 |
   |
|
|
May 19th, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
May 19th, 2010
|
|
|
Speaking as an involved observer I would say that Obama is pushing to change things, but has to work within the system to do so, which slows down the process. He has certainly made strides in some areas, but has a very full plate, so he's eating the elephant 1 piece at a time. That is the problem as change is not happening fast enough for half the voters and too fast for the other half!
Overall a creditable effort, needs to show more grip on the domestic issues, but has rebuilt a lot of American standing abroad. PS I am British. |
|
May 19th, 2010
|
||
|
Quote:
And on that same note, people fail to understand just how dire the situation was in early 2009. We were on the brink of a total economic meltdown. His bank bailout plan, while distasteful and expensive did prevent a total disintegration of the banking system which would have been utterly catastrophic for the nation. Obama pulled us back from the brink of disaster...but at a cost. Remember Obama hasn't even finished half of his 1st term yet, he can balance the budget, in fact his plan is to cut the deficit by 1/2 by 2013. We will see if he succeeds or not before rushing to conclusions. |
 --
|
|
|
|
|
May 19th, 2010
|
|
|
Obama gets negative marks on most domestic issues. So is America really ready for Obama? And is Obama ready for America?
a CNN/Opinion Research poll conducted March 19-21. Overall, 51 percent disapprove of Obama's job performance while 46 percent approve, with 3 percent undecided. Those are the worst marks for Obama in this poll since he took office. In February and late January, Americans were almost evenly divided in their assessments of Obama, and in mid-December he was in positive territory, with 54 percent approving and 44 percent disapproving. However, in the months where those disapproving outnumbered those approving, the difference was never greater than two points. But whether they approve of his overall performance and policies or not, 70 percent of those polled say they approve of Obama as a person. When it comes to his policies, the only two domestic issues on which Obama gets positive marks have not been front-burner ones this year -- the environment and education. The public approves of his handling of environmentally policy by 55 percent to 37 percent, and of his education policy by 56 percent to 41 percent. (In all cases, the remainder of responses were undecided.) They disapprove of his handling of the economy by 54 percent to 43 percent. They disapprove of his handling of health care by 58 percent to 40 percent. They disapprove of him on unemployment by 53 percent to 45 percent. They disapprove of his handling of the federal budget deficit by 62 percent to 36 percent. The also disapprove of him on illegal immigration by 56 percent to 37 percent. Majorities ranging from 51 percent to 53 percent give him positive marks on handling the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the issue of terrorism. A CBS News poll conducted March 18-21 had some different numbers. CBS said 49 percent approved of the job Obama was doing while 41 percent disapproved. It showed an even split among Americans on how they rated his handling of the economy. The CBS poll did agree with CNN's on the negative view of Obama's handling of health care, with 51 percent disapproving his performance and 41 percent approving, an improvement over the 55 percent to 35 percent negative ratio he had in February. In the CBS survey, taken before passage of the health care overhaul, 45 percent said passage of the legislation would be a major accomplishment for Obama, 35 percent did not regard it as a major accomplishment and 10 percent said it would be a minor accomplishment |
|
May 19th, 2010
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I planned on being a millionaire by the time I was 40. Reality has a way in intruding on the best laid plans. MY biggest concern is where will the money to do all of these things come from. |
|
May 19th, 2010
|
|
|
I rate him as A-. At least he's not a lame duck and sits around his office, thinking about the quality of his meals.
|
|
May 19th, 2010
|
|
|
He is NOT the worst President we have ever had (that distinction belongs to GW Bush), and he is NOT the best (that one is much more difficult to answer).
Obama has at least tried to work with a Congress that is so polarized that the gridlock of a traffic jam, is easier to unsnarl than the differences between the two major parties. For his first term, Obama rated a B as a grade, what his overall grade ends up as, is yet to be seen. |
|
May 19th, 2010
|
||
|
Quote:
The Glass-Steagall act was repealed by President Clinton and of many things that did happen, this could possibly be the most significant. However, when the events were unfolding, Bush was in charge and I don't think enough was done to address the issue while he was in. It seemed like he just let everything happen as they did. I don't think the blame on Bush is undue but I do think that Clinton should be held responsible more than he is currently. Balancing the budget during Obama's term... I think this is too optimistic. We don't know what kind of impact the healthcare reform will have on the deficit, the economy is still very far from being healthy and there is a very expensive war going on with no end in sight. |
|
May 19th, 2010
|
||
|
|
Quote:
I could ask the same question -why do some people insist on giving Bush a pass on everything? First of all look where we were in 2000 a $234B surplus. That was gone with 2 years. I don't deny the numbers the reason the deficit numbers are high, what I am saying is Obama had a damn good reason to do what he did because the alternative was a collapse of the entire US economic system. If you look at 2009 and 2010 there is a 600B difference meaning the deficit is already projected to drop from 1800B to 1258B and the number is already projected to drop next year by another 300B. Obama promised to cut the deficit by half by 2013, if the numbers hold up as projected he will do exactly that. The Bailout was a necessary evil, if we had done nothing we would have been looking at a Great-Depression style scenario. The Banking problem, it was Gramm-Leach-Billey act which repealled Glass-Stillwell, Just Look at the names of its authors... Phil Gramm R-Texas Jim Leach R-Iowa Thomas Biley R-Virgina All three of them are Conservative Republicans, and it was a GOP Congress in 1999. The voting roll call is here, look who actually voted for the POS. It was overwheming passed by the GOP, with only 1 GOP senator and 5 GOP congressmen voting no. Frankly even if Clinton had vetoed it his veto would have been likely overridden. It was the liberal wing of the Democrats that largely voted no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gr..._Vote_1999.png In short: 1. GOP sponsored Bill 2. Passed OVERWHELMING by a GOP controlled Congress (both houses) 3. Signed by a Democrat. So You are wrong top assign the Banking crisis to Clinton alone. The Gramm-Leach-Billey Act was pushed through by the GOP. I agree that Clinton shouldn't have signed it, but it wasn't his bill (nor the Democrats) the fault is at least shared. Even if Clinton had vetoed it, judging from the lock the GOP had on congress there was a very strong chance it would have passed via a congressional override. I agree with OTG and Bones. Obama has been too accommodating with the GOP and they have used that against him. He needs to remind them that he's the boss. |
|
May 19th, 2010
|
|||
|
|
Quote:
As far as it being Clintons fault, the Mortgage Crisis was precipitated under and by his leadership. 1. Clinton Administration's HUD publishes housing goals for middle and low income families. 2. From Wikipedia. On December 18, 2006, U.S. regulators filed 101 civil charges against chief executive Franklin Raines; chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard; and the former controller Leanne G. Spencer. The three are accused of manipulating Fannie Mae earnings to maximize their bonuses. The lawsuit sought to recoup more than $115 million in bonus payments, collectively accrued by the trio from 1998–2004, and about $100 million in penalties for their involvement in the accounting scandal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae Raines was appointed by Clinton in 1998 and retired in 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Raines 3. Under Raines leadership, Fannie Mae makes ARM loans without properly vetting the borrowers. 4. When the market finally broke under the strain of forclosures the government (UNDER BUSH) stepped in with the bailout. IMHO 2 things should have happened. 1. Let the banks that bought the mortgages fail. Deposits protected under FDIC. 2. Prosecute the individuals responsible for making/approving the loans. Quote:
Where is the money coming from? |
 |
