Has obama failed as a leader

[glenn1]

This is a strange idea. Obama has had one of the most successful foreign policy tenures of any recent president; the only more successful one I can think of is GHWB. It's especially strange when you look at how much more successful he has been than the supposed foreign policy 'experts' from the previous administration.

There's a reason why the foreign policy community thinks so highly of him.

What exactly are you using as a success criteria for a "successful foreign policy"? I'm not claiming you're wrong, but just hope you can explain your reasoning. Although GHWB signed the START treaty, he also invaded Panama, led the 1st Gulf War, and gave the "Chicken Kiev" speech. Ditto for Obama - he has the new START treaty but I'm not sure if killing Osama bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda figures should be categorized as part of "foreign policy." Ditto for leaving Iraq after being requested to do so by their government.

 

[yllus]

I think he's done pretty well. The Affordable Care Act will go down as a defining triumph, he's kicked off a rollback of taxation rates to pre-Reagan levels, the financial sector should see a bit tougher regulation than before and America is on its way out of various war-torn nations while avoiding getting caught up in new ones.

If not for the very worrying civil rights abuses of the NSA under his watch I'd give him two thumbs up for doing what he could with what he had.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Well your subsequent post sure made it sound like it to me.

What's bizarre is that you would think I would have any desire to 'spin your words dishonestly'. If you didn't mean the silly thing I thought you said that's great. Keep up the good work!

My comments regarding Putin were clearly in direct context to our potential military involvement in Syria....nothing more, nothing less. How you extrapolated so far beyond this is a complete mystery to me. If you're going to jump down my throat about something...please don't make up crap and then wail against it. Strawmen are so easy to knock over...especially when every detail is completely fabricated using one's imagination. Nice try, but please do keep up the good work!

 

[irishScott]

I think he's done pretty well. The Affordable Care Act will go down as a defining triumph, he's kicked off a rollback of taxation rates to pre-Reagan levels, the financial sector should see a bit tougher regulation than before and America is on its way out of various war-torn nations while avoiding getting caught up in new ones.

If not for the very worrying civil rights abuses of the NSA under his watch I'd give him two thumbs up for doing what he could with what he had.

The Affordable Care Act is currently going down as a buggy-ass website that cranks up most people's insurance prices for coverage they don't need or want. Honestly all the talk of "how it will be perceived down the road" reminds me of Bush's identical rationalization regarding Iraq. You can say that about anything and make it sound better in your head, fact is the long term ramifications of the ACA are just as unknown as they were when the law was passed, and the short-term ramifications are mostly negative.

The ACA, after years of fixes and modification independent of those who originally wrote it, may be a success. "Obamacare" is and always will be one of the major flops of the decade.

As for pulling out of two failed wars and tougher financial regulation, those were easy decisions and not what I'd call "leadership". His one example of effective leadership I can recall is Libya. His blunders far outweigh his triumphs.

Now if he, say, seriously reigned in the NSA and got rid of software patents, or something of equal magnitude, I might be willing to change my tune.

 

[glenn1]

I think he's done pretty well. The Affordable Care Act will go down as a defining triumph, he's kicked off a rollback of taxation rates to pre-Reagan levels, the financial sector should see a bit tougher regulation than before and America is on its way out of various war-torn nations while avoiding getting caught up in new ones.

If not for the very worrying civil rights abuses of the NSA under his watch I'd give him two thumbs up for doing what he could with what he had.

I'd respectfully disagree with your characterization of the ACA to put it mildly. On taxation, the increase in top marginal rate for those making $400k AGI or above pales in comparison to making other tax-lowering features permanent; like the lower rate on long-term capital gains, qualified dividends, and the state sales tax credit. Add atop that the Alternative Minimum Tax fix and IMHO it's certainly not a "rollback to pre-Reagan levels," especially for the ultra-rich whose main source of income isn't from wages.

 

[fskimospy]

My comments regarding Putin were clearly in direct context to our potential military involvement in Syria....nothing more, nothing less. How you extrapolated so far beyond this is a complete mystery to me. If you're going to jump down my throat about something...please don't make up crap and then wail against it. Strawmen are so easy to knock over...especially when every detail is completely fabricated using one's imagination. Nice try, but please do keep up the good work!

