• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama has largely been an ineffectual President

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
lothar said:
And who will he be replaced by?
The GOP field is currently still in disarray.
Click to expand...

IDK. I think he's a nice guy and means well. He's done some important and historical things, but when it comes to the issue that matters now, the economy, he's been fairly useless.
____

Yeah, he saved us from a Greater Depression into a Lesser Depression, but that's not much solace. What has he done since the stimulus (such as it was) that he passed in the first few weeks in office? He's been pretty much MIA.

Even this week... bad news, any response? Dems put out a couple Jobs bills, R's shoot it down, and Dems just give up w/o a fight. What are they doing? Why are they such big pussies?

See this clip going around. Whine Whine, whine, retreat. Even Pro-Obama Chris Mathews is exasperated w/ the Dem congresswoman.

Being said, R's are just out for themselves and to destroy Obama. They have no regard for who is in the crossfire, namely the country. Plus all their plans are horrible. They are very effective in what they do, too bad its always shitty. They are the assholes.


That only leaves a 3rd party candidate, or a non-crazy Republican, which so far doesn't exist in the Pres race. Bloomberg really won't run? Bring Bill back? Hillary? Bueller?

Maybe Obama will find his nutsack, but he's only got a few weeks to do it (if at all.) If the Dems get drilled in this super-committee BS, its game over.
 
OneOfTheseDays said:
Speaking as someone who voted for him in 2008, I can honestly say I feel disappointed with his first term.

To be frank, he's the wrong kind of President for the economic crisis we face today. The American people need someone with strength in their convictions to make unpopular decisions and more importantly CONVINCE the American people they need to be done. Obama has failed on both fronts IMHO. All I see in Congress is the status quo, and Obama is completely powerless to sway them from their current destructive path. He simply doesn't have the moxy to challenge Congress and get the American people on his side to put the pressure on these buffoons.

He has spent his entire first term trying to please everyone and in doing so has pleased nobody. Liberals are by and large not enamored with him, and conservatives downright hate him. I would not be surprised if he is voted out after his first term.
Click to expand...
Agreed. He has faith and fervor, but then gives in to pressure. While we don't need someone with his economic polciies, not by a long shot, we do need someone with convictions to back their charisma, like Reagan. Someone willing to throw down the veto hammer, put his feet up on his desk and say, "I told you so," when the government shuts down over a game of chicken gone too far, etc.. We don't need perfection; what we do need a solid direction to begin taking steps that will help us get out of our messes.

Congress has gone the way The People don't want several times now, and each time, Obama has just gone along with them. Obama isn't evil, nor stupid, nor has every decision been a mistake, but we don't need a leader who puts his finger to the wind, right now, to decide choices he should make. We need a President who is willing to tell congress, and even his own cabinet members, to go screw themselves, if they want to be selfish assholes.

My greatest fear for 2012 is that the GOP will put up an extreme candidate, and that we won't get a Perot-like 3rd party candidate (Perot as he was when he was running could easily win 2012, IMO), such that Obama could be re-elected due to the competitions' failure, or that we'll end up with a trickle-down idiot who will make damn sure we become a 3rd-world nation within a decade or two.
 
Last edited:
Jiggz said:
When you're down and out, does it matter who's hand extended over to help?
Click to expand...

Of course it does. Whether you think Obama's been a good President or not, only the most extreme folks would say it's not possible for someone else to do a worse job.

I honestly think the Republicans are going to get bit in the ass by the same thing that bit the Democrats in 2004. Running an "anybody but the current guy" strategy requires you to prove to the voters that ANYBODY would really be better. And while that's an article of faith among some conservatives with regard to President Obama, I wonder about convincing the majority of the same...
 
Only Idiots voted for O'Bammah! You were warned he was a fascist pinko terrorist loving skumball. You got exactly what you voted for.
 
Fear No Evil said:
2.5 years into Obama's Presidency you guys are still blaming Bush for everything. yet less than 9 months into Bush's and he's responsible for not preventing 9/11? Gotcha.. 🙄
Click to expand...

You are the one who brought up Bush. And yes, he was responsible for preventing events like 9/11 after being president for 9 months. Good thing you got it.
 
Fear No Evil said:
2.5 years into Obama's Presidency you guys are still blaming Bush for everything. yet less than 9 months into Bush's and he's responsible for not preventing 9/11? Gotcha.. 🙄
Click to expand...

To be fair, people play pretty fast and loose with praise and blame based on their political bias...on both sides. Either the President gets credit/blame for what happens on his watch, or he gets a pass. If Bush isn't responsible for 9/11, then Obama isn't responsible for anything that happened during the first 1/3 of his Presidency. And of course the opposite is true as well.
 
senseamp said:
Yeah, aside from preventing a second Great Depression, he had no effect.
Click to expand...

It amazes me that people forget where the US was on January 21 2009. GDP had contracted 3.7% in the 3rd quarter of 2008 and 8.9% in the 4th quarter of that year. More than two million jobs were lost between Jan - March 2009.

The Republicans' plan was to cut government spending, which means increasing unemployment, and lower taxes to the wealthiest. As Herbert Hoover and the country learned the hard way back in 1929 trying to balance the budget, cutting spending, during an economic downturn makes the situation worst.
 
