Obamas performance

I am not suggesting the Dems are not without their faults, but none of their Presidential contenders have ever sounded as nutty as the current batch of Repubs.[/quote]

I don’t know very much about previous primary campaigns for the Democrats, so I can’t/won’t comment there (I see Chew already has), but you won’t get an argument out of me that the current batch of Republicans are pretty crazy. When I said I would be underwhelmed if I were an American voter, I meant that Obama has been underwhelming. Okay, he’s been cockblocked by the Republicans in Congress, but a great leader would have found ways to convince the opposition or paint them into a corner. I don’t think he’s done a good job at portraying the Republicans as the cockblockers they have been. He’s let them get away with a lot.

Anyway, I think the big problem with Obama is not him per se, but the expectations of him. I think whomever had become the president, whether it had been McCain, Clinton or anyone else, would have inherited a massive poisoned chalice, and probably would have ended up issuing major bailouts and increasing the money supply. A Republican would have done that, yet Republicans act like that wouldn’t have been the case. It was going to take an exceptional leader to still come away looking good after that, and clearly Obama isn’t exceptional or things would be looking different right now. In fifty years’ time, other than being the first black president, people probably won’t remember him for much. He’ll be neither here nor there in the history books, despite how much the Republicans claim he is the Devil incarnate. He’ll be like the great majority of presidents in that respect. I mean, who actually knows anything about most of the 19th century or early 20th century presidents? No doubt, at the time, people demonised plenty of those too.

Yet because everyone was so polarised over Bush (another person I think the history books will largely see as rather unimportant), there was some kind of semi-Messianic quality attached to Obama getting elected. I remember the euphoria. It was ridiculous. I had a black colleague at the time who declared a couple of months into his presidency that he should be allowed to run for a third term. Seemingly every Taiwanese person I met had to mention “Yes we can!” to me, as if that had any relevance to me personally as an Australian. Even if I’d been American, again, so what? The irrational exuberence, not just amongst a lot of Americans, but seemingly around the world, was palpable. Yet it seemed to me that Obama was only ever going to be just another president, so the only direction was going to be downward to what, realistically, were reasonable expectations and assessments. Yet because the movement was downward, those on the right now characterise him as the man who has singlehandedly brought the Apocalypse down on the U.S. and caused its decline, as if he has single-handedly caused America’s fall from grace, rather than seeing it as a process that began decades ago and accelerated under Bush.

The whole political climate right now is completely retarded in the U.S. and this Republican field is pretty good evidence of that. The Republicans have had every possible chance to capitalise on America’s economic woes and pin that tail firmly on that Democratic donkey. This should be a walk in the park for them. Yet all they’ve offered is a massive white elephant of their own. As I said, I’m fairly underwhelmed so far.

Mod note, this is originally from Republican Presidential Primary but seemed a bit off topic and thought it might make an interesting thread of it’s own.

I think Obama went wrong by dealing with his agenda first, pushing his health reforms and increasing spending before dealing properly with the huge deficit and not trying to reform the banking industry properly. In some ways he created the tea party that are now so obstinate in allowing him to do away with tax breaks for the rich. Had he done that first, and before spending on things he wanted, I can’t see there would have been much opposition.

The Tea Party appeared before Obama was elected.
First thing Obama tackled was the financial crisis, which ate up all the money.
Health care came much later.

I think Obama’s worst performance has been dealing with the debt issue. Listening to GWB and Clinton a few months ago at a conference, Clinton mentioned that if he was still president he would have adopted the recommendations of the NCFRR which was co-chaired by Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republic Alan Simpson. Obama didn’t and that’s why the debt ceiling crisis nearly resulted in a shutdown.

Both ex-presidents support comprehensive changes to social security and tax code simplification. Both ex-presidents think corporate taxes are too high. Does Obama? Despite being somewhat content with his foreign policy, I think he has really “screwed the pooch” on the economy and is very vulnerable in 2012. He should be cutting much more vigorously in health, welfare and social security and really confront the debt issue!

