32
25
7
Obama has proven to be feckless and ineffective.
Government
Office of the President (POTUS)
Politics
Barack Obama
Edited 9 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 132
1
1
0
He has been successful only in further dividing the country. That's the mark of, as COL Burleson state, an immoral and corrupt person who cares nothing for others except his own quest for power and money.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
My insurance premiums went up, I now have an abortion clause in it (which costs extra), and my "Cadillac" plan may be going away due to my employer's cost for it. That is must be what you are referring to as success.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Any chance you are gaming the system? Say something you know will get under the collective RP skin and accumulate points.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I don't. I don't think anything he has done is irreparably broken. But I do believe it will take decades to fix, once we figure out how to fix it.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
"...any objective standard..." Is a pretty bold statement. You've already marginalized me, and dismissed that I might have some legitimate concerns. I think we've only had one good President in 50 years, I do not state that as fact. I state it as my opinion. But I'm ready to learn. Convince me. Here are my top 5 issues: 1)Household discretionary income - High is good. 2) National Debt - Low is good 3) Households dependent on government subsidies - Low is good 4) Consolidation of Power at Federal Level - Bad 5) Relations between and within the three branches of our government.
Additionally, I cannot point out any shining examples or achievements that I whole-heartedly think are great. Finally, there are times that I have been outright embarrassed, by no means a complete list but I'll cite a few. 1) James Taylor - You've Got a Friend" serenade after Charlie Hebdoe in Paris. 2) Rush to judgment of police in the Henry Louis Gates arrest. 3) Where was he during the Benghazi Consulate attack 4) Failure to attend Justice Scalia funeral 5) Return of the Churchill Bust to England 6) Gift of movies on Blu-ray to the Queen of England. 7) Chewing gum while he walks with foreign dignitaries. 8) Boast to Republican he asked to the White House "I won". 9) Affordable Healthcare Act.
Additionally, I cannot point out any shining examples or achievements that I whole-heartedly think are great. Finally, there are times that I have been outright embarrassed, by no means a complete list but I'll cite a few. 1) James Taylor - You've Got a Friend" serenade after Charlie Hebdoe in Paris. 2) Rush to judgment of police in the Henry Louis Gates arrest. 3) Where was he during the Benghazi Consulate attack 4) Failure to attend Justice Scalia funeral 5) Return of the Churchill Bust to England 6) Gift of movies on Blu-ray to the Queen of England. 7) Chewing gum while he walks with foreign dignitaries. 8) Boast to Republican he asked to the White House "I won". 9) Affordable Healthcare Act.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I really don't think President Obama is that "successful ". We will have added over $9 trillion dollars in national debt when Obama leaves office. The total national debt from when Obama took office will have doubled. We are living on an artificial bubble that is going to burst.
(1)
(0)
LTC David Brown
Well let's look at a real comparison of debt. Obama's federal debt dwarfs Reagan's
By Sierra Rayne
The Washington Post has an article with the following claim:
Obama's term isn't over, but it is hard to believe he could increase the debt by as large a percentage as Ronald Reagan did.
To arrive at this spurious conclusion, the Post apparently used non-inflation adjusted, non-seasonally adjusted raw total federal debt data from the Federal Reserve, and then proceeded to ignore normalization to either the size of the economy or population, and calculated the percent increase in this metric between January 1, 2009 and the latest data as of July 1, 2014 for Obama as compared to the percent increase between January 1, 1981 and January 1, 1989 for Reagan.
Using this intellectually flawed approach, one arrives at numbers of a 184-percent increase under Reagan and a 60-percent increase under Obama.
The absolute nominal value of the U.S. federal debt has no meaning whatsoever. It is an effectively useless statistic. By the Post's logic, having debt increase by 300 percent from $1 to $3 would be less desirable than having debt increase by 50 percent from $10 trillion to $15 trillion. Factor in higher rates of population growth, inflation, and economic growth under Reagan versus Obama, and it becomes obvious that nominal total debt comparisons are meaningless. Let us not forget that real GDP growth in 1984 was 7.3 percent; the next-highest value since was just 4.7 percent in 1999.
