Alright, well I'm constantly hearing stuff from people (especially bloggers and yahoo answers people and others) that Obama is doing a terrible job at running the United States. They are talking about how he promised sooooooo much, but isn't doing any of it. And how Obama shouldn't be President and blah...blah Obama sux..... and blah..blah he's doing nothing. But what do you think about him?

I personally think he's doing a pretty good job for being a pretty young politician. I mean, people are just getting mad over nothing. They're acting like Obama is letting down his country because he has to take care of more important things than gay marriage laws or other stupid stuff. I mean, seriously! Everyone's criticising Obama for not doing anything, when George Bush did nothing, but get us in a war and leave a city under-water. Bush had 8 years to fix all these problems, but he didn't and now people are complaining they aren't getting fixed fast enough. Obama hasn't even served half a term yet and everyone acts like he's been there for a thousand years making everything worse! At least Obama can gives speeches without seeming like an illiterate person. Plus at least Obama's speeches are good and make sense. So far, he's like the coolest president I've lived to be governed under. I think what he's going to do for the U.S. will be historic (in a very good way).

But that's just my opinion, whats ur's

He's not the anti-Christ and he's not a Nazi, Fascist, Communist, or Socialist, so no.

However I don't agree with a damn thing he's done, and I doubt I'll agree with anything he does.

In response to your post however, Bush actually did a lot, and so is Obama, whether it's good or bad, both have done a lot. I think people however place too much responsibility on the President. Congress was Democrat controlled in 2006, so why didn't THEY do anything? They're the ones who make the laws, the President executes the laws.

Thankfully I kept this in my bookmark:

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Too bad they only had a rating meter for Obama, would have been interesting to see one for Bush.

That right there is half of the problem.

Other half is he has no experience and it shows. He has not even begun to fulfill any of his promises, but also broken at least one.

He's a politician, just like all the rest he is useless as T.O.A.B.

Politics as usual. The only problem I see is that we thought he'd actually be different.

I very much doubt you disagree with every thing he did. I doubt, for example, you have severe and lasting objections to this being declared National Forest Products Week, or the declaration of a national emergency to deal with the H1N1 pandemic.

I can, obviously, accept that you disagree with most aspects of his policy direction.

Yeah, He doesn't have much experience, but hes doing a pretty good job. Look at Bush, he's got much more experience right? so by your logic that made him a better Pres. right? well wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Meh, I don't particularly like Obama but I am still happier now than under Bush days. Though you have to remember Obama is also for things like the Patriot Act, Drug Prohibition, a pretty large military (at least he's not for an insanely large increase of the already large military), he's on the payroll of big business, etc. Those things alone make it really hard for me to support him... but I do like him significantly more than Bush, at least this guy can talk like a halfway intelligent person.

Not an environmentalist, and I'm about as worried about Swine Flu as I was about MRSA, SARS, West Nile Virus, etc.

I love that site, I use it all the time, like the guy below (that I conveniently quoted so he can know who he is):



Check the link for promises he's fulfilled, broken, or done nothing about yet:

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/



Considering he's only broken 1/7 of the promises he's made, some of which could be debated to another status, and most of which were not very consequential, like allowing a 5-day public forum on all acts (he broke this one because, IIRC, only 1 thing did not have any, but many others did).

Considering he's compromised 2/7ths the amount he's totally 100% kept, to me that shows he's willing to compromise with opposing people while still wanting to achieve his goal, I'd say this is acceptable. The 14 stalled ones could be for whatever reason (more pressing matters, waiting on congress, or whatever it might be), with 127, yes ONE-HUNDRED AND TWENTY SEVEN of just over 500 are in the works, meaning, they are being worked on by him/his staff/congress/whatever. With only 304 untouched, I'd say he's doing good, especially considering his first year isn't over yet.

Edit for chimay: No the last paragraphs weren't for you, they were personal commentary for those who probably wouldn't look at it, and would probably argue that he's not "doing anything." Your post was well thought out.

