Has your view of Obama 'De-proved' since he took office?

[bfng3569]

I rarely start threads, especially in the politcal forums as my knowledge is far less than many here, but after reading thru the Bush thread, i was wondering, with all the Promises B'obama made, especially with the economy and his rushing thru of the stimulis bill, amongst many other issues, has any ones opinions of him changed for the worse?

I remember how it seemed like the world rejoiced at his winning the election, as did many americans who couldnt wait for all the 'positive change' he promised. (wtich i still havent seen any)

So what do people think now?

p.s. if this in-appropriate or shouldnt be here, mods feel free to do what you must, wasnt to cure as to all the rules for posting new threads and polls!

[Roosveltrepub]

I lean toward improved. I had some concerns about his inexperience in Washington effecting his ability to govern but think he has wielded power efficiently. As to the results I will wait and see but, he is getting the things done he said he would. I think it's a bit soon to claim great failure or success. He has shown more pragmatism than many expected with the photos, detainee rights etc

[gunnut]

Yes. I thought he would try to stay in the middle of the road. Instead the socialist has come out to play.

[bfng3569]

i wasnt a fan to begin with, and less so now.

but more interested in hearing what more knowledable people have to say.

other than what i pick up on tv, its a bit difficult to really know whats going on, and in reality, the info (or spin) you get on tv now really depends on the channel.

what about the economy? and the blunder with unemployment? the stimulis? witch depending on whom you listen to, they havent even spent much of it? Cap and Trade? universal healthcare? etc etc etc

are things really shaping up the way Obama supporters wanted?

[gunnut]

what about the economy?

Part of it is business cycle. Business will start to contract after expanding for a while. Part of the blame goes back to Bush/Greenspan for keeping interest rate too low for too long. Greenspan should have started to slowly increase interest rate in 2004.

and the blunder with unemployment?

Can't be helped. It's also part of the business cycle. We were at full employment for so long, anything below that seems devastating. The only thing I blame Obama is that he claimed the porkulus bill would keep unemployment at around 8%, just to rush the beast through.

the stimulis?

It's a giant democrat handout to their cronies. Most of the money won't be spent for years. By that time, economy probably will have recovered and the porkulus will be a big hindrance to the economic expansion.

witch depending on whom you listen to, they havent even spent much of it?

Not depending on whom you listen to. It's a fact. Even the most staunch supporters of porkulus won't be able to come up with numbers supporting the fact that most of the money has already been spent.

Cap and Trade?

Giant energy tax.

universal healthcare?

The politically correct term is "health care reform."

Instead of providing free health care to everyone, we want to "reduce" cost to you so we can get this bill passed.

See, it's all in the marketing.

are things really shaping up the way Obama supporters wanted?

Depends on whom you ask.

Those conservatives who voted for Obama because they were pissed off at Bush and the neo-cons are probably none too happy.

The conservative democrats are not too happy about the giant deficit.

The radical left are unhappy that Obama is not going after Bush and his cronies, and not immediately pulling out of Iraq.

The only people who are very happy are the FDR socialists.

[travelmonkeys]

The simple answer is I like Obama's tone but it's too early to judge his policies. I think so far we've gotten exactly what was advertised in the campaign. He's been fiercely pro-active in pushing legislation on major issues, and the type of legislation has been pretty much what the campaign led us to expect. And he's been a foreign policy pragmatist who strikes a conciliatory tone but not a weak one. Only time will tell if it pays off. I do think the style with which he speaks for America abroad is a very good thing for our interests in the long run. I also have a certain kind of secure feeling that I didn't with his predecesor - the feeling that the commander in chief has done the grunt work necesary to become knowledgeable enough to make prudent foreign policy decisions, and the feeling that our foreign policy is based on our pragmatic interests rather than a moral or personal crusade.

[Roosveltrepub]

The only people who are very happy are the FDR socialists.

[gunnut]

yeah yeah yeah rub it in

[Chunder]

I Put yes.

Mainly for the government sanctioned welfare of corporate structures.

Call me a Hard bastad, but sometimes I like the thought of people feeling the hard pain from their mistakes or they just don't learn!

[diablo49]

The problem is that the failing of the company won't really affect the CEO... he ( or she) is more than likely set for life. It WILL affect the stockholders and regular workers of the company though. I am going to base my support of these lifelines on the idea that they will not be permanent, and that the companies will get back on their feet, much like Goldman-Sachs.

