The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The economic criticisms you posted aren't new, the same arguments have been made since the stimulus battle. What do you want to discuss? What about the criticisms has merit or doesn't?

It's a fair point, though it definately merits further discussion. Many intelligent minds on the left continue to level the same criticism against the president, yet he remains steadfast in refusing to take heed of what they are saying, even now after his own vice-president admits that they misjudged the economy and what needed to be done. I get the feeling that Obama is trying to hit a middle ground and in the process, is pissing everyone off. Much like Congress, he's got to start taking a stand rather than holding the middle ground.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's become apparant in recent days that both conservatives and liberals are not happy with what Obama is doing under current policy.

untrue blanket statement.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's a fair point, though it definately merits further discussion. Many intelligent minds on the left continue to level the same criticism against the president, yet he remains steadfast in refusing to take heed of what they are saying, even now after his own vice-president admits that they misjudged the economy and what needed to be done. I get the feeling that Obama is trying to hit a middle ground and in the process, is pissing everyone off. Much like Congress, he's got to start taking a stand rather than holding the middle ground.

you insinuate that Biden thinks they did the wrong thing, or didnt do what needed to be done, when he meant, IMO, that they needed to do MORE not less as evidenced by him saying they UNDERESTIMATED the unemployment rate AND not ruling out a second stimulus package. Your insinuation and omission on this borders on lying in this thread, IMO:

Originally Posted by USNewsAndWorld Report

In an interview on ABC News' This Week, Vice President Joe Biden said that although the Administration relied on consensus economic forecasts in crafting its economic stimulus package, the White House erred in its assumption about the unemployment rate. Biden said, "The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy. The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures in most of the blue chip indexes out there. ... No one was talking about that we would be moving towards -- we're worried about 10.5 percent, it will be 9.5 percent at this point. ... We're much too high." The remarks were tepidly reported by news wires and print sources, which also noted congressional criticism. The AP reports Republican congressional leaders "expressed disappointment about the impact of stimulus spending," while Biden "cited the economic conditions inherited from the Bush administration."

The Washington Times notes that Biden "said it's unfair to consider" the stimulus "program a bust because 'no one anticipated, no one expected that recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having distributed the bulk of the money.'" The Hill reports Biden "refused to rule out a second stimulus bill, which some economists have called for in order to stem job losses and spur the economy once again."

The Wall Street Journal reports Biden's comments were "likely to intensify calls for the administration to do more to counter job losses." White House economists "are discussing whether a second round of stimulus is needed, but a decision isn't expected until at least the fall."

USNews.com: Political Bulletin: Monday, July 6, 2009

cue Cyndi Lauper

[ISiddiqui]

Uh... I think your insinuation about what MBBF was saying borders on lying. He didn't insinuate any such thing about Biden's comments. Read his post again, please:

Many intelligent minds on the left continue to level the same criticism against the president, yet he remains steadfast in refusing to take heed of what they are saying, even now after his own vice-president admits that they misjudged the economy and what needed to be done.

After he posted about Krugman and co.

[Flasch186]

so is the "...and what needed to be done." not attributable to Biden in that sentence? Did he mean that that portion was to be linked to the "intelligent minds" part of the sentence?

If he's attributing that portion to Biden than his insinuation is a lie based on what Biden stated in other portions of the interview to paint Biden as considering a stance of anti-stimulus and anti-intervention. If it's attributable to "intelligent minds" than I think the sentence structure is wrong...unless my comprehension is bad.

[albionmoonlight]

This strikes me as an effective ad and something that the GOP could build on. The fact that Al Franken happened to be the guy to make it 60 is, I think, something that will symbolically hurt the Democrats.

Of course, with Kennedy and Byrd in bad health and Collins and Snowe able to be pursuaded to vote with the Dems and a few conservative Dems ready to break ranks, it isn't as clean as 60/40. But it makes for a heck of a soundbite: "They got 60 Senators and a President. I'm not sure why they keep saying that we are the problem."

YouTube - "60"

On a related note--how do I embed youtube videos here?

Edit--Maybe I am prejudiced toward this ad because, even as a Democrat, I agree with it. If you can't get stuff done with this big of a majority, then you do have, at least, a bit of a leadership problem.

[JonInMiddleGA]

A couple of things from a single Biden quote here

... Biden "refused to rule out a second stimulus bill, which some economists have called for in order to stem job losses and spur the economy once again."