I'm deeply sorry for confusing you so thoroughly that you thought the only explanation was a conspiracy on my part to defame you. The world can be a mystifying place at times.

Rest assured that I'm happy to hear that your position was not the one that it appeared to be. While this has thwarted my diabolical plot to ruin your good internet name, it still warms my heart.

 

[Moonbeam]

How about the common ground that the other people think exactly the same about you? You both think the same things about each other, you have something in common.

Then once both sides acknowledge that they think the other is literally mentally defective, they can sit down and talk about why that is like adults who want to solve problems bigger than themselves. Or so Sesame Street taught me around age 5.

Ah shit here we go with the false equivalencies. Both sides are not equally mentally defective. Science proves that one side has a brain physiologically identifiably as associated with behaviors that cause bubble realities to develop and crystalize leading to the denial of real facts in the real world. So stick your false equivalency up your ass and smoke it.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

try the following:
13223
13224
13228
13231
13234
13235
13239
13253
I quit reading them after that.

Of course you did. There's 291 and you've managed to cite 8 that in some kind of round about way have to do with terrorism and war while ignoring the point that the OP was dismissing the very executive orders he decries apparently based on the fact he agreed with those ones.

And that leaves 283. There are literally hundreds that have nothing to do with terrorism and Afghanistan in any way.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd respectfully disagree with your characterization of the ACA to put it mildly. On taxation, the increase in top marginal rate for those making $400k AGI or above pales in comparison to making other tax-lowering features permanent; like the lower rate on long-term capital gains, qualified dividends, and the state sales tax credit. Add atop that the Alternative Minimum Tax fix and IMHO it's certainly not a "rollback to pre-Reagan levels," especially for the ultra-rich whose main source of income isn't from wages.

According to the CBO the tax rate for the top 1% of filers is approximately equivalent to pre-Reagan levels. (Actually slightly higher)

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm deeply sorry for confusing you so thoroughly that you thought the only explanation was a conspiracy on my part to defame you. The world can be a mystifying place at times.

Rest assured that I'm happy to hear that your position was not the one that it appeared to be. While this has thwarted my diabolical plot to ruin your good internet name, it still warms my heart.

God Damned liberal. There you go changing your mind with new information. No self respect I guess. How do you allow yourself to lose face like that.

 

[irishScott]

Ah shit here we go with the false equivalencies. Both sides are not equally mentally defective. Science proves that one side has a brain physiologically identifiably as associated with behaviors that cause bubble realities to develop and crystalize leading to the denial of real facts in the real world. So stick your false equivalency up your ass and smoke it.

No, "science" doesn't prove that. We've been over this moonbeam, you don't get to cherry pick studies, refuse to analyze them, and then claim that they represent scientific consensus.

You want to talk about denial of real facts in the real world, start with yourself. Note: This may require admitting and accepting self-fault, in addition to honestly questioning your motives. I know this is harder than your usual practice of rationalization but believe me it's worth it.

 

[yllus]

The Affordable Care Act is currently going down as a buggy-ass website that cranks up most people's insurance prices for coverage they don't need or want. Honestly all the talk of "how it will be perceived down the road" reminds me of Bush's identical rationalization regarding Iraq. You can say that about anything and make it sound better in your head, fact is the long term ramifications of the ACA are just as unknown as they were when the law was passed, and the short-term ramifications are mostly negative.

The ACA, after years of fixes and modification independent of those who originally wrote it, may be a success. "Obamacare" is and always will be one of the major flops of the decade.

As for pulling out of two failed wars and tougher financial regulation, those were easy decisions and not what I'd call "leadership". His one example of effective leadership I can recall is Libya. His blunders far outweigh his triumphs.

Now if he, say, seriously reigned in the NSA and got rid of Software Patents, or something of equal magnitude, I might be willing to change my tune.

The issue isn't if something will be perceived better down the road. It's just that the way government works generally leads to an early mess and competency later on. There's no software developer in the world who would have advocated for a project timeline like that for Heathcare.gov - the smart thing to do is to go live with something small and start iterating - but government is ridiculous and assigns enormous contracts to come to a close in two years' time. Perfect recipe for disaster.

