Obama - Winner or Loser

[Ernest Jones]

1 hour ago, Mr. Desmond said:

I don't favor their obstructionism. You've got to work together to make progress.

 

I think this is one of the biggest issues the US faces moving forward. Too many pissing matches at the expense of the people. We get it a bit here in Canada as well, but in general, the parties are able to work together and find common ground. Of course, it helps that our new liberal government has a solid majority.

[Gator Hazard]

On March 24, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Ernest Jones said:

I don't see redneck stupidity in your post. You never claimed he was coming to steal your guns or that he is a Muslim sleeper agent with a hidden agenda!

Despite what @Gunther may "think", I'm not looking to vilify the other side of the debate, I'm just interested to actually hear what the other side of the debate is. Far too often I hear, "Obama has been a disaster 'nuff said..." Just take a look at post #10 to see what I mean...

From the outside looking in, it seems like Obama gets none of the credit for anything good that has happened during his term and all of the blame for anything bad that happens during his time in office.

What about these numbers? Are they not accurate? It seems like he inherited a pile of shit from the GOP and has slowly turned the tides. But I found this on the internet so maybe it's not at all accurate.

Anyway, I don't have a dog in this fight, I just think Obama is pretty fly and don't really get the hatred (not saying that about you specifically @saevel25).

The stats I see being put forth all seem to indicate that he has done a great job as POTUS, particularly when you factor in the mess that he had to start with. By contrast, the stats that support the "Obama was bad" narrative are all anecdotal, non-existent or ridiculous. Which is why I created this thread, I want to hear some points from people that aren't stupid rednecks and I don't consider you (or @David in FL, @newtogolf, @patches) to be stupid or a redneck.  

 

That is just American politics (probably the same elsewhere). The president is usually not a big reason our economy behaves the way it does. Lower unemployment is skewed because part time work counts and people who quit looking for work or ran out of benefits from unemployment are not counted. The average income dropped.  So yeah more jobs that are not as profitable for laborer a are counted (I blame both parties).

Dont want to get too political. Your post asked if he was a winner or loser. Well, love or hate the guy no one can take away that he won the office twice, while being black!  That makes him a winner in any book. I think he is an average president who wanted to do well and did things he thought were right for America. And of course not everyone is going to agree. 

[Ernest Jones]

16 minutes ago, Gator Hazard said:

That is just American politics (probably the same elsewhere). The president is usually not a big reason our economy behaves the way it does. Lower unemployment is skewed because part time work counts and people who quit looking for work or ran out of benefits from unemployment are not counted. The average income dropped.  So yeah more jobs that are not as profitable for laborer a are counted (I blame both parties).

Dont want to get too political. Your post asked if he was a winner or loser. Well, love or hate the guy no one can take away that he won the office twice, while being black!  That makes him a winner in any book. I think he is an average president who wanted to do well and did things he thought were right for America. And of course not everyone is going to agree. 

Well balanced post. I appreciate that. So many post inane vitriol with nothing to back it up. 

You don't have to like him as a president, but you should at least have some reasons you can clearly articulate. 

[nevets88]

4 hours ago, Mr. Desmond said:

NYT is the #1 newspaper in the World. It has moderate and liberal columnists. Haven't seen any extreme right wingers in the Opinion columns. It also has many great articles on sports, health, the arts, science, etc. I don't watch Fox or CNN or MSNBC much except for breaking news.

I am not a member of either party. On social issues, I lean more to the left. On economic issues, I lean more to the right. I don't believe either party gets to the core of issues that will resolve issues. Too many band-aids, and too much animosity. Up until 2000, I voted for the GOP Presidential candidate - from 1976-96. In 2000, I did not think GWB was ready and afterwards, the GOP, imho, went Evangelical and Far Right, and I don't favor their obstructionism. You've got to work together to make progress.

Spoiler

I agree with both you and @Phil McGleno. The NYT writes some good pieces, but its tainted record of Jason Blair, Judith Miller still lingers. Imho, it's the paper of record, unofficially, in that it is widely read. Its quality is a mixed bag, its curation, what it chooses to print, I have a problem with. People think it's liberal, but it's a very classist paper. I really hate some of its changes. The Week In Review is gone. A lot of the columns and features in the Sunday magazine are gone. I love the new building and it holds great talks, there are some very cool features in meeting rooms and offices, I've had a chance to visit them, but the timing of the move felt wrong.

 

[newtogolf]

NY Times is really good....for cleaning fish.  Otherwise, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.  

[boogielicious]

7 hours ago, newtogolf said:

NY Times is really good....for cleaning fish.  Otherwise, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.  

[Mr. Desmond]

8 hours ago, newtogolf said:

NY Times is really good....for cleaning fish.  Otherwise, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.  