First, anybody else get the feeling that some (most?) of these generic economists -- regardless of what point of view they're pushing -- aren't all that interested in actually making the economy get better but rather are engaged in some sort of sandbox "let's see what happens if we ..." using tax dollars to do it? Obviously they can't do it themselves directly but I've had the feeling more than once in recent months that they're enjoying their collective celebrity a little too much & have figured they may never get a better chance to do real world experiments on a large scale so it's become a game of "let's see if we can get them to do X, Y, and Z so we can see what happens".

Second, the phrase "spur the economy once again" sure seems to take a hell of a leap in assuming that the first one spurred anything in the first place.

[RainMaker]

Does anyone have that chart that showed the projections for unemployment under Obama's stimulus and what it's actually at? I was talking to my Dad the other night and we were trying to figure out how far they were off.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Does anyone have that chart that showed the projections for unemployment under Obama's stimulus and what it's actually at? I was talking to my Dad the other night and we were trying to figure out how far they were off.

If so, I hope they include projections of what they expected it to be if there was no "stimulus" versus what they projected with their package.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Does anyone have that chart that showed the projections for unemployment under Obama's stimulus and what it's actually at? I was talking to my Dad the other night and we were trying to figure out how far they were off.

I believe you're referring to Figure 1 on page 5 of this document. The Obama administration had predicted that unemployment would not go over 8% if the stimulus package passed whereas it would skyrocket to 9% at its peak if a stimulus package was not passed. The stimulus package was passed and the current unemployment rate is 9.6% and increasing.

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I believe you're referring to Figure 1 on page 5 of this document. The Obama administration had predicted that unemployment would not go over 8% if the stimulus package passed whereas it would skyrocket to 9% at its peak if a stimulus package was not passed. The stimulus package was passed and the current unemployment rate is 9.6% and increasing.

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

It's good to see that the administration has such a good handle on the economy. Geez.

This is kind of the economic version of thinking there were WMDs in Iraq, especially since we're probably looking at 10.5% at least before it's over.

[Logan]

I'm not sure if it's substantial enough to send it very high, but I thought at least a decent contribution to the rising unemployment number was that severence packages (Wall St especially) are running out so these people are now being included in the unemployment figure.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I believe you're referring to Figure 1 on page 5 of this document. The Obama administration had predicted that unemployment would not go over 8% if the stimulus package passed whereas it would skyrocket to 9% at its peak if a stimulus package was not passed. The stimulus package was passed and the current unemployment rate is 9.6% and increasing.

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

That's what I was looking for, thanks. Dude is as out of touch as Bush when it comes to shit.

[JPhillips]

It should at least be acknowledged that the prediction for unemployment numbers was based on the original stimulus plan, not the version eventually signed into law.

That being said, there was a lot of argument at the time from people like Krugman that the admin was underestimating the downside and should have pushed a larger, more immediate stimulus package.

[Flasch186]

Imagine how bad it wouldve been without...

My point is, either side will be able to claim victory or "right" on this as posted in the recession thread. In this thread Im certain that conclusion will fall along partisan lines. I certainly hope no one is wishing for it like Glen Beck's guest the other night that said the only thing that will save the USA was Osama Bin Laden attacking us again. Im certain everyone hopes that the plans put in place by our leaders are successful.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Imagine how bad it wouldve been without...

That sentiment is why it's so easy to trick people into thinking big spending is the answer. You can always claim success.

[Flasch186]

and vice versa.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

That sentiment is why it's so easy to trick people into thinking big spending is the answer. You can always claim success.

I'm not even sure that matters at this point. Being a political leader is much like being a coach of a sports team. You could make all the right decisions and still get fired if your players don't perform. Right now, you'd have a hard time distinguishing between the U.S. economy and the Washington Nationals.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Right now, you'd have a hard time distinguishing between the U.S. economy and the Washington Nationals.

Nah, that's easy.

The Nationals have a better bullpen.

[molson]

It goes both ways, but the burden is on whoever's in power. It's easy to be on the outside and criticize, as we saw during the Bush years.

It's kind of like that Palin/Clinton thing from the other thread. When Bush is in power, liberals have all the answers (or if not the answers, at least they knew that the administration's policies on everything, especially national security, were wrong, despite the unavailability of proof that an alternative policy would be successful), but when Obama is in power, it's "hey, we don't know for sure that an alternative would have worked better".

[JPhillips]

I was for the stimulus, although I had reservations about the amount of non-stimulus tax cuts and the overall proportion of spending on public works projects. At this point I think it's too early to judge the effectiveness of the stimulus given how much more will be spent over the next 12 months. AT this point I think it's fair to argue that the stimulus hasn't done much, but I can't see how you can make the leap to the stimulus made things worse. By the next election results will be more clear and if things are still flat or heading south I expect the Dems will take it on the chin.

