Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

From an outsider's perspective, Obama has come across as a good president (emphasised by using Bush as a contrast, who was impopular to say the least), and he is widely seen as entirely OK.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
My cousin is what you will describe as "Middle Class"(As meaningless as that terms tends to actually be, in describing an actual class)

How much does your cousin actually make? I suspect he's not actually middle class. I think you are conflating lifestyle with actual income. Lots of people who fall into the Upper Class live identically to the Middle Class. They live in the suburbs, eat at the same restaurants, wear the same clothes, etc... They might have some higher quality stuff, but they're not what many people think the Upper Class is. They're not drinking champagne and eating caviar while driving around in a Lamborghini.

105K I think before he had his girls. now maybe 90?

That's above middle class imo.

Borderline. But its also not just a straight yes/no based on income. Expenses matter too.

It should be measured differently in America though because they pay privately (and therefore more) for many of their services, so that big take home pay packet gets eaten into by college loan repayments, healthcare costs and so on. American salaries are great for a young European who got their education for free and is unlikely to need much healthcare, but if you've come up through that system it's not quite as good. (Or so I've had it explained to me by American colleagues)

To the question in the thread, overall, meh. He's better than the alternative, but he is still allowing drone warfare to an uncomfortable degree, has not shut down Gitmo, and America is still involved in the Middle East quagmire. Add to that that Obamacare is a pretty watered down version of what real healthcare should be, and I'd say good intentions but not enough decisive victories.

But I think focusing on the President rather than all of the other factors involved is a pretty common mistake. He's not quite as powerful as people usually make out.

No, that's definitely solid middle class. And if you think that someone making 90,000 with kids (and a home?) can afford a new racecar, you're probably not very good with money. I mean, strictly speaking yes, he could go buy a new car if he wanted. That would be at the expense of sending his kids to college, paying his mortgage, etc. There's a good quote I found; " 'I'm broke' doesn't mean I don't have money. It means I have responsibilities that take priority over spending my money on stupid crap".

The problem, as with every president, is he gets blamed too much for things that aren't his fault, and not blamed enough for things that actually are. And even things that look like his fault, aren't, and things that don't look like his fault, are. Confusing, eh?

For example, almost every campaign promise a presidential candidate makes is actually impossible for them to fulfill. Presidents don't make laws, Congress does that. So, who do you blame when, say, a campaign promise to lower taxes fails? I say you blame the voters who were too stupid to realize Congress is in charge of taxes, not the President.

Anyway, I think Obama was largely in a lose/lose situation going in. He had a huge mess to clean up from the Bush years (and not all of that was Bush's fault, either). He had an entire party (Republicans) that decided their number one priority was to oppose everything he wanted to do (and that party can't even control itself, today). His signature project, the ACA, wasn't anywhere near as good as it could have been because the Republicans intentionally refused to work with the Democrats on it (if you actually believe the Rs were "kept out of it" by the Ds, you're deluding yourself. Any political strategist would tell you that it was in the Rs' best interest to stay out of it, to make sure the ACA came out badly, so they could use their opposition to it to win elections later on....and history has proven that plan worked. Remember, nobody gets elected because they helped accomplish something good, they get elected because they can get voters to hate the other side more).

But, it really doesn't matter. Like I said in the political junkie thread, our politics are so toxic these day that Bush and Obama could walk on water, hand in hand together, to heal a wounded swan, and people would still find something wrong to complain about.

Obama brought change i can believe in.

I think you couldn't find a whiter black guy.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
His signature project, the ACA, wasn't anywhere near as good as it could have been because the Republicans intentionally refused to work with the Democrats on it (if you actually believe the Rs were "kept out of it" by the Ds, you're deluding yourself. Any political strategist would tell you that it was in the Rs' best interest to stay out of it, to make sure the ACA came out badly, so they could use their opposition to it to win elections later on....and history has proven that plan worked. Remember, nobody gets elected because they helped accomplish something good, they get elected because they can get voters to hate the other side more).

I don't even know where to begin with you. Yes, the Republicans were kept out of it by the Democrats. The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and refused to let anyone see the bill, even their own people. Nancy Pelosi herself said they had to pass to see what was in it. Implying the Republicans sabotaged the ACA somehow is pure sophistry. Hell, even after taking the House and the Senate, the Republicans still aren't able to affect the ACA because the Democrats have enough votes in the Senate to kill any legislation via filibuster or preventing an override of a Presidential veto. Causing the government shutdown last year not only didn't work, it blew up in the Republicans' faces.