[quote=“Jaboney”]The Tea Party appeared before Obama was elected.
First thing Obama tackled was the financial crisis, which ate up all the money.
Health care came much later.[/quote]

He can’t have tackled it very well, if 3 years later just about all everyone is talking about is how to reduce the deficit and why didn’t he get rid of the tax breaks for the rich back then?

Also, I don’t see anyone in the financial sector being held accountable, or reforms put in place, isn’t this the reason we have the OWS protests now?

I didn’t know the tea party appeared before Obamas election. Wiki (not the best source of info I know) has this.

The thing I always associated them most closely with was Obamas healthcare reform bills and spending at a time the US couldn’t afford it.

[quote=“Mick”]
The thing I always associated them most closely with was Obama’s health-care reform bills and spending at a time the US couldn’t afford it.[/quote]

My guess is that he made the call that it was then or never. He had the presidency, control of both houses of Congress, and the honeymoon effect of being newly elected. Even then it was a very tough battle, with compromises, and it isn’t over. So, I think he was correct that then was the only time for it to be actually accomplished. Can you imagine trying it with this Congress?

I think that’s a fair assessment BigJohn. My point is the current congress exists because of the order Obama chose to tackle these issues.

In my mind, get your house in order including getting rid of tax breaks for the rich, and all the necessary measures that are now being filibustered. Then push for your health care reforms.

He chose to put a band aid on the financial problems, push ahead with his health care package, infuriated and fueled the tea party, handed the Republicans a majority and then tried to put his house in order. By which time it was too late.

If something more impressive does not show up on the Right, I may vote for Obama myself.

Osama and tons of al Qaeada dead.
Pakistan and Afghanistan leaderships taken to task.
Pivot to East Asia after the 10 years in the Middle East.
Two good Supreme Court nominees.
Bush was just as bad on spending. Lets not kid ourselves there.
Colombia, Panama, Korea free trade agreements now passed.
TPP trade agreement moving forward.
US economy did not go belly up after the bubble.
Fantastic Cabinet with Clinton, Gates, Panetta and now Petreus.
Guantanamo not shut down. No trials in New York. Expanded Bush security measures. Ditched waterboarding.

So the only issue I have is philosophical. I do not believe that more government is the answer and this is an issue involving debt and responsibility that the whole developed world faces. This is why Obama tried health care reform just as Bush tried Social Security reform. Didn´t work. Cannot blame either for trying. Until I see something more impressive than Romney… even Fred Smith may be pulling the lever for Blue this year.

[quote=“fred smith”]
Bush was just as bad on spending. Lets not kid ourselves there. [/quote]

I think Clinton and Bush would have both been more aggressive in making spending cuts post 2008. An example is both of their support of the Bowles Simpson committee recommendations…recommendations that Obama sat on for months and months.

With provisions that hurt Canadian and Mexican tourists/business people by removing a NAFTA exemption. Ratification of the Colombia FTA hurts Mexican and Canadian tourists by making them pay $5.50 every time they visit the US. The devil is in the details, right?

Weren’t these FTAs (without the late protectionist additions) also started by Bush? :laughing: Shouldn’t Bush get some of the credit here? Like with Osama, the heavy lifting was done by Bush with Obama taking the credit. That’s fine, it’s in the best interests of all Americans, but it is always noble to highlight the hard work of predecessors.

Should we be thanking Obama for that? I think not. If anything we should be giving credit to the original countries such as Chile, Singapore, and Brunei etc. for getting it started in the early 2000s. It’s great that this is expanding but let’s give all the multilateral players credit. :laughing: Just as Bush gave credit to Eastern European countries during the Iraq War, in the TPP context, I think it is only fair to thank the smaller original countries who did the heavy lifting for the latecomers. :laughing:

Now what about the things he hasn’t done?