The idea, though, that stimulus spending is some great unknown is ridiculous. There's literally mountains of evidence that show that stimulus spending can be effective for bridging a gap in demand. In fact if short term demand is the major problem there isn't anything as effective as government spending.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

If only we had a major political party that doesn't spend like drunken sailors.

Drunken sailors have nothing on Congress. Drunken sailors spend all the money they have and then pass out in a stupor for a few days before getting back to work.

Congress spends all the money they have, a bunch of money they don't have, and then go on vacation for ages before coming back to spend more money.

[rowech]

[Flasch186]

awesome.

[Noop]

Better photo. I think he is wondering what is up with her Jesus sandals.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Noop

Better photo. I think he is wondering what is up with her Jesus sandals.

I reserve judgement on Obama's tastes until I see a front shot. She's famous now!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by rowech

Must be a teleprompter on her ass.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Must be a teleprompter on her ass.

Watch the entire video. Its the french dude with ass radar.

[sterlingice]

Well, wasn't it France where one of the more recent PMs had a mistress who kept showing up at public events with him?

SI

[Greyroofoo]

I would hit it

[CamEdwards]

I'm just glad that there's nothing really important going on, so the media can spend an entire day debating whether or not the president looked at someone's ass.

[lungs]

Freepers plan on overthrowing Obama??

Free Republic founder is in the process of writing what appears to be some sort of document to instigate the overthrow of President Obama.

Some highlights:

We have reached the point where the government's long train of abuses and usurpations has achieved absolute Despotism, therefore it is our right, it is our duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for our future security.

Therefore, We the People of America choose to exercise our right to throw off and alter the abusive government by peacefully recalling and removing from office the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States and all U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives effective immediately.

[RainMaker]

The guy is a fucking inbred moron. He's going to overthrow the government with a handful of racist morons from his site who can't even afford a plane ticket to Washington. The whole thing would be funny if it weren't for the fact they've been breeding terrorists lately.

[Dutch]

What possessed you to read that in the first place?? Weird. (Reminds me of a lot of the stupid shit we endured during the Bush admin)

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Dutch

What possessed you to read that in the first place?? Weird. (Reminds me of a lot of the stupid shit we endured during the Bush admin)

Probably the same thing that prompted me to read Democratic Underground for a few months. It's fun, cheap, and easy to point out the batshit crazies in the other party.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Probably the same thing that prompted me to read Democratic Underground for a few months. It's fun, cheap, and easy to point out the batshit crazies in the other party.

+1

It validates my beliefs and allows me to believe that everybody on the right is like that

[lungs]

dola

Is it just me, or has Free Republic gone from fringe right-wing to just absolute batshit crazy?

A lot of the shit I've been reading on there lately looks like it belongs on Stormfront.

[RainMaker]

The've always been like Stormfront. Back in the 90's they were known for talking incessently about Clinton's "n----- baby". Always been a hate site but is now bordering on a terrorist organization.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

White House aides: "All Obama, All The Time"

Obama Heads to the Front to Do Battle on Health-Care Reform - washingtonpost.com

The media barrage from this president is getting very old, very quick. At some point, you have to stop campaigning to make something happen and actually put forth some policies that the public actually sees as a good idea. Outside of the day of Michael Jackson's funeral, Obama has been making speeches nearly every day around lunch time for 45-60 days. How do I know this? It's become a running joke in our lunchroom to be the first one to spot Obama when he comes on making a live speech during the lunch hour. He never lets us down.

PR overload does not make you a good leader. If anything, it quickly minimizes the impact of your message when you go to the well one too many times.

[JPhillips]

actually put forth some policies that the public actually sees as a good idea

From a Kaiser Foundation poll:

"Creating a public health insurance option similar to Medicare to compete with private health insurance plans."

Favor: 68% (40% strongly favor)
Oppose: 28% (17% strongly oppose)

The problem isn't public support, it's the handful of centrist Senators who always think it's a better idea to do 2/3 of what's proposed.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

From a Kaiser Foundation poll:

The problem isn't public support, it's the handful of centrist Senators who always think it's a better idea to do 2/3 of what's proposed.

1. That's a very generic poll that doesn't deal with the real issues at hand. It asks little more than "if we offered you something perfect, would you be in favor of it?". Of course they would. I'd be in favor of it as well as listed in that question, but that's not a full picture of what's being proposed nor does it present the numerous pitfall contained in the current legislation.

