Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's right, Bush got more popular votes than Gore. Oh wait...
The popular vote only matters on a state level, when we talk about the nation level it reverts to the electoral college which is based off of the state's popular vote
The President of The United States of America holds in a respect the single most important job in the free world.
OK, that was sensationalism. But, I graded him an B+.
Obama is in the hot seat occupied by presidents before him. When something goes wrong the finger will most likely be pointed at him first. Personally I have no idea of the impact of the global economy and global politics on what happens in the US, but I venture a guess it's a substantial impact. Obama (any president) deals with major and shifting issues he or the government has no control over, but can only react. The president succeeds or fails with those reactions, but they all try to appease the masses that is so diverse it's impossible.
His B+ is for his inside fight. The two-party system has always had internal struggles, as that's its nature. But Obama IMO fights inside even harder, and pushes the buttons to get attention but more so to try to bring more unity in government. That will probably never happen, because Democrats and Republicans think their way first, before analyzing the overall needs of the population.
He's made mistakes like all before him, but he's had many successes too. And some not in the typical way of days gone by.
He still has nearly a year and a half remaining in his term and that's enough time for a lot to happen, good or bad.
But if things continue on the present course, he'll go into the history books as an above average president, so I give him a solid B. He'll most likely leave office with America in much better shape than it was when he took the reins in January, 2009. His predecessor made a horrible mess of things on most fronts and then left the disasters he created for his successor to clean up, which he has to a large extent. And he's done it against unprecedented opposition from a dysfunctional GOP that has dropped any pretense of serving the national interest in favor of petty hyperpartisan sore loserism.
Now, excuse me as a prepare for the barrage of very predictable psychotic responses from the rabid Obamaphobic right.
How will history judge the Obama years? Without considering who will come next, I expect he will be seen as the best post-WWII President, and it won't be very close (the bar is not all that high, sadly).
The President of The United States of America holds in a respect the single most important job in the free world.
OK, that was sensationalism. But, I graded him an B+.
Obama is in the hot seat occupied by presidents before him. When something goes wrong the finger will most likely be pointed at him first.
ALL presidents are in a hot seat left for them by the prior ass in the chair.
Why is it that Obama always gets a pass?
Reagan took on an absolute disaster! It was left for him by Nixon, Ford (not so much) and Carter, the later of whom decimated our military, made deep cuts in defense, and like Obama ran the country into the ground on ideology based management. He was a peanut farmer with a dream, and all we got was peanuts.
The country is in racial turmoil and this President has been a large part of the problem.
Here's an article today regarding Obama's absolute failure on economic policy:
When MSN publishes something like this... you must realize the wheels are falling off the cart, and understand there are REAL PROBLEMS!
I won't even get into the Iran deal, the Bergdahl exchange, the spread of ISIS, the lethargic mindless ignorance of terrorism, the breakdown of society under the guise (lie) of making progress... and on and on and on.
Clinton may have been a total failure as a human, but he was a B+ in his second term. He cared enough about the country to change direction and work across the aisle.
Obama, when using critical thinking and for other more obvious reasons.... is at best a D
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
How will history judge the Obama years? Without considering who will come next, I expect he will be seen as the best post-WWII President, and it won't be very close (the bar is not all that high, sadly).
Obviously you were not alive during, or not old enough to remember the Eisenhower, JFK and Reagan years. Slick Willy runs circles around Obama. Hopefully you'll still have a chance to see what a real President can get done... but (sadly) the odds are getting slim
Obviously you were not alive during, or not old enough to remember the Eisenhower, JFK and Reagan years. Slick Willy runs circles around Obama. Hopefully you'll still have a chance to see what a real President can get done... but (sadly) the odds are getting slim
I wasn't alive for JFK or Eisenhower. Eisenhower is underrated, the most underrated of post-Civil War Presidents. JFK is the most overrated. Reagan's legacy crumbles as trickle-down economics is discredited (by that real income stagnation issue you alluded to) and increasing evidence demonstrates that the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight rather than under the bloat of SDI. And let's not forget Iran-Contra and Savings & Loan.
Eisenhower, however, deserves significant blame for the post-revolution relations between the United States and Iran. I also question the wisdom of his China policies, but the overthrow of Mossadegh was, with hindsight, the great mistake of his administration.
JFK's presidency is more remarkable for its mishaps than its successes. The Bay of Pigs, the Vietnam War, the Ba'ath coup in Iraq, his tepid approach to civil rights, and his utter failure to rein in Hoover's abusive FBI.