The best metric is normalization to the size of the economy. As is clear from the figure below, under Reagan the federal debt increased from 30.8 percent of GDP in January 1981 to 49.6 percent of GDP in January 1989, for a total increase of 18.8 percent of GDP. By comparison, the federal debt under Obama has increased from 77.4 percent of GDP in January 2009 up to 101.3 percent of GDP as of the latest data release in July 2014, for a total increase of 23.9 percent.
Consequently, in order for Obama's debt increase to be no larger than Reagan's, Obama would need to reduce the federal debt by 5.1 percent of GDP between now and January 2017.
The other valid comparison is to look at per capita federal debt in constant dollar terms. We can get at this number by multiplying the federal debt as a percentage of GDP (shown above) by real GDP in chained 2009 dollars and then dividing by the population. Via this approach, Reagan increased the real per capita federal debt by $8,584, whereas Obama has already increased the real per capita federal debt by $15,177.
Whichever way you look at it, Obama has already increased the federal debt far more than Reagan ever did.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/obamas_federal_debt_dwarfs_reagans.html#ixzz3uQKrn9aF
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
By Sierra Rayne
The Washington Post has an article with the following claim:
Obama's term isn't over, but it is hard to believe he could increase the debt by as large a percentage as Ronald Reagan did.
To arrive at this spurious conclusion, the Post apparently used non-inflation adjusted, non-seasonally adjusted raw total federal debt data from the Federal Reserve, and then proceeded to ignore normalization to either the size of the economy or population, and calculated the percent increase in this metric between January 1, 2009 and the latest data as of July 1, 2014 for Obama as compared to the percent increase between January 1, 1981 and January 1, 1989 for Reagan.
Using this intellectually flawed approach, one arrives at numbers of a 184-percent increase under Reagan and a 60-percent increase under Obama.
The absolute nominal value of the U.S. federal debt has no meaning whatsoever. It is an effectively useless statistic. By the Post's logic, having debt increase by 300 percent from $1 to $3 would be less desirable than having debt increase by 50 percent from $10 trillion to $15 trillion. Factor in higher rates of population growth, inflation, and economic growth under Reagan versus Obama, and it becomes obvious that nominal total debt comparisons are meaningless. Let us not forget that real GDP growth in 1984 was 7.3 percent; the next-highest value since was just 4.7 percent in 1999.
The best metric is normalization to the size of the economy. As is clear from the figure below, under Reagan the federal debt increased from 30.8 percent of GDP in January 1981 to 49.6 percent of GDP in January 1989, for a total increase of 18.8 percent of GDP. By comparison, the federal debt under Obama has increased from 77.4 percent of GDP in January 2009 up to 101.3 percent of GDP as of the latest data release in July 2014, for a total increase of 23.9 percent.
Consequently, in order for Obama's debt increase to be no larger than Reagan's, Obama would need to reduce the federal debt by 5.1 percent of GDP between now and January 2017.
The other valid comparison is to look at per capita federal debt in constant dollar terms. We can get at this number by multiplying the federal debt as a percentage of GDP (shown above) by real GDP in chained 2009 dollars and then dividing by the population. Via this approach, Reagan increased the real per capita federal debt by $8,584, whereas Obama has already increased the real per capita federal debt by $15,177.
Whichever way you look at it, Obama has already increased the federal debt far more than Reagan ever did.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/obamas_federal_debt_dwarfs_reagans.html#ixzz3uQKrn9aF
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Blog: Obama's federal debt dwarfs Reagan's
Obama's term isn't over, but it is hard to believe he could increase the debt by as large a percentage as Ronald Reagan did.
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Capt Walter Miller - No, because it served its purpose. The Soviet Union tried to keep up with us on military spending. It brought about their economic collapse and subsequent break up.
