How's Obama Doing?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Anarcho Union, Feb 17, 2010.

?

How's Obama Doing/Done?

  1. Best president we've ever had!

    2 vote(s)
    10.0%
  2. He's doing great

    4 vote(s)
    20.0%
  3. He's doing OK

    5 vote(s)
    25.0%
  4. He's doing bad

    7 vote(s)
    35.0%
  5. Worst President we've ever had!

    2 vote(s)
    10.0%
  1. Anarcho Union No Gods No Masters Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Give us your thoughts on how Preisdent Obama is doing
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    he's doing pretty much what every American president does.

    War in some defenceless countries, giving away money to corporations, supporting Israel.

    Thats pretty much all that is required of any US President.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Obama's doing about as well as can be expected. He came to the job with a legacy of mismanagement in virtually every department from the Bush administration. There was also a global financial crisis. And he has had to deal with an obstructionist Republican party bent on acting against the interests of their constituents, whose agenda now seems to be determined by a few shock jocks from Fox news.

    But this is just Obama's first year. He still has 3 to go before the next election, so in effect 2.5 productive years before going into election mode again. He'll get more done.

    He could use a good disaster like Hurricane Katrina or another terrorist attack, so that he can demonstrate his "Presidential" credentials to the superficial Americans who care more about how their President looks than what his policies are.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    He's doing a pretty bad job. He came into his presidency with a damaged country due to the Bush administration, but rather than fixing any problem, he resorted to bailouts, stimuluses, more spending, more deficits, more debt, more wasted money, and more inflation. He didn't resort to the free market.
     
  8. sandy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,926
    He has spent us into oblivion and allowed three terrorist attacks his first year. Bleh.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Which terrorist attacks, sandy?
     
  10. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,766
    There was just a terrorist attack on a plane to Detroit. Thank god the bomb failed to go off like it was designed to.
     
  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    It not like the last president managed to loss 3000+ Americans lives in 4 combined terrorist attacks in just one day of his first year, and ignored all warnings by the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI, Secret Service, INS and the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council... OOooh wait...

    James R,

    Don't respond to trolls.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2010
  12. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    I wouldn't blame it all on him. Bush, the so-called "conservative", expanded government and caused the foreign policy mess we're in. I just don't see how Obama is any better, than, since Obama is just doing more of the same.
     
  13. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,766
    I agree with both of these statements, except that our bad foreign policy wasn't a bush invention.

    But I can't help getting the impression that Obama is like the guy who maxes out all his credit cards because he feels brankruptcy is inevitable anyway.
     
  14. PieAreSquared Woo is resistant to reason Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,144
  15. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Strangely I agree, we have not had a true fiscal conservative since Reagan came in and brought in his voodoo economics and instituted the unsaid "tax-less/spend-more, while claiming your spending less" policy. Until Obama either cuts spending or increases taxes, he is in fact doing the same.
     
  16. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Right. Thus, the best route is to cut spending and cut taxes, and return the the ideals of classical liberalism, Adam Smith, free markets, sound currency policies, and personal liberty.

    The Federal government is stepping way over the line, too, and it's been doing this for a while. Nobody seems to be remembering the Constitution: I don't see where, in the Constitution, it says for government to bail corporations out. States' rights are more important than Federal power.
     
  17. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Or we could just raise taxes and return to the economic progress leaps of the 1950's and 1960's, you know?, actual tested polices rather then ideals, especially ideals based on catch phrases.

    Don't disagree, but this problems has nothing to do with taxation.

    What the constitution does not say does not mean it can't be done.

    Also when ever I read your writing I have to hear this horrible nasalated depressing voice in my head, could you do someone like Patrick instead, or about about Sandy?
     
  18. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Nah. Raising taxes means people have less money to spend, and that can't be good for the economy. Plus, it's not the governments job to take all our money. Remember, limited government? Personal liberty? While we're at it, we might as well appoint a Fuhrer and sing "Sieg Heil", but we won't do that.

    Lower taxes are needed; it means more money for you, more money for me, less money for government to waste, and more power to the people.



    Not taxation, but with alot of what the taxation is being used for.


    Actually, you're right; it just says that the Federal government cannot do it.

    Tenth Amendment:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
     
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Yeah because in 1950's and 1960's we totally were spending less and not moving up in society, everyone was not getting cars and there new homes in the suburbs... OOOooh wait...

    Who said all our money, Fuck Clinton had a 40% max tax and were were reducing our debt, yet you guys called that socialist, and Bush brings in 34% max tax rate and our debt start going horribly fast again, but hey at least its capitalist.

    Yeah the EU pull Hitler out of his grave and have him giving edicts via Ouija board. High taxes does not lead to fascism.

    Yeah and no social security, no medical care, no standards, no police, firemen, etc.

    I would love having less money if I did not need to pay for medical insurance, school, etc, if those were just services provided by the government.

    or being wasted on! I bet we both agree on that one to laugh a little then look down and shake our heads in pity for the nation. Rather I think we disagree on most of what it being wasted on. I would say war, a cold war military spread around the world, inefficient medical systems design to shovel money to corporations, overly complex bureaucratic systems, we need a vastly simplified taxation system that more efficient at collecting taxes and less able to develop loopholes around, etc.


    I don't see how this means the federal government can't bail out corporations? Unless passing bills in the house, senate and presidency is somehow a power not granted to the federal government? if the federal government says they want to spend X amount of money on Y thats certianly within their powers.
     
  20. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    I doubt that was due to taxes.......

    http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm327.cfm

    I didn't say Bush was capitalist. He was far from it.

    It leads to bigger government.
    Your retirement and your medical care is your responsibility. If you want them, pay for them. See? Easy.

    I'm sick of people saying "no medical care". Of course there is medical care. You can go purchase it right now!

    That's what you want, though; alot of people don't. Thus, private provision is best: you get to pay for what you want without forcing anyone else to pay for what you want.



    Or, just reduce the size and scope of government.

    No, it isn't. Go educate yourself. Unless the Constitution delegates a responsibility to the Federal government, than the Federal government cannot upkeep that responsibility. It's unconstitutional. Not to mention, completely stupid, to bail out corrupt and failing corporations.
     
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    I was not saying it was, rather that taxes did not hinder that growth.

    I was speaking of fiscal conservatives in general.

    Something we differ on, I don't see big government as a problem as long as it run well.

    Can't, the dieing can't pay if they can't work, people can't retire if they can't save. If you say its easy you then deal with the dieing and destitute.

    For horrendous prices, and if you can't pay for it, there is the door, go die on the streets. So many other countries get it so much cheaper, they don't have people declaring bankruptcies from medical bills, they don't have people choosing which finger should get sown back on because they don't have enough money to sow them all back on, they don't have people who paid insurance for decades only to be drop when they get ill and then can't pay to stay alive.

    But a lot of people do want it, I say we leave it to the states to regulate these systems and have like minded states integrate their regulations by federal mandate.

    and still have it grossly inefficient?

    What responsibility? The bailouts was a choice made in a perfectly constitutional bill, it was not a responsibility, the government had no responsibility to these corporations they just choose (rather poorly) to bail out those corporations to prevent even worse economic side-effects.
     
  22. Alien Cockroach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    886
    I selected "great" because he recently passed PAYGO by executive order. I am impressed to see him exert the full powers of his office, finally. Before that, I would have only said he was doing okay.
     
  23. Anarcho Union No Gods No Masters Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Plus spend a few billion dollars in his first year bailing out the rich

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page