That's why you get the online edition. No cleaning needed. But you are missing out by not reading it. More on Obama's Economic Legacy:

Obama, though, was unable or unwilling to rhetorically underscore the severity of the crisis as it unfolded, so perhaps what should have been seen as successes were seen as failures. “It was a delicate balance throughout 2009 and 2010 to be straight with the American people about the depths of the problem, how close we were to disaster, without scaring the heck out of them,” Obama said.

Beyond the messaging challenge, Obama faced a practical bind as well: Just as he was trying to reinflate the economy, he was also being forced to cut government jobs, under pressure from Republicans who contended that government bloat and the cost of it could create our next financial crisis. Call it an anti-stimulus. “This is the first recovery where you actually saw the government work force decline, and that created this massive fiscal drag throughout the recovery,” Obama said.

Despite all this, over the course of his presidency, Obama has actually been able to oversee a much larger stimulus than has been typically reported. If you add up all of his administration’s classic stimulus measures, including the many tax breaks the administration extended, you get $1.4 trillion, a figure that is nearly twice the original figure. The anti-stimulus, then, was counteracted by a stealth stimulus.

“Progressives don’t fully appreciate the degree to which the 2011 budget deal not only averted a potential default but actually limited the potential damage of a newly emboldened Congress in imposing austerity on a still-fragile recovery,” Obama said. “And by me winning in 2012 and getting the Bush tax cuts for the upper 2 percent repealed, we ended up getting a grand bargain. It’s just we got it sequentially instead of all at once.”

___

Ultimately, however, Obama said the lessons of his time in office are being misunderstood in the election campaigns. “If you look at the platforms, the economic platforms of the current Republican candidates for president, they don’t simply defy logic and any known economic theories, they are fantasy,” Obama said. “Slashing taxes particularly for those at the very top, dismantling regulatory regimes that protect our air and our environment and then projecting that this is going to lead to 5 percent or 7 percent growth, and claiming that they’ll do all this while balancing the budget. Nobody would even, with the most rudimentary knowledge of economics, think that any of those things are plausible.”

He continued: “If we can’t puncture some of the mythology around austerity, politics or tax cuts or the mythology that’s been built up around the Reagan revolution, where somehow people genuinely think that he slashed government and slashed the deficit and that the recovery was because of all these massive tax cuts, as opposed to a shift in interest-rate policy — if we can’t describe that effectively, then we’re doomed to keep on making more and more mistakes.”

[nevets88]

IIRC, initially he secured ~$800m to inject into economy for the financial crisis. He wanted like double that. 44 has done a lot, look at lists of what he has signed into legislation, but I feel he could have been more assertive handling Congress although that's like herding cats.  And mixed feelings on how he handled drone warfare, NSA, Gitmo among other things. Overall, expected more from him.

Off topic but if POTUS can stay in shape w/one of the most demanding jobs in the world, most of us should be able to w/our jobs. 

Following his social media accounts - Twitter, Instagram, etc... has been informative and fun. 

[saevel25]

46 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

"Slashing taxes particularly for those at the very top, dismantling regulatory regimes that protect our air and our environment and then projecting that this is going to lead to 5 percent or 7 percent growth, and claiming that they’ll do all this while balancing the budget. Nobody would even, with the most rudimentary knowledge of economics, think that any of those things are plausible.”

Sure it's possible to balance the budget if you privatize social security, reduce or repeal medicare, and repeal the affordable care act.

The largest budget items are, 

1. Medicare/Medicaid: $1.03 trillion
2. Social Security: $ 0.898 trillion
3. Defense/War: $ 0.586 trillion

5-7% of growth is pretty hard to do. There would need to be substantial investment in new industry sectors to help make up for our lack of manufacturing jobs that we will never fully recover. Even with the Tech boom in the late 90's the US was seeing 4-5% average. 

 

 

[Gator Hazard]

On April 7, 2016 at 8:57 AM, boogielicious said:

Before you canonize him, he did make a number of mistakes, some of which were impeachable. He did some good things. We got the good with the bad. But this thread is about the current POTUS.

"We got the good with the bad". I would say this sums up the vast majority of our presidents. They're human after all....

[Mr. Desmond]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Sure it's possible to balance the budget if you privatize social security, reduce or repeal medicare, and repeal the affordable care act.

The largest budget items are, 

1. Medicare/Medicaid: $1.03 trillion
2. Social Security: $ 0.898 trillion
3. Defense/War: $ 0.586 trillion

5-7% of growth is pretty hard to do. There would need to be substantial investment in new industry sectors to help make up for our lack of manufacturing jobs that we will never fully recover. Even with the Tech boom in the late 90's the US was seeing 4-5% average. 

 

 

Before I get to how Obama is winner/loser, you can't privatize Social Security because 90% of the people would lose their money to Wall Street, and then the gov't would feel forced to pass another social security bill. Second, we need a health care bill, always thought ObamaCare was a bandaid but a starting point - health care will not work until you deal with the root problem of costs. If you leave the people without health care, Bernie Sanders and progressives will have a new life and a more substantial voice.