 Ashiraya wrote:
From an outsider's perspective, Obama has come across as a good president (emphasised by using Bush as a contrast, who was impopular to say the least), and he is widely seen as entirely OK.

I share this view. It really should be stressed out though, that Bush jr. was his predecessor.

I'm not actually sure how good of a President Obama because I don't have a very good point of comparison. I was too young to really pay much attention to what Bush was like (though his cabinet was definitely gak), so Obama's more or less the only President I've been able to observe critically.

The vibe I've gotten is that he's a genuinely well-meaning guy who wants what's best for the country (as opposed to being a lobby-puppet), but can't hack it in this political climate. But frankly I don't know if [/i]anyone[/i] can hack it in this political climate- our system seems to be fundamentally broken atm.

Now that I understand the issues with Gitmo I'm no longer bothered by him not closing it, and I can forgive his inaction in the ME as well. My biggest issues with his performance as president lie in the ACA and supporting TPP.

 Da Boss wrote:
It should be measured differently in America though because they pay privately (and therefore more) for many of their services, so that big take home pay packet gets eaten into by college loan repayments, healthcare costs and so on. American salaries are great for a young European who got their education for free and is unlikely to need much healthcare, but if you've come up through that system it's not quite as good. (Or so I've had it explained to me by American colleagues)

True, I forgot about that.

 Ashiraya wrote:
From an outsider's perspective, Obama has come across as a good president (emphasised by using Bush as a contrast, who was impopular to say the least), and he is widely seen as entirely OK.

Agreed. Still better than François Hollande anyway

He seems pretty decent from my outsider's perspective. However, he's basically just on the right side. The idea that people even consider republican ideas, from what I can tell of them as said outsider, is absolutely nightmarish. Anyone opposing that looks good.

Yeah, the Democrats definitely have WAY more support outside the US from what I can see.

Obama didn't 'win' any elections, the Republicans lost them by fielding clowns.

I think inevitably it's hard if not impossible to really judge a presidency while it is ongoing. Jimmy Carter is a good example of a President who was lambasted while in office, but 30 years later opinions have generally shifted to "he was okayish." Meanwhile, Reagan who was beloved while in office, is over time becoming the butt end of the very sad joke that is Modern Republicanism. Clinton was very popular while in office, but today more and more people seem to find him off putting and/or a little creepy given his... proclivities...

Time offers perspective on what a figure like the President of the United States really meant, and that perspective is libel to change more than once as time goes on (Andrew Jackson's presidency went from beloved, to hated, to beloved again, to hated again all in the course of about 80 years).

 Orlanth wrote:
Obama didn't 'win' any elections, the Republicans lost them by fielding clowns.

I agree with this.

Given that American politics in general have a center point further right than most European states, inevitably means that the Republicans are gonna look a wee bit crazy compared to the Dems (that's okay though, plenty of Americans think they're crazy too )

Horrible president. His diplomacy is horrific. He gutted the command structure of the military replacing them with yes men, to the point where they change intell reports to make it look like sunshine when they read it to him for fear of losing their jobs. It has cost lives trying to keep his "success" in foreign policy on message despite reality. Every foreign political leader knows they can push him around. Internally his policies have been a joke, and a harmful one at that. His healthcare crap bill did nothing but raise the rates for all of us who had it before(and mine are going up again significantly next cycle) and no bill should be passed before seeing what's in it. He caters to muslim groups while browbeating, ignoring or flat out targeting Christian groups and our foreign allies. He refuses to make decisive decisions(on that I am glad but still not a good trait). He is so owned by special interests it isn't funny. He defies law constantly and actually orders agencies not to enforce certain laws that go against his idealology. Looking forward to seeing him go.

 Paradigm wrote:
Ah, sorry about the healthcare mixup, like I say I don't follow US politics too closely so I was going off hazy memory. For the record I do support subsidizing healthcare for the poor, but I can see now why some would object.

I think you're thinking more of a government payer system correct? We don't really have that yet except for certain segments.

 Breotan wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
His signature project, the ACA, wasn't anywhere near as good as it could have been because the Republicans intentionally refused to work with the Democrats on it (if you actually believe the Rs were "kept out of it" by the Ds, you're deluding yourself. Any political strategist would tell you that it was in the Rs' best interest to stay out of it, to make sure the ACA came out badly, so they could use their opposition to it to win elections later on....and history has proven that plan worked. Remember, nobody gets elected because they helped accomplish something good, they get elected because they can get voters to hate the other side more).