As for my personal view of Obama, I also suscribe to the "it's too soon to tell" section. I admire his use of rhetoric to achieve limited goals in the foreign arena while restoring some measure of soft power, but I certainly do have reservations about this spending and would love to see what the govt's plans to lower the deficit are, if any. A general consensus looks to me to be that the economy will turn upwards later this year to early next year, so I'm hoping to see some stabs at cutting the deficit by year 3 if this proves true.

No second stimulus when we havn't even spent the first one ;)

[JAD_333]

I voted no because he is pretty much doing what I expected. Back whenever he started fantacizing about being president, having to deal with an economic crisis probably wasn't on his mind. Instead, he had visions of bringing everyone together to cure the big social ills of our time and to remake America's image abroad. Those are noble goals. But as anyone who has ever struggled through a personal financial crisis knows, that's not the time to have the house remodled.

In trying to have it both ways, he went along with a stimulus package that is too small by half. Maybe he knew that going whole hog would have delayed health care reform indefinately.

[travelmonkeys]

The stimulus seems small now because most of the spending hasn't happened yet. All the smartest economists say the time for stimulus spending is when the economy is leveling out and just about ready to start growing again. Stimulus spending can't stop a free fall but it can give a big boost to a teetering economy that is ripe for recovery. The stimulus was designed to delay most of the spending to 2010 when they're guessing the economy will be at that point. In addition I think Obama is a shrewd politician who knows full well 2010 is also when the midterms happen. He knows he has a little time. And I agree with your link between the size of the stimulus and the health care reform legislation.

In trying to have it both ways, he went along with a stimulus package that is too small by half. Maybe he knew that going whole hog would have delayed health care reform indefinately.

[JAD_333]

The stimulus seems small now because most of the spending hasn't happened yet.

When it takes 2 bags of concrete to fill a hole and you only have one, no matter when you mix and pour the one you have, the hole will still be half empty. In other words, your line of reasoning doesn't make sense.

All the smartest economists say the time for stimulus spending is when the economy is leveling out and just about ready to start growing again.

Krugman doesn't, to name one. Who are all these smart economists? Anyway, why stimulate an economy when it is starting to grow?

Stimulus spending can't stop a free fall but it can give a big boost to a teetering economy that is ripe for recovery. The stimulus was designed to delay most of the spending to 2010 when they're guessing the economy will be at that point.

Stimulus spending is strictly a shock treatment to keep an economy from swerving off course so far that it will take years for it to get back to where it was. If you're right that a stimulus pkg can't stop a "free fall" then what is the point of it?

[travelmonkeys]

When it takes 2 bags of concrete to fill a hole and you only have one, no matter when you mix and pour the one you have, the hole will still be half empty. In other words, your line of reasoning doesn't make sense.

Of course it does. It's simple logic. Your analogy assumes we knew the size of the hole, and we know the size of our bags. But it's not such an exact science, even the best economists were just guessing. We have no possible way to know at this point if the stimulus was big enough. You may be right but at this point it's still a work in progress. Everyone, no matter how smart, was just guessing on how big it needed to be. But what we do know, with absulute certainty, is that most of the stimulus money hasn't been spent yet. So obviously the full effect of the existing stimulus has not been felt by us or anyone else. This is pretty basic logic.



Krugman doesn't, to name one. Who are all these smart economists? Anyway, why stimulate an economy when it is starting to grow?

Because the strong momentum of a downward economic spiral will eat up the effect of any stimulus. You might be able to slow the freefall or mitigate it, but you won't stop it. At the moment when the downward spiral has slowed, when the economy is teetering and could go in either direction, that's when you give it a boost.

Stimulus spending is strictly a shock treatment to keep an economy from swerving off course so far that it will take years for it to get back to where it was. If you're right that a stimulus pkg can't stop a "free fall" then what is the point of it?

To slow the freefall. To make it a less severe freefall. And then when it's stabilized, to give the economy a big kick in the ass to speed up and maximize the recovery.

[art]

I think he is doing an excellent job, his job approval ratings are higher than those of his most recent predecessors, Americans hold a favorable view of Obama as a person. Fewer people held favorable impressions of George W. Bush (61%) and Bill Clinton (60%) early in their first years.

I personally don't buy that he is a "Socialist".

Most people have no idea what socialism is, so they label that which they do not like with some generic word they feel has negative connotations.

If this were the 50s they'd be calling him a communist.

If this were the 40s they be calling him a NAZI.

Just mud slinging.