Agree with you here. Thanks to some Republicans that truly are bi-partisan public servants.

tv.breitbart.com/thrill-is-gone- … t-believe/

breitbart.tv/arianna-on-obam … ll-a-show/

If Obama is now alienating the press, I can’t help but applaud that. :thumbsup:

I think this analysis of Obama’s performance (and the dissatisfaction with it) is worth reading:

[quote=“Chait”]Is it understandable to believe that his administration has been a disappointment to date? Of course. On the other hand, maybe there is something to learn from the frequent (anguished) comparisons liberals make between Obama and FDR. Part of the reason Roosevelt’s record looms so large from a distance is because historians measure these things differently from political activists. Activists measure progress against the standard of perfection, or at least the most perfect possible choice. Historians gauge progress against what came before it.

By that standard, Obama’s first term would indeed seem to qualify as gangsta shit. His single largest policy accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act, combines two sweeping goals—providing coverage to the uninsured and taming runaway medical-cost inflation—that Democrats have tried and failed to achieve for decades. Likewise, the Recovery Act contained both short-term stimulative measures and increased public investment in infrastructure, green energy, and the like. The Dodd-Frank financial reform, while failing to end the financial industry as we know it, is certainly far from toothless, as measured by the almost fanatical determination of Wall Street and Republicans in Congress to roll it back.

Beneath these headline measures is a second tier of accomplishments carrying considerable historic weight. A bailout and deep restructuring of the auto industry that is rapidly being repaid, leaving behind a reinvigorated sector in the place of a devastated Midwest. Race to the Top, which leveraged a small amount of federal seed money into a sweeping national wave of education experiments, arguably the most significant reform of public schooling in the history of the United States. A reform of college loans, saving hundreds of billions of dollars by cutting out private middlemen and redirecting some of the savings toward expanded Pell Grants. Historically large new investments in green energy and the beginning of regulation of greenhouse gases. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for women. Elimination of several wasteful defense programs, equality for gays in the military, and consumer-friendly regulation of food safety, tobacco, and credit cards.

Of the postwar presidents, only Johnson exceeds Obama’s domestic record, and Johnson’s successes must be measured against a crushing defeat in Vietnam. Obama, by contrast, has enjoyed a string of foreign-policy successes—expanding targeted strikes against Al Qaeda (including one that killed Osama bin Laden), ending the war in Iraq, and helping to orchestrate an apparently successful international campaign to rescue Libyan dissidents and then topple a brutal kleptocratic regime. So, if Obama is the most successful liberal president since Roosevelt, that would make him a pretty great president, right?[/quote]

I think historians in the future will look at that as one colossal failure/fraud.

Whether it’s the Solyndra scandal, RFK Jr.'s $1.2 billion dollar bailout, the crony capitalism going on in Silicon Valley with VCs like John Doerr and national Democrats, or the withdrawal of states from the WCI cap and trade market, the green legacy is starting to look very “brown.” :laughing:

To me, Obama’s so-called second tier accomplishments such as championing green initiatives shouldn’t be compared with Roosevelt at all (who I have a great deal of respect for). Do you know who I compare Obama’s positions on cleantech/greentech to? Roosevelt’s mystic VP Henry Wallace who believed in the occult (I was once so leftist that my masters dissertation was on Wallace :blush: ) or the cornpone fundamentalism of William Jennings Bryan. However, even comparing Obama to Wallace is too much of a compliment because he was able to make hundreds of millions on hybrids of corn and had better common sense than 90% of people in greentech. Obama is a community organizer and couldn’t succeed without statists propping him up. :laughing:

That anyone could laud Obama for championing the pseudo-religious fervor, cronyism and fundamentalism that fuels this green-tech/clean-tech revolution has really drank the Kool-Aid :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :thumbsdown: :2cents:

[quote=“ChewDawg”]
To me, Obama’s so-called second tier accomplishments such as championing green initiatives shouldn’t be compared with Roosevelt at all (who I have a great deal of respect for). Do you know who I compare Obama’s positions on cleantech/greentech to? Roosevelt’s mystic VP Henry Wallace who believed in the occult (I was once so leftist that my masters dissertation was on Wallace :blush: ) or the cornpone fundamentalism of William Jennings Bryan. However, even comparing Obama to Wallace is too much of a compliment because he was able to make hundreds of millions on hybrids of corn and had better common sense than 90% of people in greentech. Obama is a community organizer and couldn’t succeed without statists propping him up. :laughing:

That anyone could laud Obama for championing the pseudo-religious fervor, cronyism and fundamentalism that fuels this green-tech/clean-tech revolution has really drank the Kool-Aid :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :thumbsdown: :2cents:[/quote]

Not surprising to see comments about investment in green technology compared to belief in the occult and pseudo-religious fervor. However, what the US is investing in this area is small potatoes compared to China.

What is becoming clearer that Moore’s law which originally was applied to computing power, is being applied to solar power as Paul Krugman notes in this article.

[quote]These days, mention solar power and you’ll probably hear cries of “Solyndra!” Republicans have tried to make the failed solar panel company both a symbol of government waste — although claims of a major scandal are nonsense — and a stick with which to beat renewable energy.

But Solyndra’s failure was actually caused by technological success: the price of solar panels is dropping fast, and Solyndra couldn’t keep up with the competition. In fact, progress in solar panels has been so dramatic and sustained that, as a blog post at Scientific American put it, “there’s now frequent talk of a ‘Moore’s law’ in solar energy,” with prices adjusted for inflation falling around 7 percent a year.[/quote] Here Comes the Sun

So, failure due to an inability to compete. Then again how can you compete with half the population of the united States having the vision of Mr. Magoo and hamstringing any attempt to compete in this field. You talk about what future generations will look back and discuss, it will be the idiocy of supporting the traditional energy industries by all means, including making sure you can’t compete with other countries in alternative energy solutions.

[quote=“Mick”] Not surprising to see comments about investment in green technology compared to belief in the occult and pseudo-religious fervor. However, what the US is investing in this area is small potatoes compared to China.

By itself this doesn’t mean much. Is this government spending on renewables? Is it research or is it actual investment in infrastructure. Without details it doesn’t mean much.

I don’t care if Solyndra was making Soy sauce. The scandal isn’t about what the company was doing it’s about when the money was spent and failures on the part of the government to ensure the money was not being wasted. The scandal around Solyndra has nothing to do with trying to stunt the growth in renewable energy.

Irrelevant. In fact arguing this would be like trying to defend a massive government investment in a Kodak film plant.

Er, that’s called hype. Besides, it’s not really that unusual. It’s called progress. The Krugman article is a joke. He doesn’t give one fact or bit of evidence to back up his claims that solar is now competitive. I’m not arguing that it never will be but if you’re going to reference something to support your view you could have at least referenced something factual. What is the current cost per kw/h or solar vs other energy sources? Also it’s interesting how he wants to include so called environmental costs for traditional energy but doesn’t want to tally up the supplementry costs associated with solar power.

I’d also like to see some figures on what the current energy output per square meter of solar panel.

Clarify for me how half the population of the US is hamstringing competitiveness in this field. I know quite a few Americans and none of them are doing anything what so ever to hamstring development of renewable energies.

Nah, when future generations look back this won’t even be a footnote compared to the idiocy of corn ethanol.

Gman, fair points. Investment in technology doesnt have a sure fire way to make sure every investment pays off, I would defy an engineer who has worked in the field for any period of time to tell me he has never worked on a project that got cancelled. Cost reduction is a major killer, you have schedule for development, for example, in a year and at 30% lower than market price, but by the time you get there the market has dropped 50% and your screwed.