Rainsford said:
To be fair, people play pretty fast and loose with praise and blame based on their political bias...on both sides. Either the President gets credit/blame for what happens on his watch, or he gets a pass. If Bush isn't responsible for 9/11, then Obama isn't responsible for anything that happened during the first 1/3 of his Presidency. And of course the opposite is true as well.
Click to expand...

Preventing 9/11 was primarily a presidential (executive branch) responsibility. Economic policies are decided in Congress.
 
Siddhartha said:
It amazes me that people forget where the US was on January 21 2009. GDP had contracted 3.7% in the 3rd quarter of 2008 and 8.9% in the 4th quarter of that year. More than two million jobs were lost between Jan - March 2009.

The Republicans' plan was to cut government spending, which means increasing unemployment, and lower taxes to the wealthiest. As Herbert Hoover and the country learned the hard way back in 1929 trying to balance the budget, cutting spending, during an economic downturn makes the situation worst.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read some more history. I could recomend a book.
 
senseamp said:
Preventing 9/11 was primarily a presidential (executive branch) responsibility. Economic policies are decided in Congress.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, and to some extent it does matter how much control the President has over a particular element of the country. But in a more general sense, the buck stops at the big chair in the oval office. It has to, because ultimately someone has to be in charge.

Obviously you're right that the President doesn't write budgets. But he is the leader of his party, and has a lot of influence into the budget process in general. And of course there is the veto power...

I'm not saying Obama (or Bush) deserves 100% of the blame for how the economy went down on their respective watches. But they shouldn't get a free pass either, to be honest.
 
DominionSeraph said:
It's cute that you think that the destruction of the US auto industry and the lending industry with a resulting complete freeze of credit would have had no economic impact. It's cute that you think that a perfectly functional full-breadth economy that's just a few % smaller than what we're used to is a "Great Depression."
Click to expand...

Just because you're living on borrowed time doesn't change the result. Tick-tock little one, time is running out and you know it. Either you Spend Spend Spend! or things come crashing back down to reality.

The economic impact of 2008 should have been akin to a brush fire. Clear out the dead weight and make room for new growth. All you need to do is stay your hand, let the crisis play out, and growth can resume without being bankrolled by our debt.

As for McCain, go talk to someone who voted for him.
 
senseamp said:
Preventing 9/11 was primarily a presidential (executive branch) responsibility. Economic policies are decided in Congress.
Click to expand...
Really??

Explain to me all that bitchin about Reagan then. The Democrats controlled congress the entire time he was in office so they must be the ones to blame for getting us into this mess right?

And Clinton? Republicans controlled congress during his term so they get all the credit for the strong economy while he was in office?

And who controlled congress when the economy crashed...
 
Siddhartha said:
It amazes me that people forget where the US was on January 21 2009. GDP had contracted 3.7% in the 3rd quarter of 2008 and 8.9% in the 4th quarter of that year. More than two million jobs were lost between Jan - March 2009.
Click to expand...
And there is nothing to suggest that Obama was the reason that the decline stopped.

He didn't take office until mid Jan. So in two months he stopped this great collapse and turned things around?

In 2008/09 we had five quarters of negative GDP growth.

In 1990 we had three quarters of negative GDP growth

In 1980,81 & 82 we had six quarters of negative growth

In 73-75 we had five quarters of negative growth.


So clearly what happened in 2008/09 is very similar to what has happened in recent severe recessions.

The passage of TARP and saving the auto companies did far more to help the economy than any other Obama policy.
 
OneOfTheseDays said:
Speaking as someone who voted for him in 2008, I can honestly say I feel disappointed with his first term.

To be frank, he's the wrong kind of President for the economic crisis we face today. The American people need someone with strength in their convictions to make unpopular decisions and more importantly CONVINCE the American people they need to be done. Obama has failed on both fronts IMHO. All I see in Congress is the status quo, and Obama is completely powerless to sway them from their current destructive path. He simply doesn't have the moxy to challenge Congress and get the American people on his side to put the pressure on these buffoons.

He has spent his entire first term trying to please everyone and in doing so has pleased nobody. Liberals are by and large not enamored with him, and conservatives downright hate him. I would not be surprised if he is voted out after his first term.
Click to expand...

I concur, huge disappointment, I definitely know who I'm NOT voting for next year... this is not the caliber of leadership expected at that level.
 
wuliheron said:
Obama just offered the republican controlled house over 4 trillion dollars in tax cuts. His own party was ready to disown him for demanding only the most symbolic of tax increases in return. Eighty percent of the population was practically begging the republican led House to accept the deal. When they refused even die hard republicans complained bitterly and John McCain practically had a nervous breakdown on the Senate floor. Short of a qoup d'etat or assassinating the Tea Party members of the House there is nothing else anyone could have done.

Put a republican president in office, and the Senate democrats will be even less likely to bend over and grease their asses. The Tea Party is simply willing to hold the overwhelming majority of Americans and the republican party hostage to their demands. Either we eliminate the republican majority of the House or next year they may demand total control of the government and democracy in America will become a thing of the past.
Click to expand...

I assume you mean spending cuts not tax cuts and his proposal, like the ones from the Reps and the one that was actually signed into law, was nothing but smoke and mirrors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top