• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

What grade would you give O for his first term?

Obama's first term grade

  • Total voters
    99
  • Poll closed .
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I think people would have been happy with some visible results from the Stimulus. We supposedly spent $900 billion on new roads and bridges, yet nobody seems to know where they are. If we were just going to give away $900 billion with no tangible results, it would have been a helluva lot easier to just send people checks.
Click to expand...

huh? You rejected it out of hand at the time it was passed. So did the GOP.



Drive up to Boone, ive seen the stimulus on 421. The rest was tax cuts and unemployment benefits. Those were bad?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I think people would have been happy with some visible results from the Stimulus. We supposedly spent $900 billion on new roads and bridges, yet nobody seems to know where they are. If we were just going to give away $900 billion with no tangible results, it would have been a helluva lot easier to just send people checks.
Click to expand...

Just because you keep spewing the same brianwashed lies doesn't mean they will ever be true:

1. Out of the $787B (NOT $900B as you keep posting), 1/3 was TAX cuts- Thus your basis premise is FOS.
2. Many tens of billions went to keep teachers, cops, firemen and others in their jobs in EVERY state. Again your premise FOS.
3. There have been over 10,000 projects funded by the Stimulus. Only those willfully blind don't admit this.

Here is how each county in NC spent the money it got http://projects.propublica.org/recovery/locale/north-carolina

Over $14B was spent in NC, but don't let little things like facts get in the way. You never do.
 
B, on both counts (foreign and domestic). C+ for the first two years, and an A- for the last two.

This is not the time to put a new first-term president in office to learn the ropes, and worry constantly about the political ramifications of hard decisions. We need a second-term president at the helm, so that deals can be made across the aisle without the Executive being terrified of reelection implications. I think Obama will be a centrist in his second term, a dealmaker, whereas I think Romney would be party-line first-term president. We desperately need the former, not the latter.
 
I think in 2015-16 after all the ACA has been in place for a year or two even the right will how much of a positive it will have become. Up until now. most people have no clue about it other than the hundreds of millions in ads that were spent against it.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
B, on both counts (foreign and domestic). C+ for the first two years, and an A- for the last two.

This is not the time to put a new first-term president in office to learn the ropes, and worry constantly about the political ramifications of hard decisions. We need a second-term president at the helm, so that deals can be made across the aisle without the Executive being terrified of reelection implications. I think Obama will be a centrist in his second term, a dealmaker, whereas I think Romney would be party-line first-term president. We desperately need the former, not the latter.
Click to expand...

I agree with your thoughts regarding the country's need for a second term president unencumbered with re-election considerations. Such a president could, in fact, be more likely to make some of the difficult decisions that need to be made, e.g. tax increases and spending reductions. Obama does not impress me as the kind of president who will make those decisions, though. Since he is going to win, I hope I am wrong.

Either way, I do not expect enough republicans to work with him in order to accomplish anything significant.

ETA: C+ BTW
 
RJKarl said:
I think in 2015-16 after all the ACA has been in place for a year or two even the right will how much of a positive it will have become. Up until now. most people have no clue about it other than the hundreds of millions in ads that were spent against it.
Click to expand...

Well I guess that is something everyone has in common with Obama.
 
WakeandBake said:
huh? You rejected it out of hand at the time it was passed. So did the GOP.



Drive up to Boone, ive seen the stimulus on 421. The rest was tax cuts and unemployment benefits. Those were bad?
Click to expand...

Sure, it sucked and was a bad idea. But given that he did it any way, it would have been nice to get some tangible results (even if only at $.10 on the dollar) rather than just pissing that money down the toilet. and while I am glad Boone has 1 mile of a wider road, that doesn't exactly cut it.

And as usual RJ chimes in with the 1/3 tax cuts that nobody seems to be able to detail. Even taking that falsity into consideration, what about the other 2/3s?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Sure, it sucked and was a bad idea. But given that he did it any way, it would have been nice to get some tangible results (even if only at $.10 on the dollar) rather than just pissing that money down the toilet. and while I am glad Boone has 1 mile of a wider road, that doesn't exactly cut it.

And as usual RJ chimes in with the 1/3 tax cuts that nobody seems to be able to detail. Even taking that falsity into consideration, what about the other 2/3s?
Click to expand...

The Act specifies that 37% of the package is to be devoted to tax incentives equaling $288 billion

Tax incentivesTotal: $288 billion

[edit] Tax incentives for individualsTotal: $237 billion

$116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[26]
$70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one-year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[26]
$15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
$14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
$6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[40]
$4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
$4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers – for families with at least three children.
$4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
$1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.
[edit] Tax incentives for companiesTotal: $51 billion

$15 billion: Allowing companies to use current losses to offset profits made in the previous five years, instead of two, making them eligible for tax refunds.
$13 billion: to extend tax credits for renewable energy production (until 2014).
$11 billion: Government contractors: Repeal a law that takes effect in 2012, requiring government agencies to withhold three percent of payments to contractors to help ensure they pay their tax bills. Repealing the law would cost $11 billion over 10 years, in part because the government could not earn interest by holding the money throughout the year.
$7 billion: Repeal bank credit: Repeal a Treasury provision that allowed firms that buy money-losing banks to use more of the losses as tax credits to offset the profits of the merged banks for tax purposes. The change would increase taxes on the merged banks by $7 billion over 10 years.
$5 billion: Bonus depreciation which extends a provision allowing businesses buying equipment such as computers to speed up its depreciation through 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...nt_Act_of_2009#Tax_incentives_for_individuals
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
I'm inclined to think Dodd-Frank actually benefits the TBTF banks, though there are some worthwhile consumer protections in the act.
Click to expand...