Alright, name exactly how he could have been different. What, keep his promises? I'm sure that's been done. How about break his promises? But that's been done too. How about improve the economy? But that's happened. Maybe exploit some other nations for our advantage? That has definitely happened. How about get into wars over resources like oil? Wait, Bush did that!!!!!!!!!! Wait, I got it! Overthrow the government with a powerful military force and completely become the absolute ruler of The United States of Obama-Land. Destroying all who oppose! That hasn't happened.

My point is, there is no "being different" really. Most all politics work the same way. And most politicians are pretty similar. Hey, everyone thought Bush would be different. They thought he would make America SUPER-SPECIAL AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

but did he? not at all!

for myself, I think he's at this point a perfectly adequate (if rather average) Democratic president. He's trying to enact mostly policies I agree with, my disappointments are with the things he's not doing rather than the things he's doing, annd I'm confident he would hold it together in a disaster.

I don't know where people are getting this talking point that he "as not even begun to fulfill any of his promises", as he's pretty much governed the way he's said he was going to govern. If you don't know of a promise he's kept, take your pick from here:

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promis...s/promise-kept/

for full disclosure, here are the 7 he's broken:

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promis...promise-broken/

I am disappointed that he hasn't officially observed the Armenian genocide, but other than that, I'm fully content/happy about what he's done so far.

I can barely get through this...paragraph...

How could Obama be different? Let's get some real change. No petty tinkering with a broken political system that keeps the wealthy wealthy and the poor poor. No dancing around the public option issue. Obama needs to grow a pair and stand up to the right wing conservative zealots who continue to push this country down. "Don't ask, don't tell" should have been changed the day Obama got into office. He should have pushed the gay marriage issue. He's finally capped the salaries of the CEOs we bailed out. He has yet to stop all illegal wiretapping or close down that torture hole that is Guantanamo. I thought we were going to get a President that would actually change this country.

Domestically? I haven't seen anything too terrible. Then again I don't read much about his domestic policies either so it's probably best I don't comment.

Foriegn Affairs? The way he's treated Israel has been despiciable, and his policies with regards to Iran will not work. He's come close to starting a trade war with my country and his constant attempt to push Israel into giving up its land, as well as his tacit report of the Goldstone report haven't done anything beneficial to the peace process.

Elaborate please?

I'm pretty disappointed in him. I was expecting our country to be destroyed by now. (Kidding of course)

I didn't like him or Mccain. Honestly, I would have preferred Hilary, because at least she wouldn't be floundering on thirteen different things at once. Honestly, Obama is an idiot. He has very little political experience and isn't doing much to improve the country. Of course, I wanted Nader as president anyway. e_e

I edited in a brief synopsis of some major sticking points. I'm sure there's more (such as the Iran Revolution's handling, which was eerily reminscient of Hungary 1956) but those are some of the more major points.

Well, I think he's too conservative or foot-dragging on several issues, and I'll probably vote for a further-left candidate in the 2012 primaries to motivate him a bit (but vote for him in the generals), but he's done okay. He's by no means doing all the crazy !@#$ people seem to be accusing him of.

Also, he's a secret Muslim communist terrorist socialist Anti-Christ here to destroy America and eat our babies.

That is all.

the problem and the advantage of the American political system is that you can't make huge changes instantly. Yes, Obama could have issued a decree that overturned Don't Ask, Don't Tell the day he got into office, but the president after him would have flipped it right back. What he wants to o, as far as I can tell, is make lasting change, and continue to make lasting change throughout his term. Had he burned all his political capital on Public Option straight away, then if it crashed and burned he would have spent four years looking like a chump and been an easy target in 2012.

If Obama fails at the public option the way he has, he won't look good, but it won't kill him.

I find him to be doing a pretty good job, actually. And while this is pure speculation, I'm willing to bet that Obama's disapproval rating among the American people lie in two contradictory planes: the ones that are disappointed because he isn't the pure hard-core liberal they expected him to be, and the ones who think that are scared or angry that he is taking the country down the path of extreme liberalism.