Still, another defining attribute of government - that it will be here five, ten, fifty years from now - means that things get fixed and working in the medium term. The website will be worked out - it was rushed and probably has significant structural problems, but even if it takes a few more years that's sort of irrelevant. In five or ten years a few people will remember a kerfluffle in 2013 at launch time, but more will only remember that they got health care that they couldn't get before. That will resonate more.

 

[BUnit1701]

This is a strange idea. Obama has had one of the most successful foreign policy tenures of any recent president; the only more successful one I can think of is GHWB. It's especially strange when you look at how much more successful he has been than the supposed foreign policy 'experts' from the previous administration.

There's a reason why the foreign policy community thinks so highly of him.

Really? If it has been so successful, perhaps you could articulate for us what exactly this administrations foreign policy is?

 

[irishScott]

The issue isn't if something will be perceived better down the road. It's just that the way government works generally leads to an early mess and competency later on. There's no software developer in the world who would have advocated for a project timeline like that for Heathcare.gov - the smart thing to do is to go live with something small and start iterating - but government is ridiculous and assigns enormous contracts to come to a close in two years' time. Perfect recipe for disaster.

Still, another defining attribute of government - that it will be here five, ten, fifty years from now - means that things get fixed and working in the medium term. The website will be worked out - it was rushed and probably has significant structural problems, but even if it takes a few more years that's sort of irrelevant. In five or ten years a few people will remember a kerfluffle in 2013 at launch time, but more will only remember that they got health care that they couldn't get before. That will resonate more.

Or they'll remember how their premiums went up in much the same way that the previous generation complains about restrictions that have come their way, often decades after said restrictions were passed. They'll also remember the lies.

If the ACA is successful Obama will have a minimal share of the credit. If you deliver a broken product and others later fix it, you don't get credit for the working product.

 

[rudeguy]

The issue isn't if something will be perceived better down the road. It's just that the way government works generally leads to an early mess and competency later on. There's no software developer in the world who would have advocated for a project timeline like that for Heathcare.gov - the smart thing to do is to go live with something small and start iterating - but government is ridiculous and assigns enormous contracts to come to a close in two years' time. Perfect recipe for disaster.

Still, another defining attribute of government - that it will be here five, ten, fifty years from now - means that things get fixed and working in the medium term. The website will be worked out - it was rushed and probably has significant structural problems, but even if it takes a few more years that's sort of irrelevant. In five or ten years a few people will remember a kerfluffle in 2013 at launch time, but more will only remember that they got health care that they couldn't get before. That will resonate more.

So exactly how many people that couldn't get health care are you thinking? I'm very curious to what your projection is.

The ACA was either designed to fail or was put together by people who had no idea what they were doing. There is no way it can work. The promises Obama made and the numbers he quoted are all proven to be lies. This is why I want to hear the number of people you are thinking that are going to get coverage that couldn't before. I'm thinking it will cost about the same per capita as Obama's last jobs bill. Probably going to cost us taxpayers a million dollars each to cover these few people that supposedly couldn't get coverage before.

 

[yllus]

I'd respectfully disagree with your characterization of the ACA to put it mildly. On taxation, the increase in top marginal rate for those making $400k AGI or above pales in comparison to making other tax-lowering features permanent; like the lower rate on long-term capital gains, qualified dividends, and the state sales tax credit. Add atop that the Alternative Minimum Tax fix and IMHO it's certainly not a "rollback to pre-Reagan levels," especially for the ultra-rich whose main source of income isn't from wages.

Sorry, I got a little ahead of myself there. I meant that those tax rates for "the 1%" are back at pre-Reagan levels (consisting of relatively easy wins) and I would wager that the rest of his final term will consist of more of a push to rebalance things in favour of the middle class. (Capital gains tax?)

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm deeply sorry for confusing you so thoroughly that you thought the only explanation was a conspiracy on my part to defame you. The world can be a mystifying place at times.

Rest assured that I'm happy to hear that your position was not the one that it appeared to be. While this has thwarted my diabolical plot to ruin your good internet name, it still warms my heart.