2. The core of my post surrounded the PR oversaturation of the Obama presidency. Those senators won't be swayed by the PR tactics. What people see right now is a Democrat president and a large majority-led Democrat Congress. Things aren't going well and nothing's happening. Continuing to hammer the public with too much PR when it's your fault along with Congress is an ill-conceived plan at best.

[JPhillips]

I could post a handful of other polls, including this morning's Gallup that also say the public has strong support for a public option. I've only seen one poll(Rasmussen) that shows less than strong support. If you're going to say that his proposals aren't liked by the public, I'd like to see your data.

As for your second point, I have no idea if his speeches are over saturation. I'd want to know how many speeches he's given and how it compares to past Presidents. I do know your claim that he's given a speech nearly every day for the past two months is false, but that alone doesn't make him any more or less over saturated.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

PR overload does not make you a good leader. If anything, it quickly minimizes the impact of your message when you go to the well one too many times.

Been telling you this for a long long time.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I could post a handful of other polls, including this morning's Gallup that also say the public has strong support for a public option. I've only seen one poll(Rasmussen) that shows less than strong support. If you're going to say that his proposals aren't liked by the public, I'd like to see your data.

As for your second point, I have no idea if his speeches are over saturation. I'd want to know how many speeches he's given and how it compares to past Presidents. I do know your claim that he's given a speech nearly every day for the past two months is false, but that alone doesn't make him any more or less over saturated.

You're playing games here. Nice try on the attempt to make this partisan, but there's little question that public support is dying out surprisingly quick given the large support for this president and Congressional majority in the recent election. Here's a poll from this morning discussing the faltering polling numbers on all fronts.

Approval Ratings Drop for Obama on Health Care, Other Issues - washingtonpost.com

Poll Shows Obama Slipping on Key Issues
Approval Rating on Health Care Falls Below 50 Percent

Heading into a critical period in the debate over health-care reform, public approval of President Obama's stewardship on the issue has dropped below the 50 percent threshold for the first time, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Obama's approval ratings on other front-burner issues, such as the economy and the federal budget deficit, have also slipped over the summer, as rising concern about spending and continuing worries about the economy combine to challenge his administration. Barely more than half approve of the way he is handling unemployment, which now tops 10 percent in 15 states and the District.

The president's overall approval rating remains higher than his marks on particular domestic issues, with 59 percent giving him positive reviews and 37 percent disapproving. But this is the first time in his presidency that Obama has fallen under 60 percent in Post-ABC polling, and the rating is six percentage points lower than it was a month ago.

Obama has taken on a series of major problems during his young presidency, but he faces a particularly difficult fight over his effort to encourage Congress to pass an overhaul of the nation's health-care system.

The legislation has run into problems in the House and Senate, as lawmakers struggle to contain spiraling costs and avoid ballooning the deficit.

Since April, approval of Obama's handling of health care has dropped from 57 percent to 49 percent, with disapproval rising from 29 percent to 44 percent. Obama still maintains a large advantage over congressional Republicans in terms of public trust on the issue, even as the GOP has closed the gap.

The erosion in Obama's overall rating on health care is particularly notable among political independents: While positive in their assessments of his handling of health-care reform at the 100-day mark of his presidency (53 percent approved and 30 percent disapproved), independents now are divided at 44 percent positive and 49 percent negative.

At the same time, there is no slackening in public desire for Obama to keep pressing for action on the major issues of the economy, health care and the deficit. Majorities think he is either doing the right amount or should put greater emphasis on each of these issues.

On health care, the poll, conducted by telephone Wednesday through Saturday, found that a majority of Americans (54 percent) approve of the outlines of the legislation now heading toward floor action. The measure would institute new individual and employer insurance mandates and create a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. Its costs would be paid in part through new taxes on high-income earners.

There are sharp differences in support for this basic package based on income, as well as a deep divide along party lines. Three-quarters of Democrats back the plan, as do nearly six in 10 independents. More than three-quarters of Republicans are opposed. About two-thirds of those with household incomes below $50,000 favor the plan, and a slim majority (52 percent) of those with higher incomes are against it. The income divide is even starker among independents.

Republicans have hammered the president and congressional Democrats over the cost of an health-care overhaul and its potential impact on the federal deficit, twin issues that have emerged as a possible brake on any new package.

Obama's approval rating on his handling of the deficit is down to 43 percent, as independents now tilt toward disapproval (42 percent approve; 48 percent disapprove).

More broadly, 55 percent of Americans put a higher priority on holding the deficit in check than on spending to boost the economy, compared with 40 percent who advocate additional outlays even if it means a sharply greater budget shortfall. This is a big shift from January, when a slim majority preferred to emphasize federal spending.

