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.
I've been thinking on this issue heavily. Lately, at least of what I've noticed in President Obama's term, many people seem to blame him for pretty much everything wrong in this country. He hasn't always made the best decisions in this country, but he's made a lot of good ones too.
I remember when the financial crisis hit and how many people blamed Bush for what happened. Much of what he did contributed to it.
But...how can one rightfully judge decisions in a short time period without actual time passing by? I came to this conclusion taking some extensive history course at my Uni. I observed how many decisions did not necessarily make an immediate impact, but that impact would be for a future, perhaps different generation. Think of President Clinton's Ownership Society (every American deserves to own a home) and Reganomics (deregulation) which seemed to collide towards the end of Busch's term in 2008.
Also, I mean when a specific policy or action was placed and we judge 8+ years from that date.
This is just my theory on presidential policies, even though many things exist on a continuum like the New Deal..but still. Hope I didn't confuse anyone. Discuss!
i dont blame bush for the financial crisis, i blame clinton. bush tried to blunt the impact a number of times, but the democrats blocked him. i dont blame obama for the financial crisis, but i do blame him for extending it with his policies of excessive regulation and higher taxes.
Presidents really don't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Candidates on both sides of the political aisle are pre-screened by the banking cartel and serve as nothing more than puppets for them.
The political blame game is how the illusion continues.
I've been thinking on this issue heavily. Lately, at least of what I've noticed in President Obama's term, many people seem to blame him for pretty much everything wrong in this country. He hasn't always made the best decisions in this country, but he's made a lot of good ones too.
I remember when the financial crisis hit and how many people blamed Bush for what happened. Much of what he did contributed to it.
But...how can one rightfully judge decisions in a short time period without actual time passing by? I came to this conclusion taking some extensive history course at my Uni. I observed how many decisions did not necessarily make an immediate impact, but that impact would be for a future, perhaps different generation. Think of President Clinton's Ownership Society (every American deserves to own a home) and Reganomics (deregulation) which seemed to collide towards the end of Busch's term in 2008.
Also, I mean when a specific policy or action was placed and we judge 8+ years from that date.
This is just my theory on presidential policies, even though many things exist on a continuum like the New Deal..but still. Hope I didn't confuse anyone. Discuss!
"I remember when the financial crisis hit and how many people blamed Bush for what happened. Much of what he did contributed to it. " Like what? Details please.
The only thing Obama is any good at is failure, unless you are a dirty red commie, as are most of the rest of the Democratic Elite. 'Do it for the collective'
I can't imagine 6 years of abysmal failure will 'Change' in the last 2 wasted years.
Of course talking to a generation who have never laid their eyes on a real dollar is hard to convince they also have no idea what America IS. Even Bill Clinton was too young and he had no idea what IS meant either. The young had America stolen from them by the lying cheating thieving Democrats. Your Obama is nothing more than a puppet on strings. He is as smart as a block of wood too.
Hell if Obama came to citydata and replied to me all he could say would be errr uhh uhhh ummm er er ahh umm...... Loser
Just as with any executive position, some decisions have long-term impact and some have a more immediate effect.
There are some decisions that the Obama administration has made which we will not know the true effects of until time has passed. For example, the true effects of Obamacare will not be felt until Obama is out of office, even though some of the effects - such as the cancellations of so-called "junk" policies which were actually pretty decent - were felt nearly immediately.
However, there are other decisions that the Obama administration has made which we can judge with near immediate accuracy. For example, the intentional circumventing of Constitutional authority can be seen on a nearly daily basis, and can and should be judged harshly. The absolute refusal to even admit to his own promises, much less attempt to live up to them, can also be judged with some immediacy.
I've been thinking on this issue heavily. Lately, at least of what I've noticed in President Obama's term, many people seem to blame him for pretty much everything wrong in this country. He hasn't always made the best decisions in this country, but he's made a lot of good ones too.
I remember when the financial crisis hit and how many people blamed Bush for what happened. Much of what he did contributed to it.
But...how can one rightfully judge decisions in a short time period without actual time passing by? I came to this conclusion taking some extensive history course at my Uni. I observed how many decisions did not necessarily make an immediate impact, but that impact would be for a future, perhaps different generation. Think of President Clinton's Ownership Society (every American deserves to own a home) and Reganomics (deregulation) which seemed to collide towards the end of Busch's term in 2008.
Also, I mean when a specific policy or action was placed and we judge 8+ years from that date.
This is just my theory on presidential policies, even though many things exist on a continuum like the New Deal..but still. Hope I didn't confuse anyone. Discuss!
You can use a longterm view to judge things like the Vietnam War, for instance. In retrospect, the Domino Theory that led us to fight that war was wrong and it was a bad decision to get involved in that conflict. At the time, you believed in the Domino Theory, then getting involved in Vietnam was as essential as fighting Hitler was. On the other hand, Reagan's decision to take a hardline approach to relations with the Soviet Union was widely criticized as being way too confrontational at the time and wasted far too much money on things like the Star Wars project, but looking back now we can see that it was absolutely the correct thing to do as it ended the Cold War.
So you will get a better picture of the ramifications of certain decisions after a long enough time has passed. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't judge presidential actions. You have to decide whether to re-elect a president while the president is still in office. You have to judge their actions in order to make a decision on which way to vote.
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.
