DescentBB

...or, at least starting to look that way. Given the dire circumstances from Sept 2008-March 2009, this rebound is exceptional. And, after much whining about people dropping out of the workforce(which predated Obamas first term by about 6 years), people are coming back IN!!!
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ ... ar-AA948rN

Nope. Not even close. At least I don't think he's the worst president however.

Sure, if you give credit to someone for something they really have little control over.

Many would say the economy has improved despite the president.

It's also improved "despite" obstinate Republicans too.

Agreed

you two, like so many fellow citizens, clearly do not recognize how deep the hole we were facing at the outset of the first term truly was. Go seek out a professional macroeconomist to let you in on it, and thank goodness you didn't have McCain/Palin muddling through the mess. Obama put a very good team together, fast, and they pulled us out of it. Could the recovery have been quicker and even stronger? Sure, but I recall many on the right who were appalled at sinking 1.1 Trillion into the effort, when most economists agree we should have borrowed about 2.5 Trillion dollars to do the job right, and the payback would have been worth the risk at such low interest.

I think all of us would be interested in reading the memoirs of Barack Obama. As a rule, the officials are much more honest when they retire.

The only way someone could HONESTLY consider this President the best in his lifetime was if he was 6 or younger

CUDA wrote:The only way someone could HONESTLY consider this President the best in his lifetime was if he was 6 or younger

given the immediate predecessor, who was a screwup from day 1, and made it worse every succeeding minute, your ObamaHate is both telling, and sort of incredibly stupid, CUDA.

OK, 14 years old...

well, I'm older than 14, and always have maintained that Eisenhower was the best in my lifetime(still do, way to soon to truly judge Obama). I'd say, at this juncture, that Obama has done more, with less help from either fate(Clinton sort of inherited a solid tech growth economy), or cooperative Congress(which the rest mostly had), than anyone in my lifetime. Please note, in my economic comments, that I'm not crediting Obama for every aspect of the recovery, just saving it from utter disaster via quick actions, and putting a basic framework in place that doesn't stifle growth(as was done in Europe by restrictions on government spending, which killed their recoveries....there is a point is every down cycle where government is the only entity with money to prime the economic pump).

March 2008: Bush stimulus $29 billion for Bear Stearns/JP Morgan Chase deal
May 2008: Bush stimulus $178 billion in tax rebate checks
July 2008: Bush stimulus $300 billion for distressed homeowners
July 2008: Bush stimulus $200 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
September 2008: Bush stimulus $50 billion to guarantee money market funds
September 2008: Bush stimulus $25 billion to Big 3 automakers
September-November 2008: Bush stimulus $150 billion to AIG
October 2008: Bush stimulus $700 billion to banks (TARP)
February 2009: Obama stimulus $787 billion in broad stimulus package
February 2009: Obama stimulus $75 billion for distressed homeowners
February 2009: Obama stimulus $200 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
March 2009: Obama stimulus $30 billion for AIG
March 2009: Obama Stimulus $15 billion for small business lending
March 2009: Obama Stimulus $1 trillion to get toxic assets off bank’s troubled asset sheets
March 2009: Obama Stimulus $22 billion for Big 3 Automakers Chrysler and GM

I posted this when it came out, but repost it for CUDA to understand what he sees in the mirror(all in good fun, folks!)

http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-09-29/ ... -its-mind/


oh, and Spidey, everything from November 1, 2008 was abdicated by the Bush team to Obama's people in a marvelously public admission of both incompetence and not giving a feck about the public who elected him.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:The only way someone could HONESTLY consider this President the best in his lifetime was if he was 6 or younger

given the immediate predecessor, who was a screwup from day 1, and made it worse every succeeding minute, your ObamaHate is both telling, and sort of incredibly stupid, CUDA.

so wait!!!!!!
You make an incredibly moronic statement, and now you limit the choices to either him or Bush. Then you hedge your bets even further with Eisenhower, and FYI I can think of AT LEAST 3 other presidents 2 of whom were Democrats who were better. I'm an Obama hater. Idiot doesnt even begin to describe your thought process.

I made no such limitations, CUDA, it was you who stated that no one over 6 could make my suggestion(Obama may turn out to be the best POTUS in my lifetime). That you would be capable of such an infantile remark at this juncture in the Obama tenure is sort of disappointing.

A new Quinnipiac poll finds that a plurality rated Barack Obama the worst president in the past 70 years — worse even than Richard Nixon, who resigned in scandal. That is quite an achievement.

seems like you stand in a MASSIVE minority in your opinion of this President.
want to see my surprised face.
and I stand by my 6 year old comment, no honest man could make that statement.
and as much as I didnt care for Clinton, he was 10 times the President that Obama is.
so what it comes down to is, you will say anything to prop up a president that is rated even worse than Jimmy Carter. That makes you a tool.