Independents, who split 50 percent to 46 percent for more spending in January, now break 56 percent to 41 percent for more fiscal discipline. But a larger shift has been among moderate and conservative Democrats, who prioritized more spending by about 2 to 1 in January and March. Now they are about evenly divided in approach.

Nearly a quarter of moderate and conservative Democrats (22 percent) now see Obama as an "old-style tax-and-spend Democrat," up from 4 percent in March. Among all Americans, 52 percent consider Obama a "new-style Democrat who will be careful with the public's money." That is down from 58 percent a month ago and 62 percent in March, to about where President Bill Clinton was on that question in the summer of 1993.

Concerns about the federal account balance are also reflected in views about another round of stimulus spending. In the new poll, more than six in 10 oppose spending beyond the $787 billion already allocated to boost the economy. Most Democrats support more spending; big majorities of Republicans and independents are against the idea.

Support for new spending is tempered by flagging confidence on Obama's plan for the economy. Fifty-six percent are confident that his programs will reap benefits, but that is down from 64 percent in March and from 72 percent just before he took office six months ago. More now say they have no confidence in the plan than say they are very confident it will work. Among independents and Republicans, confidence has decreased by 20 or more points; it has dropped seven points among Democrats.

Approval of Obama's handling of the overall economy stands at 52 percent, with 46 percent disapproving, and, for the first time in his presidency, more Americans strongly disapprove of his performance on the economy than strongly approve. Last month, 56 percent gave him positive marks on this issue.

More than three-quarters of all Americans say they are worried about the direction of the economy over the next few years, down only marginally since Obama's inauguration. Concerns about personal finances have also abated only moderately since January.

Obama declared ownership of the economic recovery, but the public still places far more blame on President George W. Bush's regulatory policies than on Obama's efforts for the state of the economy. But in the first read of a measurement that will be closely watched in coming years, nearly three in 10 say they are personally "not as well off" financially as they were when Obama took office.

Obama's leadership attributes remain highly rated, despite some slippage. Seven in 10 call him a strong leader, two in three say he cares about the problems of people like themselves, and just over six in 10 say he fulfilled a central campaign pledge and has brought needed change to Washington. However, he has dropped 10 points on the empathy question since April.

Obama still holds wide advantages over Republicans in Congress on the economy and the deficit, although the GOP has rebounded marginally from earlier in the year. The overall approval rating for congressional Republicans has increased six points since April, to 36 percent (compared with 47 percent approval for Democrats), and they have picked up five points vis-à-vis Obama on the deficit. They have gained seven on health care.

Beyond partisan shifts in Obama's ratings, sharp declines have occurred among those with household incomes above $50,000. And those with incomes above $50,000 now are split evenly between Obama and Republicans on dealing with health care. In June, they favored Obama by a 21-point margin.

A total of 1,001 randomly selected adults were interviewed for this poll; the margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

As far as his speaking engagements, there's a schedule here if you're interested. I did notice that his speaking engagements over lunch has slowed since returning from his latest foreign apology tour.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/

[JPhillips]

How I'm I making this partisan? You claim that the President should, "actually put forth some policies that the public actually sees as a good idea". Even the WaPo poll you cited says this:

On health care, the poll, conducted by telephone Wednesday through Saturday, found that a majority of Americans (54 percent) approve of the outlines of the legislation now heading toward floor action.

I'll give you that he's lost support in general on healthcare, but the legislation that's being discussed, still has strong public support. What policies has the President put forth that the public doesn't support?

And once you start throwing out lines like foreign apology tour you should lose the ability to complain about partisanship.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How I'm I making this partisan?

And once you start throwing out lines like foreign apology tour you should lose the ability to complain about partisanship.

You made the Rassmussen citation when I hadn't even used that polling service as a reference. You were making a partisan reference and trying to minimize my argument when it had no references to that polling service.

If you think it's a good idea for Obama to continue to apologize for our past overseas when there's no reason to do it, that's fine. I'm not of that opinion.

[JPhillips]

Dude, get another cup of coffee. Just saying Rasmussen is partisan? Is it now the new Kirby Pucket?

I'm done with the apology tour silliness.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Dude, get another cup of coffee. Just saying Rasmussen is partisan? Is it now the new Kirby Pucket?

I'm done with the apology tour silliness.

The implication was transparent.

I hope Mr. Obama is done too. Would save us all a lot of unneeded trouble.

[JPhillips]

RASMUSSEN!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

RASMUSSEN!