See, political currency is not a good enough reason, to me, to do or not do something. And that is what I mean when I say "politics as usual." Obama isn't pushing as hard as he can because he is afraid of ridicule, failure, or not getting elected. But if you promise to evoke change, you look past that. You push and fight and claw until something is done - or until you yourself are done.

Had "don't ask don't tell" been revoked on his first day, we would have had at least four years of common sense military hiring practices. And that would show the proponents of "dont ask don't tell" just how ridiculous it really is. Is he really pushing to end torture and close Guantanamo? I've not seen much of it. What has he done to change the PATRIOT Act? Wiretapping? Sure, people are going to be angry but this is his responsibility. He was elected to usher change to the US, not to sit in his high castle and contemplate the next election. Work for four years. Work hard. And the people will vote him in for another four.

Sometimes you have to get some backbone and stand up for what's right. No matter the consequences. Where has that attitude gone? The Civil Rights activists had it. Obama can have it if he stops worrying about crap that won't matter.

Oh, and may I also point out that Obama still has the support of more than 50% of the American public. Silent majority much?

I'm cautiously for his foreign policy, depending on his Afghanistan decision. Economically, I'm both for and against in different ways. I want less spending, but there's too much that can't be cut right now. Socially, I'm waiting for him to do stuff.

I voted for a President, not a Saint, so I never expected to agree with everything he did or how he did it ... all politics is compromise.

I have no regrets it's not the other guy. I'm glad we're not still stuck with the last guy. I will find plenty to tell my Senators that I oppose about current federal policy, just not quite as much as if it had been the other guy.

He's done ok all things considered. Healthcare will make or break his presidency I think.

I don't know why conservatives have a problem with Obama, if you compared what they were saying he was going to do during the campaign to what he's actually done thus far, you think they'd be thrilled.

Liberals are a little too impatient imho, he can't tackle everything at once. If he gets health care through it'll be the biggest victory progressives have had in quite some time.

I don't agree with Obama and his death panels and the Socialism he's bringing us into.


On a more serious note:

Foreign Policy: Insofar, I'm fairly content with this. As long as he is willing to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan as long as it takes, and takes a (slightly) more hardline approach towards Israel, I'm fairly happy with it.

Domestic Policy: Meh, there are alot of things which he should do (in my opinion), but probably won't. But insofar, he's working on his campaign promises, and overall, I can't really complain all that much (beyond what I think he should do in addition to what he campaigned on). Opinion here is meh to content, depending on how healthcare/Social Security reform go.

He wants to lengthen the school year.

Thats is honestly the only positive thing he wants to do, if my memory serves me correctly.

Can't think of a thing he has actually done otherwise. Unless of course, paying people more money then what their vehicles are worth, providing an e-mail for people to "snitch" on each other, railing against and uninviting a particular news station that the executive branch of government does not like (since when is it their job to tell us what is news?), making a 180 and being open to taxing the middle class instead of just the perceived rich, supporting a health bill that would bankrupt the US, including paid abortions, totally opposing DC vs. Heller then making a 180 after the decision, yet still wants to ban semi-automatics, bailing out car manufactures who refused to compete, or accepting an undeserved Nobel Peace Prize are good things.

Then yeah, Obama is the best Presi. dent ever.

*coughs politely* CHANGE! ............I win. OH and " I WILL NOT ADD A SINGLE DIME on the TAX OF TAXPAYERS." and also " A TRANSPARENT PRESIDENCY." Yeah mhm. I am going to sit around and wait for those norwegians to give me the nobel peace prize instead of deciding wether or not to send our troops into Afghanistan, even though I already sent about 50,000. Thats definitely peaceful.

Change-Happened

Dimes-Added, people are still adding up the amount the future generation (me) will have to pay on their taxes. Its around a hundred thousand now. This is a result of the Stimulus package which for some reason has failed to stop the rate of job losses. (they are still rising, you have just been distracted by the media going on about other stuff)

Transparent- k, I am going to fire this executive. k, I am going to pass this bill. You guys want to read it? Well too bad. We have to pass it NOW NOW NOW! No, stop reading those bills we don't have time. What? I have to take a vacation. we'll do it later.