Jesus Christ, this "CUDA" guy uses the ★■◆●ing Internet every day and never learned how to cite a source. Unbelievable. I guess he never went to college or something.

Anyway, the poll mentioned above isn't that spectacular: small sample size and, curiously, weighted heavy toward older, white, "independent" party voters -- which might explain why Reagan is the runaway victor in the poll.

There are a couple problems with the survey, namely the frame of reference within the time period. Republican presidents occupy the middle of the distribution, bookended with Democrats. The implications of this are that Democratic-leaning youth are both under-represented and also lack a proper frame of reference to make a judgment (Nixon's numbers are surely skewed by popular culture), and older Democratic-leading seniors are, well, dead (Truman's presidency ended in 1953). While Republicans gush over Reagan, Democrats divide their accolades more evenly. You can just as easily say that Democratic presidents as a whole are better, if not equal, than Republican ones.

Well, whatever. Pretty uninteresting stuff.

no historian, or any rational soul would call Reagan the best President. He wasn't horrible, mind you, but was about average at accomplishments, and had a very good relationship with Congress for the key stuff. Considering the past 70 years would include FDR, anything not putting him and Ike at the top, with the next down not being close, simply isn't aware of reality. So much was accomplished of long-term significance by those two(with very few negatives of significance) as to make the rest of the field look weak. The true historical perspective of Clinton thru Obama is not available, so no verdicts there. Obama is turning out far better than public perception(even if that is up of late) suggests. With little cooperation, he has ended two wars, avoided starting another major one(although the ISIS thing is underway with us involved), saved the economy from an abyss(twice), stimulated the economy when the opposition wished to slash government(proven disaster in Europe), started the process of change in how we pay for heathcare(after 50 years of failed attempts) and proved at times to be the only voice of positivity amid a sea of bogus gloom and doom from the loyal opposition. I hope that he will help force a real redo of both immigration law and the tax code before leaving office, in which case he WOULD deserve to be discussed among the better Presidents.

Slick, there is one statistic that Obama's tenure hasn't been able to address, not that that is his fault per se, but a sign that the economy is far from fixed, concerns the increasing numbers of homeless people all over the country, especially in suburban areas, not just the cities. There was an article in the Oregonian Sunday paper today showing the huge rise in homeless people in Portland suburban areas. I can tell you that the numbers in Corvallis are way higher than ever before. We even have homeless people camping in the woods that encompass our subdivision. There's rarely been anyone in there before, but now it's very common and it's rare now that you don't see them.

By the way, I'd rate President Kennedy high on the list of good presidents. He got us going strong in the space program which eventually got us to the moon, and averted, barely, nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

tunnelcat wrote:Slick, there is one statistic that Obama's tenure hasn't been able to address, not that that is his fault per se, but a sign that the economy is far from fixed, concerns the increasing numbers of homeless people all over the country, especially in suburban areas, not just the cities. There was an article in the Oregonian Sunday paper today showing the huge rise in homeless people in Portland suburban areas. I can tell you that the numbers in Corvallis are way higher than ever before. We even have homeless people camping in the woods that encompass our subdivision. There's rarely been anyone in there before, but now it's very common and it's rare now that you don't see them.

By the way, I'd rate President Kennedy high on the list of good presidents. He got us going strong in the space program which eventually got us to the moon, and averted, barely, nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

actually, Kennedy was a work in progress. Part of why I have kept Eisenhower at the top is the development of the national highway system and the startup of the space program was on his watch. Kennedy ramped it up, using Sputnik as an impetus.
Now, the increase in homeless people is a bit illusory. The numbers I've read have those numbers in slight decline over the past two years. However, that phenomenon is the logical end point of 30 years of increasing income disparity. Don't expect the long term picture to be any prettier unless the government intervenes(highly unlikely given the current Congress). Same can be said for the increased need by formerly working class families needing food stamps and food banks.

CUDA, vision, apparently you need me to say it yet again: Lose the personal shots.

You can debate and point out each other's weaknesses and fallacies without the crap.

Foil wrote:CUDA, vision, apparently you need me to say it yet again: Lose the personal shots.

You can debate and point out each other's weaknesses and fallacies without the crap.

In my opinion, people are forced to use foul language, because in this forum poor set of emoticons.

Foil wrote:CUDA, vision, apparently you need me to say it yet again: Lose the personal shots.

You can debate and point out each other's weaknesses and fallacies without the crap.

Hey ★■◆● you buddy, I didn't say anything against him personally. If you want this forum to rise above petty name-calling then you should lean of people to be more academic, which means backing up statements with facts and citations in addition to taming down language. Otherwise don't pretend it's anything more than an animal house.

Gadsooks, for once I actually agree with vision.

I think I'm getting 'the vapors'.....

vision wrote:I didn't say anything against him personally.

He called you a tool.
You took a shot at his education.

Not only those (which both qualify as personal attacks), you threw a "%^&* you" at a moderator.

Yep, we're done.