I don't even know where to begin with you.

You can begin by considering this: There is a reason why the Rs have been coasting though lower elections by campaigning almost solely on opposition to the ACA, and that reason was planned out well in advance. Once you realize that, the smoke and mirrors that you've believed in will disappear and everything else will fall into place.

Either way, that's not the purpose of this thread.

 LordofHats wrote:
I think inevitably it's hard if not impossible to really judge a presidency while it is ongoing. Jimmy Carter is a good example of a President who was lambasted while in office, but 30 years later opinions have generally shifted to "he was okayish."

Revisionist nonsense. To those who actually lived through his Presidency, he was just plain BAD.

Obama: tried to do several things early on but left the heavy lifting and details to congress:

Obamacare: What a nightmare of special interests. Good thought gone horribly wrong. HOWEVER it was a step and efforts to fix it may in fact continue to shift to something better.
Cap and trade: Failed utterly and rightly so (the truth is theis was being put in place partially to pay for the above).
Libya non support of dissidents in Iran: horrific.
Using the SOF to get out of Iraq and unwavering desire to stay out of it: excellent.
Desire to get out of Afghanistan: excellent.
Immigration: open border now. Cartels are now fully in the border states.
Economy: nonexistent improvements. in his defense, the Republican concepts aren't better.
Actual management of government: really really bad.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
I think you couldn't find a whiter black guy.

Well is IS half white...

Bad president. Like most people in elected office he is controlled by special interest groups. My Union pulls the stings on this guy like a puppet.
His failed foreign policies have caused problems through out the world, now look he is backpedaling in Afghanistan. One minute he claims he ended the war in Iraq the next minute he claims it wasn't his idea to leave Iraq. Obama is a complete joke.
At home he has divided the country more then he has United. Taking sides on domestic matters that the president has no business sticking his nose in.
Obama did take over a huge mess from Bush 2 but he has done nothing to correct the problems making much of them worse.

 Frazzled wrote:


Revisionist nonsense. To those who actually lived through his Presidency, he was just plain BAD.

Then it's a good thing we don't just stop forming opinions about stuff after they happen. Otherwise we'd still be stoning people, and then how we would self righteously declare our superiority to people who still stone people!

 Orlanth wrote:
Obama didn't 'win' any elections, the Republicans lost them by fielding clowns.

Romney was a clown?

That's strong.

IMO he'd be the single best candidate we'd have for the 2016 election from either side of that quagmire of gak.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Revisionist nonsense. To those who actually lived through his Presidency, he was just plain BAD.

Then it's a good thing we don't just stop forming opinions about stuff after they happen. Otherwise we'd still be stoning people, and then how we would self righteously declare our superiority to people who still stone people!

As a libertarian, I have no problem with people being stoned as long as they are in a safe place and harm no others.

the revisionists are interested in reforming his character. its difficult to find something he did right.

The 0% interest rates he has kept in place are going to cause us much pain. There are a lot of folks who have had their retirement fethed because of it (hard to make it when typical safe type investments yield only 1-2% on a 30 year treasury bond and being forced into riskier investments which will get slammed when the stock bubble bursts). This is also going to have a big effect on life insurance policies (where the insurer really needs a 5+% investment and again, has been forced into assuming much higher risk in an attempt to achieve it). At this point the Fed must either do another QE or risk that bubble bursting even earlier.

To think Obama has fixed the mess Bush II left is silly. He has overseen a slow/stagnant recovery and built massive debt just to sustain that. We're in a much weaker position over the long term as a result.

 cincydooley wrote:


Romney was a clown?

That's strong.

IMO he'd be the single best candidate we'd have for the 2016 election from either side of that quagmire of gak.

I wouldn't say Romney was a clown, but being forced to run against clowns in the Primaries certainly hurt him in the General. Had he been able to run as the same man he'd been as a Governor, I think he might have beaten Obama but winning the Primaries forced him into Clown shoes

 cincydooley wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Obama didn't 'win' any elections, the Republicans lost them by fielding clowns.

Romney was a clown?

That's strong.

IMO he'd be the single best candidate we'd have for the 2016 election from either side of that quagmire of gak.

Romney's problem is that he comes from governing a state that has left-leaning laws on healthcare and gun control. I think that a lot of Republican voters were put off by that.

The Primaries kill solid Republican candidates.

As for Obama I'm meh on it. I'm making less money per paycheck thanks to the ACA but overall I think he's middle of the road. Not great and not horrible.