Noble Peace Prize- Wait he got what? Even after he sent troops to go make WAR?

So uh, no I don't think I am quite that happy with Obama.

like every elected politician in US (and indeed world) history, he's not as good as his proponents claim, nor as bad as his detractors claim.

did you just say that the rate of job losses was falling?

Isn't that a good thing?

Sorry about the misswording there. Its late where I am. The rate of job losses is rising. Thanks

Promises Kept: (From Politifact.com)



Sure, you might not agree with all, or really anything this guy has done, but, if you read through all those things that were full promises kept (I did not include the compromises on here), I am sure you'll find at least one you agree with.

Try me.

I won't say he's perfect, no politician is. Not even close, however, I will say, there's a lot I disagree with him on, but there's a lot I agree with him on (like the appoint at least one republican to his cabinet, or commitment to end the war in Iraq).

No problem.

Incidentally, you're wrong. The rate of job losses is actually falling at the moment.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm



So 263,000 jobs were lost in September, compared to an average of 307,000 a month from may to september, compared to an average of 645,000 a month from november to April.

Now, it's going to be a while before unemployment starts to go down, but the rate of job losses has been trending downwards for quite some time.

Okay, I accept that point and the source (obviously ) but what will happen to that unemployment rate when the next generation steps up and has to pay all the stimulus package money?

depends. What happened when the children of the fifties and sixties had to pay back all the money spent on world war 2?

Oh wait, that's right. They didn't, because that's not how an economically stimulative effect works.

The idea of the stimulus package is this:

1) in economically tough times, you spend more than you take in, in order to stop the economy from shutting down.
2) in economic boom times, the economy should be humming along well enough to run a surplus, so long as you don't do something silly like blow it all on tax cuts.

in the boom times, more people are employed. That means less unemployment benefits being paid out, more tax revenue coming in, more people employed and thus spending money. In these times, it's wise to take that tax revenue (and the money you're not spending on unemployment benefits) and use it to pay back the national debt. There's no reason for it to have any effect on unemployment whatsoever.

Why do you keep bashing Bush? I'm having a terribly hard time giving you a sound opinion without thousands of snarks because you keep attacking a guy I like and deflecting the subject. If you are here to just bash Bush, I am going to assume you're just trying to make yourself feel better and confirm your own beliefs and constantly compare to the last guy rather than having your guy stand on his own merits.


Anyways:
Obama isn't anywhere near as radical or terrible as detractors paint him. His domestic policy is relatively conservative, in the sense that he isn't proposing any sort of massive overhauls to the system, just tweaking. On that score, he isn't anywhere close to what his detractors claim he is. I am relatively happy that he took the banking crisis seriously and took some big measures to stabilize the financial sector, though I'm also disappointed that so far he hasn't been very aggressive in restructuring the regulatory agencies or in playing rough with the big bankers beyond some symbolic pay gestures that are just damaging, and then he had that utterly stupid private-public partnership plan that would've been insured by the already-out-of-money FDIC. The stimulus bill was probably too small, too loaded with pork, and too loaded up with the democratic agenda that will become permanent spending, but meh. Take what you can get.

It's nice that he's addressing health care reform, but he's going about in a way that I think is stupid and very dangerous (expand coverage first and worry about controlling costs seriously later). His energy policy has taken a complete back-seat for the time being, but that will come out soon enough: cap-and-trade isn't what I prefer to begin with and it seems like it's been watered down to nothingness, but it's better than nothing and maybe he's got something else up his sleeve.

So, on domestic policy, no, I don't consider him dramatically out-of-step. Depends on how the rest of his presidency shapes up, though. He could easily just end up with an even bigger mess than we already have.