I wasn't alive for JFK or Eisenhower. Eisenhower is underrated, the most underrated of post-Civil War Presidents. JFK is the most overrated. Reagan's legacy crumbles as trickle-down economics is discredited (by that real income stagnation issue you alluded to) and increasing evidence demonstrates that the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight rather than under the bloat of SDI. And let's not forget Iran-Contra and Savings & Loan.
Eisenhower, however, deserves significant blame for the post-revolution relations between the United States and Iran. I also question the wisdom of his China policies, but the overthrow of Mossadegh was, with hindsight, the great mistake of his administration.
JFK's presidency is more remarkable for its mishaps than its successes. The Bay of Pigs, the Vietnam War, the Ba'ath coup in Iraq, his tepid approach to civil rights, and his utter failure to rein in Hoover's abusive FBI.
There is a lot more to a President than just their foreign screw-ups. I see your Bay of Pigs and raise you the Missile Crisis. The USSR took the world to the brink, and JFK stood the Khrushchev on his ear. I said I didn't want to bring up Obama's foreign mistakes of which there are terabytes.
What? Nothing about Clinton?
All of the points you've made about Reagan are the typical canned response to a President most liberal despise, if not actually rewriting history to prove him one of their own.
My favorite is that "he (Reagan) couldn't be elected if he were running today because he was too liberal"
I'd guess that every belief you hold about Reagan was taught to you. I'd guess you were just a child when he was President, correct?
Reagan was the first President I had the fortune of being able to vote for having just turned 21 in 80'. I know how tough it was to find a job and pay my newly acquired bills under Carter. I remember the gas lines and the 18% prime interest. I remember my single mother, who worked for Boeing for 30years, being scared to death she was going to be laid off when Carter cut the B-1 program.
Believe me, if trickle down economics is the big problem with Reagan (millions of yuppies would disagree), and possess such clarity with regards to past presidents, why are you so stunningly blind to ALL THE FREAKIN PROBLEMS with (Obama) this president?
All of the points you've made about Reagan are the typical canned response to a President most liberal despise, if not actually rewriting history to prove him one of their own.
My favorite is that "he (Reagan) couldn't be elected if he were running today because he was too liberal"
I'd guess that every belief you hold about Reagan was taught to you. I'd guess you were just a child when he was President, correct?
Reagan was the first President I had the fortune of being able to vote for having just turned 21 in 80'. I know how tough it was to find a job and pay my newly acquired bills under Carter. I remember the gas lines and the 18% prime interest. I remember my single mother, who worked for Boeing for 30years, being scared to death she was going to be laid off when Carter cut the B-1 program.
Believe me, if trickle down economics is the big problem with Reagan (millions of yuppies would disagree), and possess such clarity with regards to past presidents, why are you so stunningly blind to ALL THE FREAKIN PROBLEMS with (Obama) this president?
Clinton benefited from good circumstances that should not be attributed to him. He had maybe the most inconsequential two term presidency of the 20th century. He couldn't follow through on either of the initiatives that would have made him matter: 1) Hilarycare, or 2) the Kyoto Protocol.
Your gas line and prime interest memories have everything to do with the oil markets in the 70s, and central bank management in the era before inflation became a central focus for the bank. They had very little to do with presidential policies. As for private sector employees fearing layoffs when the US government cuts weapons programs--that alone can't be the justification for maintaining those weapons programs. That's how we end up with acquisitions that are grossly bloated due to politics, not need (like the F35's many problems). That is something like the economic systems that historically underlie fascist states.
Do you know how tough it was to find a job in the late 2008 job market? Or were you retired already?
You posit that Obama's economics approach is trickle-down economics, which is simply wrong. His approach is definitely incremental, and not radical, but extending tax breaks below $250k and allowing them to end (i.e., raise taxes) on incomes over $250k is decidedly not "supply-side." The auto bailout was certainly targeted at auto workers, though it certainly had benefits for shareholders, as well. Minimum wage increases and community college promotion are targeted at workers, not capital holders.
Politics are real--and rhetoric isn't policy. Reagan advocated supply-side economics, but was also decidedly incremental in terms of actual policy change. The Bushes and Clinton (especially Bush II), however, took the supply-side ball and ran with it, right over a cliff (the .com bust and the Great Recession). Hilary Clinton is going to take Obama's "middle-class economics" and run with them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