What makes you say that it benefits the large banks?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I think people would have been happy with some visible results from the Stimulus. We supposedly spent $900 billion on new roads and bridges, yet nobody seems to know where they are. If we were just going to give away $900 billion with no tangible results, it would have been a helluva lot easier to just send people checks.
Click to expand...

I don't know what has come with stimulus money or not but there is a ton of new construction in my neighborhood. A new overpass has cut down commute times in my neighborhood which presumably makes work days more efficient. I live on a major road being widened which should help traffic flow even more and make homes in the area more desirable. A new bridge is connecting both sides of the area divided by I-75 to connect to a popular day care, middle school, and high school that will cut time driving to that area from 12-15 minutes to under 5 minutes.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Sure, it sucked and was a bad idea. But given that he did it any way, it would have been nice to get some tangible results (even if only at $.10 on the dollar) rather than just pissing that money down the toilet. and while I am glad Boone has 1 mile of a wider road, that doesn't exactly cut it.

And as usual RJ chimes in with the 1/3 tax cuts that nobody seems to be able to detail. Even taking that falsity into consideration, what about the other 2/3s?
Click to expand...

You don't know the details of the thing you oppose? shame on you.

DeacHawk already outlined the tax cuts. I bet if you went to that Wiki page you could get your answers. You just hover the cursor over the link he posted, and then press the left mouse button (Windows) or the mouse button (Mac).
 
B(in Laden) on foreign policy.
D(ebt) on domestic policy.
 
So those guys are admitting they are inferior businesspeople to franchisees in every other industrialized nation. All of them have had to pay medical insurance for every employee since the person used the first hammer to build their stores.

Why can't American business owners be as competent as the McD owner in Berlin or Nice?
 
oh, and...

F for domestic policy
D for foreign policy

F overall. This is down from the D or whatever I gave him a few months back.

I don't need to clarify my domestic grade. Dealt a bad hand and has made it worse. Plain and simple. Obamacare and a complete lack of understanding of how basic rhetoric and tax policy affect economic growth. Obamacare in and of itself should be enough for the F given the economy he inherited. Has made an outlier spending year the norm, and then tries to claim that he actually isn't a big spender. Please. Made promises bigger than he could deliver, though most politicians do that.

D for foreign policy. This is partly based on his complete withdrawal from the Israel situation. Just because he doesn't like Netanyahu doesn't mean he has to act like he doesn't exist. Inexcusable and childish on his part. Also, he is finding that a bunch of fluffy rhetoric about hope and change and a new US role in the world really doesn't make people happy when all the people who criticized us before are still trying to jockey for power at the world's table. We are still douchebags to them, and Obama merely a more pliable figurehead to manipulate than his predecessor. About the only thing they like is he doesn't beat wardrums like Bush did, but it's easy to not beat wardrums after 8 years of beating them. If he inherited a bad economy to his disadvantage, he also inherited a desire to withdraw from war from the US and world public to his advantage. Lauding withdrawal from Iraq isn't much of an achievement if it was going to happen in some form anyway. Hell, McCain would've done the same thing. He also gets low grades for making Hillary his SOS and thereby subjecting us to that cunt for at least 4 years, and making her relevant on the political stage until at least 2016. He gets a D for OBL and keeping Gitmo open.

Since domestic trumps foreign policy at the moment, D+F = F. If Israel blows up into WW3, D+F = D. However, his lack of leadership on that front would also make Israel the crown jewel of his foreign policy, which would give him an F in both areas of policy and a continuing F overall.

Anyway, I'm sure most of you are shocked by the fact that I gave him an F.
 
RJKarl said:
So those guys are admitting they are inferior businesspeople to franchisees in every other industrialized nation. All of them have had to pay medical insurance for every employee since the person used the first hammer to build their stores.

Why can't American business owners be as competent as the McD owner in Berlin or Nice?
Click to expand...

Wow. You do realize that those costs in Berlin or Nice were preexisting costs to doing business, and not penalties imposed after the fact, right? Also, I have no idea if the employer has an obligation to pay a portion of the health costs in those places like they do here. I do know that the Germans and French pay out the ass to be covered, though. Germans pay something like 15% (that's per Wikipedia-- I thought it was closer to 10%) and the French 5% of their incomes.

It has nothing to do with competence. It has to do with the government fucking with their business models in a major and unnecessary way.
 
If their similar businesses can still make a profit with higher wages, harder to fire employees, higher healthcare costs, yes they are incompetent or too greedy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top