take a big mortgage, that pushes down the national account.

This is the opposite of "living within one means".

Man, you confuse the heck out of me.

63   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2014 Jul 9, 10:22am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Strategist says

that money can come from anywhere. We do not NEED to have a current account deficit with the Chinese.

Humm... If these are Chinese buyers by definition the money comes from China.

A current account deficit with China by itself doesn't prove the US doesn't have a larger overall surplus with the rest of the world, unfortunately I doubt the US balance of accounts with the rest of the world looks much better than that with China.

Strategist says

they have, but don't need to have, a current account surplus with us to buy American property.

While individuals can do whatever, in aggregate if Chinese are buying US assets, it means these dollars are coming from somewhere.

Yeah... maybe Americans are buying Chinese assets en-masse, or the Chinese are selling other US assets, but to be practical: we know where these dollars are coming from: trade.
i.e. Americans consuming more than they produce.

64   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jul 9, 1:37pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

edvard2 says

But in any regard I will take your short answers as a sign that you don't have anything meaningful to add to the debate seeing as how I already more or less settled it anyway. But thanks for trying.

No, it doesn't have anything to do with D or R it is just basic economics, no matter what the policy is.

« First    « Previous    Comments 25 - 64 of 64    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions