WaPo: Obama at odds with every U.S. president since World War II

I gotta give obama one thing, he has stuck to his guns as far as trying too keep america out of every single international problem that arises. America is not the world police, other countries need to shoulder the burden of international affairs aswell.

 

yeah that's really turned out delightful and will have no long term consequences

Obama's f'ing clueless. Has been since day 1. Incompetent and under qualified for the role by any measure.

 

I agree he is in over his head, but his presidency has been a no win since the beginning. The ideas he has had while good willed should and will take more than one presidents 8 year term to finish. We have tax issues in the homeland along with others aswell and another war would murder our economy and raise taxes on already pissed off citizens who dont agree with his obamacare policies in the first place.

 

Yet at the same time he is competent enough to give rise to a new socialist regime that ****s on the constitution daily while at the same time suppressing white Christians.
So is he competent or incompetent? I guess it depends on what week it is.

 

If Obama is in over his head as president then I don't want to know how overwhelmed Bush was as president.

 

Let's see:

1. No wars=1,000s of American lives saved.

2. No attacks on U.S. soil

3. Death of the #1 mastermind behind the largest single-day mass murder of Americans- in an attack on U.S. soil under another president.

4. Unemployment goes from 10% to 6% in the same timeframe as it did under Reagan.

5. Signature legislation passed.

Yep, pretty horrible so far.

 

Are we back to giving credit/blame to Obama for pulling the troops out of Iraq prematurely?

Except the whole Boston marathon thing and the Fort Hood thing....but who's counting?

Awesome.

The U-6 or "real unemployment rate" is 12.2% because it doesn't discount those who have given up the search for work like the U-3 does (the 6.2% number you quoted)

....which would be a good thing if it was good legislation, but it's terrible legislation that has to be completely re-worked.

Agreed.

 

Obama haters are silly in their hate of Obama. For every situation in which you can apply logic, reason, etc., when it comes to religion and politics, the haters throw that **** right out the ****ing window. Really, it speaks of a willful ignorance- and it goes both ways. Bush was not as bad as people made him out to be, and Obama isn't as bad as people make him out to be.

It's very easy to use selective judgment in life. I can pick out 5 Beatles songs, the worst ones (Revolution #9, Love You Blue, Honey Pie, Til There Was You, All Together Now), give them on a CD or flash drive to someone who's never heard of them, and they'd call the Beatles a mediocre group. Selectivism is so easy to do- that's why people do it. Especially with politics and religion.

 

** Pull-out date established by Bush. Obama stuck with it. Good for him. If you worked with the number of veterans I have and realized how ****ed up several of them got after being in Iraq, you'd change your "premature" tune.

1. So, Fort Hood and the Boston Marathon are now on par with 9-11?

2. That's fine, you can use whatever criteria you want- then just remember it went from 16% to 12% on the U-6. Again, selectivism. I've seen people use the U3 standard on other presidents and, now, all of a sudden, with Obama in office, let's apply the U6 to him. Intellectual dishonesty.

3. Not everyone agrees that it is terrible legislation. Matter of fact, many agree that it is great legislation.

 

No I wouldn't, I'm a vet myself.

Also, just so we're clear, in conversations where pulling the troops out too early is seen as a bad idea, such as conversations about how the place descended into chaos already and how we already need to go back in and give them aid, do we blame Obama for that or Bush? I mean I get that you are now crediting Obama for pulling the troops out allowing ISIS to do their thing, but do you also blame him or is that a blame Bush thing?

Did you say "No 9-11" or did you say "No attacks on US soil"? It gets so confusing.

Intellectual dishonesty is quoting a 6% U-3 number that dropped from 10% considering the bulk of the "improvement" in the U-3 number was people who gave up searching for a job. The U-6 number was 9.2% in Jan of 2008 and it is 12.2% today.

Well some people sniff glue too, I don't generally cont those people. No matter what your stance on universal healthcare, the bill that was passed was just terrible legislation.

 

Wow, that was the 5 point palm exploding heart touch technique.

Bigtexxx has fallen silent. Cue Boyz 2 Men.

 

Umm, Obama didn't take office until Feb of 2009 (OK, January 21, but that allows a round-up - and applies to all Presidents). Try again.

http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.aspx?type=UR

Oh, and if you want to play the literal game, sure, we can give examples of all kinds of "terrorist" attacks going back to Reagan- but, you're right. Under Bush, 9-11. Under Obama, Fort Hood and the Boston Marathon. So, since we're throwing the magnitude of events out the window, 2 vs. 1, so point goes to Bush, right? Gotcha.

 

Well, I personally don't have a problem with BigTexx disliking Obama. I could find a lot of things wrong with him- but I can do that for every President if I want. You're talking about a large pool to choose from- anytime that's the case, you have more to either argue for or against.