On foreign policy? I consider Afghanistan to be a pointless nation-building exercise and that our major objectives can be accomplished through other means, and putting 60,000 troops there is just dangerous. I am not fan of relaxing pressure on Cuba, though I don't consider it very important. Nuclear disarmament is a laudable goal and developing a successor treaty is rather important. The ABM thing I was initially against, and still think think placing GBIs is a reasonable plan. I am not happy with his meddling in South America. But he hasn't done much to begin with, so it's hard to be overly critical.


I do not like that Obama paints himself a big supporter of change when it's still all !@#$%^&* and smoke and mirrors. His healthcare speech was atrocious in outlining serious issues in healthcare, though I guess telling the people "I'm giving you what you want now so you shut up and we can actually get the situation under control" would not have received very high ratings. He attacked McCain for calling for the end of tax-exempt status of employer health care, and that's exactly what's in the current Senate bill. I do not like that he thinks engagement is a great thing for America's foes but thinks the proper response to Fox News is "freezing it out." I do not like that he thinks the surge in Iraq was a terrible idea and then turns around and proposes the same thing in Afghanistan without clearly outlining why he thinks that, and if he thinks the issue is a question of legitimacy, I doubt he is going to begin an immediate pullout of Afghanistan after Karzai plays around with the votes.

Politics is politics, and pretending to be the cool outsider that is finally gonna put some sense into Washington does not appeal to me.


Silent? I read and hear from Obama supporters every day.

Think about this, if Hillary was Pres. we would have had a cycle of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton for like 40 years! I don't think having the same exact people who've begun to bring our nation down would be a good choice to have continue to lead us. At least Obama isn't a total idiot. And who cares how many things he's working on at once. At least he's getting stuff done. What's the most number of things Bush had ever worked on at once? Like 2. Bush was a complete idiot anc couldn't even pronounce half the words in his speeches. At least Obama is educated!

And as I said before, sure Obama doesn't have much political experience, but Bush did. Right? Guess what he did for our country with that experience. Nothing.

BTW - Nader is neevr gonna be Pres. He hasn't been in the past, he hasn't been now. So he never will.

I'd say, at least Obama meant what he said. It doesn't matter how he put it if it was the truth. Would you rather have heard some totally BS speech about how America is in great shape and everythign is gonna be fine. Someone has to tell America, "the $&*^ has really hit the turbine" So why not Obama?

Apparently you missed grand chunks of what I am saying. I consider the health-care speech he gave to be mostly BS through the great omissions. I guess I'm something of a wonk relative to the average American, but the speech didn't outline issues surrounding healthcare very well, just cheerleading to get healthcare reform moving again.

That has been a hallmark of his campaign and of his presidency. All fluff, grandiose ideas, change, hope, increased accesss to healthcare, cheaper healthcare, etc... without any real policy of how to do it. Congress has been begging him for months to give them more direction.


It's an ultimate ploy, he looks to the average voter like he's gonna give htem all these great things he lays out in the platitudes, but he never actually gets behind a single plan, so if it fails, it doesn't stick on him.

and yet if he did get heavily behind an idea, the press would go out of their minds denouncing him for meddling in the affairs of the senate.

^This.

When Obama doesn't get involved in something, people get all bent out of shape. When he does step in, they get upset because he's too involved. For some people, it doesn't matter what he does...they're still upset.

You really think so? i expect presidents to give a proposal to congress. It's what i've seen my whole life. Especially on issues that the president campaigned on.

One of the reasons why Clinton failed in his health care reform issues is because he tried to impose his health care plans on Congress. Obama is attempting to let Congress do their job - crafting and passing legislation. I am certain that the White House is actively communicating their preferences to Congressional leaders but at least we have a President who appears to have a little more respect for the whole "equal branches of government" idea.

I don't disagree that clinton did it badly, but there is a balance.

Also Dems wouldn't be as open and frustrated about not getting clear guidance if he was giving them enough input.

He's still trying to make sure any failures don't stick on him.

Obama sucks, what else is there to say?

from you? Probably nothing of worth. And yet you will say it at length.