There you go again. I never said there was any conspiracy or diabolical plot on your part to defame me. All I'm asking is that you please stop making up shit I clearly didn't say...is this really so difficult? Also, you suck at apologizing...just saying.

 

[fskimospy]

What exactly are you using as a success criteria for a "successful foreign policy"? I'm not claiming you're wrong, but just hope you can explain your reasoning. Although GHWB signed the START treaty, he also invaded Panama, led the 1st Gulf War, and gave the "Chicken Kiev" speech. Ditto for Obama - he has the new START treaty but I'm not sure if killing Osama bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda figures should be categorized as part of "foreign policy." Ditto for leaving Iraq after being requested to do so by their government.

GHWB's greatest success was his handling of the end of the Cold War IMO. More than anything, that was his greatest success. (and it was huge)

As for Obama, killing the US's single most wanted foreign adversary and the decimation of his organization definitely counts as foreign policy. He's also strengthened the coalition against Iran's nuclear program, leading to a significant improvement in one of the US's thorniest foreign policy problems, his intervention in Libya was largely successful, etc, etc.

It's not that he hasn't had blunders (Syria clearly comes to mind), but overall he's done a good job. Compared to his predecessor he's practically the second coming of FDR.

 

[fskimospy]

There you go again. I never said there was any conspiracy or diabolical plot on your part to defame me. All I'm asking is that you please stop making up shit I clearly didn't say...is this really so difficult? Also, you suck at apologizing...just saying.

I wasn't actually apologizing.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I wasn't actually apologizing.

I know.

 

[IGBT]

if you go back and pay attention to his campaign rhetoric..you will find he is doing nearly everything he said he would. Or said it in such a way that allows his cabal and willing accomplices to spin support. We are now living in a post Constitutional era thanks to your obama.

 

[yllus]

Or they'll remember how their premiums went up in much the same way that the previous generation complains about restrictions that have come their way, often decades after said restrictions were passed.

If the ACA is successful Obama will have a minimal share of the credit. If you deliver a broken product and others later fix it, you don't get credit for the working product.

I don't know - I'm not going to be bitching about my phone bill going up by 20% ten years from now. I'm definitely annoyed today, but it's not worthy of caring about in the long run.

Incidentally, I always thought that the best way to communicate about ACA was to say, "Everyone already covered will see their premiums raise by 6% (or whatever it is), but in doing so you will allow 25 million of your fellow Americans to recieve affordable health care."

How much credit does Lyndon Johnson get for the Great Society programs? He was a one-term president and those were a mess at launch too, but he gets all of the kudos.

So exactly how many people that couldn't get health care are you thinking? I'm very curious to what your projection is.

The ACA was either designed to fail or was put together by people who had no idea what they were doing. There is no way it can work. The promises Obama made and the numbers he quoted are all proven to be lies. This is why I want to hear the number of people you are thinking that are going to get coverage that couldn't before. I'm thinking it will cost about the same per capita as Obama's last jobs bill. Probably going to cost us taxpayers a million dollars each to cover these few people that supposedly couldn't get coverage before.

The projections are widely available. Add the fact that the ACA will particularly assist your average penniless college student and you've got a great plan in place to create fond memories of a president.

 

[rudeguy]

if you go back and pay attention to his campaign rhetoric..you will find he is doing nearly everything he said he would. Or said it in such a way that allows his cabal and willing accomplices to spin support. We are now living in a post Constitutional era thanks to your obama.

If you want to hate him just a little more, go back and read his State of the Union addresses. The lies to truth to make believe ration in them is roughly 5%/45%50%.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, "science" doesn't prove that. We've been over this moonbeam, you don't get to cherry pick studies, refuse to analyze them, and then claim that they represent scientific consensus.

You want to talk about denial of real facts in the real world, start with yourself. Note: This may require admitting and accepting self-fault, in addition to honestly questioning your motives. I know this is harder than your usual practice of rationalization but believe me it's worth it.

That was so funny. Do it again.

 

[piasabird]

There is no requirement for congress to do what the president wants. Sometime gridlock and defunding is the only way to deal with a dictator. We don't have to follow Obama to hell!