Again, like the Beatles. The only thing one can prove is that they have sold the most number of albums of any musical group. That's fact. As far as one's opinion? I'd say the Beatles lovers have a lot more "ammunition" on their side than the Beatles haters, but it's as simple as saying, "I just don't like their music, that's all." And who's to argue with you, right?

With Obama, if you stick to facts, any type of judgment that he's the worst President of all time- or that he's been bad for the country...aren't supposed very strongly by the facts.

Even facts can be misused. I make a point of saying that unemployment has gone down overall since Obama took office- and particularly after its rise to the 10% level- just like Reagan. But then, I'm giving the President credit for this??? I mean, come on, there's a whole hell of a lot more factors going into play here- maybe Obama was just there at the right time, entirely possible.

My point is that you can't apply one set of rules to your "guy" and another to your 'non-guy."

Let's face it...ultimately, most Presidents come out somewhere in the middle. They make mistakes, and they make wise decisions. It's just the nature of what would happen if anyone has a job of this magnitude. Too many incidents, too many factions, too many issues...etc. Ultimately, our judgment of the President is based on whether he/she has made decisions that we personally approve of...whether they are ultimately good or bad makes little difference to many.

You put Romney in the White House, and he passed healthcare reform legislation , and the conservative spin is, "great decision! Now I don't have to pay for deadbeats who were too cheap to buy health insurance!"

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/mDWiIYNwkPo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Fair enough, the U-6 number was 14.2% in January of 2009 and the U-3 number was 7.8 so in the 5 and a half years of Obama the numbers skyrocketed to 16+ U-6 and 9+ U-3 for several years to eventually fall back down slightly under where things were when he took office yet the U-6 is still at a higher level than it had ever been in the 20 years of tracking that number and the U-3 is at higher levels than it has been in 20 years.....that's still not really a success. I guess you could try to argue that it could have been worse, but that's not a very strong argument because that's merely speculation and it really did get really, really bad.

As to terrorism, I wasn't the one who brought up the alleged lack of terrorist attacks as some kind of accomplishment, they happen when they happen. I look at a president's foreign policy and this president is no stronger in that respect than most I can remember. Certainly every bit as weak as Bush, only he's viewed as a pushover rather than as a cowboy warhawk.

 

Given that everything we do in the Middle East is a disaster or come back to bite us... just leaving it mostly along might be the wisest thing to do. We'll know in 15-20 years.

To some, it's a pushover. To other, it takes more courage and strength to not react than to react.

 

And even as you try to backpedal by giving accurate information, you continue to give inaccurate information. The U6 was about 15% when Obama was inaugurated, a time when the economy was shedding 750,000 jobs per month. This job loss culminated in the highest U6 since the new measure was begun in 1994 of 17.5% late in 2009. Since then, in the same time it took for things to turn around under Reagan, things have turned around under Obama.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/11/06/broader-unemployment-rate-hits-175/

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp?fromYear=2009&toYear=2009

Recovering from the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression would have been seen as a positive accomplishment by people like you and bigpuffery had the President had an (R) behind his name on C-SPAN.

Bias, y'all haz it.

 

I wasn't just talking about the middle east, every time Obama and Putin go at it, Putin embarrasses him, this cartoon isn't all that far off base.




Also though, for the record, are we blaming/crediting Obama or Bush for pulling out of Iraq? I'd like to know for future conversations.

 

We are crediting Bush with signing the treaty and Obama with implementing it.

 

Right - highest level- that's what was inherited- again, look at Reagan, pretty much the same thing- liberals give Clinton credit for having the lowest UE numbers in the past 30+ years, but he inherited lower numbers. To be fair, you have to look at the rate of rise and fall. Goes up from about 8% to a peak of 10%, then it goes back down to 6%. Majority of time Obama's been in office, UE has fallen- look at number of months. Does he get credit? Depends on whether you like him or not.

Same with Bin Laden. Come on, anyone that tells me most conservatives would be saying, "Bush didn't have anything to do with that, it was all about the military..." if Bin Laden was killed on his watch are absolutely full of ****- only my opinion, but I"m 100% certain of this. It's the one that makes me chuckle the most. Bush would be put on the highest pedestal, they would be singing his praises to the hills. Our Great Leader!

Just my opinion. Some are better, some are worse. It's the exaggerated responses on either side that I have an issue with. Not yours, but some of the others.

 

Okay and that high U-6 level remained till 2012 and the U-3 remained at or above 8.9% for 31 consecutive months.....the previous record being 20 months during Reagan's first term....though the history of accurate record keeping only goes back to 1948 and was probably/almost certainly worse during the great depression.

I'm just pointing out context here, things haven't gotten good economically, maybe they will, maybe they won't only time will tell. Even then, economic issues are far to complex to credit or blame any one president for. I don't blame Obama for the bad economy, I don't credit him for the economy becoming slightly less terrible in his 6th year in office just like I don't credit or blame a president for a 9-11 type event happening while they are in office.....I also don't credit or blame Reagan for the economy in the 80's or Clinton for the economy that we thought we had in the 90's.