(1)
(0)
LTC David Brown
Capt Mller, yes, the problem was Reagan had a Democratic congress. Reagan horse traded that is why we had tax increases etc.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
If by successful you mean 'true to his Marxist ideology', then I cede the point. Ever read his book? OK, so he has federalized 1/5 of the American economy (ObamaCare) over the objection of most citizens, he has set the middle east on fire with his inaction, bifurcating nonsense responses, he has endangered the only Democracy in the region (Israel) and collapsed the economy while piling up more debt than ALL other presidents combined - success, yes if your desire is to diminish American influence around the globe and accelerate the process of making us into a third world nation....by all measurable means success beyond my wildest fears. Thank you spineless RINOs in both the house and senate.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
HE HAS!!!!!!!!! Not to what I have seen or care about. But I will not talk politics. One of the fopas in conversation. I was raised you don't talk about sex iin mixed company, religion outside of the home or church, and NO POLITICS!
Personally, I can't wait till he is gone and pray we don't get Hilary, All I got to say about that!
Personally, I can't wait till he is gone and pray we don't get Hilary, All I got to say about that!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Success, apparently like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The "jobs added" chart presented as proof of success is comically misleading. It is easily belied by the number of people leaving the workforce in cancerously growing numbers. The "growth" in GDP during his Administration would be comical as well if it weren't so tragically low. The safety of America and its citizens is a disappearing commodity. The ballooning national debt. The printing of worthless money. He has exacerbated race, class, and gender relations to achieve his political goals at the expense of American society. Every advance won by the blood, sweat, and tears of his betters, such as Martin Luther Kind, have been squandered. Beyond all this, Obama is a coward. He has run from every fight. Take the Affordable Care Act for example. He ran from that fight at the first sign of resistance leaving it to Pelosi and Reid to foist it off on the nation through legislative chicanery. The fact that it is commonly known as "Obamacare" is the height of irony. Still, he can find a legion of fools to sing his praises. Glory be to propaganda...
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
CPT Jack Durish - “...the difference between reported unemployment and all unemployment – including those on the fringe of the workforce – has remained pretty constant since 1994.
“Labor participation is affected much less by short-term job creation, and much more by long-term demographic trends. As this chart from the BLS shows, as the Baby Boomers entered the workforce and societal acceptance of women working changed, labor participation grew.
“Now that ‘Boomers’ are retiring we are seeing the percentage of those seeking employment decline. This has nothing to do with job availability, and everything to do with a highly predictable aging demographic.
“What’s now clear is that the Obama administration policies have outperformed the Reagan administration policies for job creation and unemployment reduction. Even though Reagan had the benefit of a growing Boomer class to ignite economic growth, while Obama has been forced to deal with a retiring workforce developing special needs. During the eight years preceding Obama there was a net reduction in jobs in America. We now are rapidly moving toward higher, sustainable jobs growth.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/
Walt
“Labor participation is affected much less by short-term job creation, and much more by long-term demographic trends. As this chart from the BLS shows, as the Baby Boomers entered the workforce and societal acceptance of women working changed, labor participation grew.
“Now that ‘Boomers’ are retiring we are seeing the percentage of those seeking employment decline. This has nothing to do with job availability, and everything to do with a highly predictable aging demographic.
“What’s now clear is that the Obama administration policies have outperformed the Reagan administration policies for job creation and unemployment reduction. Even though Reagan had the benefit of a growing Boomer class to ignite economic growth, while Obama has been forced to deal with a retiring workforce developing special needs. During the eight years preceding Obama there was a net reduction in jobs in America. We now are rapidly moving toward higher, sustainable jobs growth.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/
Walt
Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing
Conventional wisdom is that President Obama has not created jobs, or grown the economy. But data shows he has outperformed President Reagan, and every other modern president
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Capt Walter Miller - You go right on believing this and see what it gets you. I'll spend my time trying to help the victims of this nonsense survive and keep faith until we either turn it around or it all collapses
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
How sad to be unhappy with good outcomes.
Republicans have consistently said that a president cannot take responsibility for a strong economy — unless of course he’s a Republican.
A weak economy, however, is always a Democratic president’s fault. And if a Republican president presides over the worst financial crisis in a half-century after seven years in office, that is clearly the fault of poor people.