I read and will dig around if you really wish that the US had expected 5 to 10 % failure on investments, and Solyndra represented about 3% of total investment. But read that as best case scenario, more likely they know failed investment would be higher. Hardly like Kodak, a technology that is becoming obsolete over something that will be the main source of energy in the future. A better comparison would be Sinclair Research or Comodore who competed against Apple, and who would argue investing in Apple back in the 80’s wasn’t a sound investment?

To make an analogy in a game of poker. You dont get to win the pot if you dont ante up, certainly no guarantee you will win every pot. Only here, the pot is a very large very lucrative payout for those that can reach grid parity with traditional fuels. The prices are dropping and once that point is reached, there will be big buying, the steady reduction in costs looks likely that will be met before too long.

For Chewy to call this is some snake oil, or Alchemy displays the ignorance that has been brainwashed into more than half Americans who no longer think there is any global warming and that its some communist conspiracy and go out of their way to mock environmentalists. Even without the global warming and health hazards, we are talking about energy production that will replace traditional methods and account for trillions in revenue.

Yes that’s the market though isn’t it? Anybody who’s invested in such a project will have done the Due Dilligence. They would have assessed the risks and the rewards before making that investment. In short when it’s your money you tend to be carefull how you spend it. Converserly, when the government gives you a great big whack of other people’s money you start to make loose decisions and become very inefficient in how you use that cash.

Read up a little more carefully on the Solyndra story. You’re making this about the validity of Green Energy, it’s not. The government the issue is how the government handed over the money. They did it ignoring their own procedures. They also handed over a very large chuck of the cash when it was already very apparent that the company was dead in the water.

Well, if you want to stick with the poker analogy. The government would have been going all in after folding. In a poker game they aren’t even playing in.

Yes! Moreover, its about the way the loan was structured so that the recipient of the loan, who happened to be large contributors to Obama, get off scot-free at the tax-payers’ expense, even while the Bush admin had already raised red flags wrt this company and refused the loan. Its amazing (well, not really :noway: ) that the media refuses to frame the issue properly.

The problem as usual with this view is that somehow government is seen as the solution. We do not need government to decide which industries to support. It has failed at that completely. Let the market. When solar is ready, private companies will support its entry. This does not need to be driven by the government. That said, I fully support the repeal of all other market distorting subsidies from those to auto industry, airlines, agriculture and oil-gas.

[quote=“Tigerman”]

Yes! Moreover, its about the way the loan was structured so that the recipient of the loan, who happened to be large contributors to Obama, get off scot-free at the tax-payers’ expense, even while the Bush admin had already raised red flags wrt this company and refused the loan. Its amazing (well, not really :noway: ) that the media refuses to frame the issue properly.[/quote]

Bush didnt approve of loans to alternative energy companies, I’m shocked. But really, regarding the loan to Solyndra being linked to Obamas fund raising it wouldn’t surprise me that the donations influenced the decision to make the loan. Political decisions made in order to look out for the interests of those who fund their campaigns is the reason the OWS are occurring.

That is at least consistent and I can respect that opinion. But do question the wisdom behind such logic. Having been in this part of the world for a considerable amount of time, Im sure you know better than most to what extent the governments in Asia stack the deck in their favor by giving industry heavy support. Im not talking about throwing good money after bad to stop a failing company from going bust. But investing in the semi conductor industry as the Taiwan government did, or Biotechnology, investing in emerging markets.

We live in a global economy, and when the Governments in one set of countries are putting cash into, offering contracts, creating laws like Germany that encourages the population to buy from these industries and another set of countries who let their companies who may be moving into a new area that is up for grabs fend for themselves. Working out which companies will survive and which will be forced out in the long term is not too hard to work out.

Not the point. The point is that this particular company, Solyndra, had already been denied based on lack of viability… and yet Obama went ahead and expedited approval of the loan, which, the way it was structured, left taxpayers holding the bag.

That is especially smelly.