As to Obama, I think he realizes that he nor the GOP have any answers to the economy. Another band-aid will be infrastructure spending - highways, internet, bullet trains - it will help the construction industry and bring jobs in the short term.

The root problems in government is its lack of efficiency/organization, its budgeting process, and private and public officials taking advantage of government coffers. Motivate gov't employees to save money, reorganizate it from top to bottom. Make the government more like a business.

Taxes -- need a low rate VAT/Sales Tax and a low rate simple income tax. Simplify it and reduce rates. The VAT/sales tax will get more people in the system paying taxes.

Manufacturing - you will need protectionist provisions because the playing field is not equal. 

Obama and the GOP are not winners, not losers -- they are lost at the moment, and as a result, we are lost ... at the moment.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Mr. Desmond

[saevel25]

30 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

Before I get to how Obama is winner/loser, you can't privatize Social Security because 90% of the people would lose their money to Wall Street, and then the gov't would feel forced to pass another social security bill.

 

Spoiler

I had money in the stock market when it crashed pretty good in 2008 and I didn't lose it. I actually have way more money now than I did back then. 

Your assertion that people would lose their money is completely false. If you are diversified then there has never been a 10 year period where people have lost money if they just left the money in the stock market instead of ripping it out due to the gut reaction. 

Also, even if you privatize social security it would be in low risk, highly diversified portfolio with a lot of bonds and cash options. Guess what, that is what retirees should be doing anyways. 

I have no time for 60-70 year old people in 2008 who stick money into stocks that are meant for long term gains which have high short term volatility. That is just plain stupidity and ignorance not to do basic research on risk analysis. 

 

 

33 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

Obama and the GOP are not winners, not losers -- they are lost at the moment, and as a result, we are lost ... at the moment.

I would call that losing on both sides 

[Mr. Desmond]

3 hours ago, saevel25 said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

I had money in the stock market when it crashed pretty good in 2008 and I didn't lose it. I actually have way more money now than I did back then. 

Your assertion that people would lose their money is completely false. If you are diversified then there has never been a 10 year period where people have lost money if they just left the money in the stock market instead of ripping it out due to the gut reaction. 

Also, even if you privatize social security it would be in low risk, highly diversified portfolio with a lot of bonds and cash options. Guess what, that is what retirees should be doing anyways. 

I have no time for 60-70 year old people in 2008 who stick money into stocks that are meant for long term gains which have high short term volatility. That is just plain stupidity and ignorance not to do basic research on risk analysis. 

 

 

I would call that losing on both sides 

My assertion as to people losing their a$$ if they take over the investment of their social security takes into account human nature, so it is not false. You do not account for human nature and ignorance, so your assertion is faulty. Some will win, most will lose. I deal with the public on a daily basis. They are emotional and panicky.

Now if you are discussing the government taking the social security funds and putting them in the hands of a private professional manager with limitations as to the investments, that is a different matter. That could be a winner.

3 hours ago, saevel25 said:

 

I would call that losing on both sides 

As a Texas A&M Aggie, we have a saying that we never lose, we just run out of time. I'd like to think that our politicians are the same way -- we have a bad team now but we have time for a winning team.

[acerimusdux]

4 hours ago, saevel25 said:

5-7% of growth is pretty hard to do. There would need to be substantial investment in new industry sectors to help make up for our lack of manufacturing jobs that we will never fully recover. Even with the Tech boom in the late 90's the US was seeing 4-5% average. 

Yes, and when we've been over 4% in the past, it was also because we had high unemployment to start with. As we are getting near to full employment, growth will be limited to population + productivity growth. And population growth is projected to be about 0.5% right now. 

So since productivity growth of even 2.5% would be optimistic, it's not likely anyone is going to deliver over 3% growth from here (at least until after the next recession). 

Thing is, while I fully credit Obama for the stimulus package which helped get us out of recession and to where we are now (and think we would have gotten here quicker with more stimulus, and especially with more of it directed towards infrastructure spending), we are now at the point where Keynesian theory quite clearly calls for spending cuts, deficit reduction, and getting government out of the way. Stimulus is supposed to be temporary, for when the private sector is struggling. But Obama's budgets are now projecting government spending at 22-23% of GDP going forward, when historically we've been around 20%. 

5 hours ago, Mr. Desmond said:

“And by me winning in 2012 and getting the Bush tax cuts for the upper 2 percent repealed, we ended up getting a grand bargain. It’s just we got it sequentially instead of all at once."

I'm not so sure this was such a great bargain. They were repealed for the top 2%, but made permanent for everyone else. Not sure why he didn't just let them expire. Democrats campaigned against these tax cuts as being reckless and exploding the deficit, and then Obama made a minor tweak to them and made them his own.