President Obama is in an awkward position when it comes to the economy. It’s only great if you compare it to the last 14 years. But with 50 percent of America now saying in the latest CNN poll that his presidency is a success, he figures that he’s now allowed to “take a well-earned victory lap” by answering the question Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) asked for four years: “Where are the jobs?”
“Well, after 12 million new jobs, a stock market that has more than doubled, deficits that have been cut by two-thirds, health care inflation at the lowest rate in nearly 50 years, manufacturing coming back, auto industry coming back, clean energy doubled — I’ve come not only to answer that question, but I want to return to the debate that is central to this country, and the alternative economic theory that’s presented by the other side,” the president said in Cleveland on Wednesday.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/5-obama-accomplishments-and-successes-republicans-have-to-pretend-never-happened/
Republicans have consistently said that a president cannot take responsibility for a strong economy — unless of course he’s a Republican.
A weak economy, however, is always a Democratic president’s fault. And if a Republican president presides over the worst financial crisis in a half-century after seven years in office, that is clearly the fault of poor people.
President Obama is in an awkward position when it comes to the economy. It’s only great if you compare it to the last 14 years. But with 50 percent of America now saying in the latest CNN poll that his presidency is a success, he figures that he’s now allowed to “take a well-earned victory lap” by answering the question Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) asked for four years: “Where are the jobs?”
“Well, after 12 million new jobs, a stock market that has more than doubled, deficits that have been cut by two-thirds, health care inflation at the lowest rate in nearly 50 years, manufacturing coming back, auto industry coming back, clean energy doubled — I’ve come not only to answer that question, but I want to return to the debate that is central to this country, and the alternative economic theory that’s presented by the other side,” the president said in Cleveland on Wednesday.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/5-obama-accomplishments-and-successes-republicans-have-to-pretend-never-happened/
5 Obama Successes Republicans Pretend Never Happened
Despite the GOP's best efforts, Americans can't ignore President Obama's legacy.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
If he was so great, why would people be questioning his legitimacy and loyalty to our Constitution?
U.S. Military Constitutionally Obligated to Arrest Obama, Congress for Treason The Constitution
Defending the Constitution from domestic threats requires arresting elected officials for treason.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
The typical Liberal's response to any criticism of Obama. The most divisive hater of the Constitution in the history of this country.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Sgt Tom Cunnally
Capt Walter Miller -
Uphold the Law: No Deals with Jihadists
The Obama Administration is violating the law in its quest to appease jihadists.
It has reportedly engaged in secret talks with Hamas, a designated terrorist organization that kills Israeli children, and has agreed to recognize and fund the Palestinian Authority’s new government that includes Hamas.
These actions violated the law and benefited Islamic radicals. This is intolerable. It’s time for accountability.
Defend the Law and Defend the United States: No Deals With Terrorists
Mr. President,
You swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately, you have disregarded the law to pursue a strategy of appeasement. You’re placing American security at risk, and you’ve betrayed our close ally Israel. Appeasement will not work. Uphold the law and make no deals with terrorist radicals.
Uphold the Law: No Deals with Jihadists
The Obama Administration is violating the law in its quest to appease jihadists.
It has reportedly engaged in secret talks with Hamas, a designated terrorist organization that kills Israeli children, and has agreed to recognize and fund the Palestinian Authority’s new government that includes Hamas.
These actions violated the law and benefited Islamic radicals. This is intolerable. It’s time for accountability.
Defend the Law and Defend the United States: No Deals With Terrorists
Mr. President,
You swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately, you have disregarded the law to pursue a strategy of appeasement. You’re placing American security at risk, and you’ve betrayed our close ally Israel. Appeasement will not work. Uphold the law and make no deals with terrorist radicals.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
MCPO Roger Collins - I agree that this guy is a troll. He picks subjects sure to stimulate while adding nothing to them. He's been involved in a number of them and eventually gets beat up enough and stops posting until he comes up with a new subject.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
MCPO Roger Collins - I hadn't thought of that. He might be too squeamish for actual S&M.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google