How do you rate Obama as a president?

Naddoður

Naddoður

Active member
Obama is indeed still highly popular in Europe; but even in Europe his popularity is waning. However, when looking a little more closely, it becomes clear that Obama is only genuinely popular in Western Europe. The countries of eastern and central Europe view him in a much more lukewarm way. Many countries in the region are critical of Obama’s “reset” policy towards Russia. The cancellation of the missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic did not go down well either. Moreover, the countries of eastern and central Europe – new Europe according to Donald Rumsfeld – were courted by the Bush White House and thus never were as critical about the U.S. during George W. Bush’s two terms in office. Thus only Western Europe has fallen in love with Obama while the rest of Europe is still making up its mind. And now even Western Europe has become unsure whether or not its love is being reciprocated by the White House.
 
Well, speaking as an outsider concerned with global rather than regional concerns, and given the record of his predecessor, he has got to be seen as an enormous improvement.

Sure,... he's made mistakes, and will in all probability make plenty more, but those mistakes are relatively minor when stacked up against the previous administration. In fact, I fail to see how he could do much worse, short of starting a nuclear war.
 
Last edited:
Disagree. He was held up by the lefties in this country as the one who would save our country. He has done nothing but allow the deficit to balloon.

Federal Debt Chart
Fiscal Years 1995 to 2015
Year GDP-US
$ billion Federal Deficit -fed
$ billion

Year GDP-US Federal Deficit-fed
2000 9951.5 -236.24 a
2001 10286.2 -128.24 a
2002 10642.3 157.75 a
2003 11142.1 377.59 a
2004 11867.8 412.73 a
2005 12638.4 318.34 a
2006 13398.9 248.19 a
2007 14077.6 160.94 a
2008 14441.4 458.55 a
2009 14258.2 1841.19 b
2010 14728.8 1258.44 b
2011 15499.8 929.41 e

Legend:
a - actual reported
b - budgeted estimate in US fy10 budget
e - out-year estimate in US fy10 budget

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...e=Federal Debt Chart&state=US&color=c&local=s

If my math is correct from 2008 to 2009 GDP is expected to drop by 2% (From 14441.4B To 14258.2B) and the national debt is expected to increase by just over 400% (From 458.55B To 1841.19B). I wonder how my children are going to pay for this?
 
A Can of Man said:
I agree. He's made some mistakes but overall I think he's alright.
Click to expand...


It's too early too tell...I still haven't seen any improvement...just fan's talk bout how great he is...we'll have to wait and see at the completion of his one year presidency..
 
Naddoður said:
Would you go so far as to call him a socialist?
Click to expand...
In his books he said he sought out Marxists in college & refered to working in the private sector as being in the enemy camp as 2 examples of someone who is @ least an anti capitalist in view.
 
People do a lot of stupid stuff in college.
Though I won't agree on his views of the private sector, the latest behavior by the private sector, namely banking, has been less than flattering.
 
I give Obama a B+. I think he should be taking a harder line of some issues, he's being a bit too flexible, but overall I approve.
 
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.
 
HokieMSG said:
Disagree. He was held up by the lefties in this country as the one who would save our country. He has done nothing but allow the deficit to balloon.

Federal Debt Chart
Fiscal Years 1995 to 2015
Year GDP-US
$ billion Federal Deficit -fed
$ billion

Year GDP-US Federal Deficit-fed
2000 9951.5 -236.24 a
2001 10286.2 -128.24 a
2002 10642.3 157.75 a
2003 11142.1 377.59 a
2004 11867.8 412.73 a
2005 12638.4 318.34 a
2006 13398.9 248.19 a
2007 14077.6 160.94 a
2008 14441.4 458.55 a
2009 14258.2 1841.19 b
2010 14728.8 1258.44 b
2011 15499.8 929.41 e

Legend:
a - actual reported
b - budgeted estimate in US fy10 budget
e - out-year estimate in US fy10 budget

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...e=Federal Debt Chart&state=US&color=c&local=s

If my math is correct from 2008 to 2009 GDP is expected to drop by 2% (From 14441.4B To 14258.2B) and the national debt is expected to increase by just over 400% (From 458.55B To 1841.19B). I wonder how my children are going to pay for this?
Click to expand...

The problem with those numbers is the first 8 years (those figures that are actually reported) happened under the previous administration not under Obama. Its really unfair to accuse him of inflating the deficit because he inherited the mess, he didn't create it.

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.
 
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
 
mmarsh said:
The problem with those numbers is the first 8 years (those figures that are actually reported) happened under the previous administration not under Obama. Its really unfair to accuse him of inflating the deficit because he inherited the mess, he didn't create it.
Click to expand...
If you look at the figures a little closer you will see that the numbers for 2009 are a buget estimate. These are numbers that CBO has published. I included the numbers from the previous administration as a comparison.
mmarsh said:
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.
Click to expand...
I feel obligated to remind you that the banking meltdown was concocted and implemented on Clintons watch. Clintons administration did more to damage the economy than Bush did. Why do people feel the need to blame Bush for EVERYTHING.
mmarsh said:
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.
Click to expand...
OK. Lets look at that. Which figure is he going to half of. 2008, which would be great, or 2009 which would still be almost double the 2008 numbers?

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.
 
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.
 
HokieMSG said:
I feel obligated to remind you that the banking meltdown was concocted and implemented on Clintons watch. Clintons administration did more to damage the economy than Bush did. Why do people feel the need to blame Bush for EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...

This is actually absolutely true.
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.
 
HokieMSG said:
If you look at the figures a little closer you will see that the numbers for 2009 are a buget estimate. These are numbers that CBO has published. I included the numbers from the previous administration as a comparison.

I feel obligated to remind you that the banking meltdown was concocted and implemented on Clintons watch. Clintons administration did more to damage the economy than Bush did. Why do people feel the need to blame Bush for EVERYTHING.

OK. Lets look at that. Which figure is he going to half of. 2008, which would be great, or 2009 which would still be almost double the 2008 numbers?

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.
Click to expand...


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:Gramm-Leach-Bliley_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.
 
Last edited:
HokieMSG said:
Disagree. He was held up by the lefties in this
... snip ...
2007 14077.6 160.94 a
2008 14441.4 458.55 a
2009 14258.2 1841.19 b
2010 14728.8 1258.44 b
2011 15499.8 929.41 e

Legend:
a - actual reported
b - budgeted estimate in US fy10 budget
e - out-year estimate in US fy10 budget

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...e=Federal Debt Chart&state=US&color=c&local=s

If my math is correct from 2008 to 2009 GDP is expected to drop by 2% (From 14441.4B To 14258.2B) and the national debt is expected to increase by just over 400% (From 458.55B To 1841.19B). I wonder how my children are going to pay for this?
Click to expand...

The information highlighted above is what I was referring to.

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.

mmarsh said:
Again, I don't deny the numbers the reason the deficit numbers are high are because of the bailouts because the alternative was a collapse of the entire economic pyramid. 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.
Click to expand...

AGAIN I ASK THE QUESTION.
Where is the money coming from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top