Tell me again why Barack Obama has been such a bad president

M.D. Rawlings

Classical Liberal
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
4,123
Reaction score
930
Points
190
Location
Heavenly Places
by Peter Wehner
08.26.2011 - 12:41 PM
Commentary


“Tell me again why Barack Obama has been such a bad president?” Jonathan Alter writes in his column.

Alter tells us he’s not talking here about Obama as a tactician and communicator, and he’s not interested in hearing ad hominem attacks or about people’s generalized “disappointment.” (Neither am I.) He wants to know on a substantive basis why Obama should be judged to have failed so far.

In Alter’s words, “Your mission, Jim [or anyone else for that matter], should you decide to accept it, is to be specific and rational, not vague and visceral.”

Consider the mission accepted.

In one sense, the answer to the Alter challenge is obvious: Obama has failed by his own standards. It’s the Obama administration, not the RNC, that said if his stimulus package was passed unemployment would not exceed 8 percent. It’s Obama who joked there weren’t as many “shovel-ready” jobs as he thought.

It’s Obama who promised to cut the deficit in half. It’s Obama who said if we passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the health care cost curve would go down rather than up. It’s Obama who promised us recovery and prosperity, hope and change. What we’ve gotten instead is the opposite.

. . . And it is on the common ground of facts that we can declare–in a calm, specific, reasonable, rational and empirical manner–Obama to be an utter failure.

LINK


You Think Obama’s Been a Bad President? Prove It: Jonathan Alter
 
Last edited:

ladyliberal

Progressive Princess
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
291
Points
48
Wehner is dead off, 100%. He writes,

"Consider the mission accepted."

But Alter wrote,

"Your mission, Jim (and readers named something else), should you decide to accept it, is to identify where Obama has been a poor decision-maker. What, specifically, has he done wrong on policy? What, specifically, would you have done differently to create jobs? And what can any of the current Republican candidates offer that would be an improvement on the employment front?"

Alter asks four specific questions (counting the one implicit in the first sentence quoted). Wehner doesn't answer any of them. Instead, he (admittedly, fairly explicitly) documents ways in which the economy is bad. Wehner's statements like

"Under Obama’s stewardship, we have lost 2.2 million jobs (and 900,000 full-time jobs in the last four months alone). He is now on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era."

don't answer any of Alter's questions, which are about Obama's decisions and policies, not about his outcomes. The two are related of course, but Wehner nevertheless fails to relate them. It's remarkable how well Alter predicts Wehner's methodology, and how completely Wehner misses Alter's point. It seems almost as if Alter is responding to Wehner rather than the other way around.
 

ladyliberal

Progressive Princess
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
291
Points
48
I find Ransom's article much more responsive to Alter's challenge. He's making assertions rather than proving points, but one can hardly dissect Dodd-Frank in a couple paragraphs. This does seem to be a reasonable conservative critique of the Obama presidency. However, I do wish Ransom had more scrupulously followed Alter's dictum to avoid ad hominem attacks, and Ransom's use of quotation marks around entirely fictitious and unfair "quotations" could mislead some.
 

Greenbeard

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
6,871
Reaction score
1,217
Points
200
Location
New England
Is it that hard to check a few facts here and there?

It’s the Obama administration, not the RNC, that said if his stimulus package was passed unemployment would not exceed 8 percent.
Unemployment was already at 8.2% when the stimulus passed, less than a month into his presidency. Romer's projections were based on data that badly underestimated the depth of the recession (which is still coming into focus now). Not that the policy response was sufficiently large enough, even for the problem they thought they were facing--but that's as much a function of the pivot points in Congress as it is Obama's overcautiousness.

It’s Obama who promised to cut the deficit in half.
Deficits have been cut in half:

In CBO’s baseline, cumulative deficits total $3.5 trillion between 2012 and 2021, and by the end of 2021 debt held by the public equals $14.5 trillion, or 61 percent of GDP. That estimate of deficits over the next 10 years is considerably lower than the $6.7 trillion that the agency projected in March.​

It’s Obama who said if we passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the health care cost curve would go down rather than up.
Since the passage of the ACA, Medicare cost growth has fallen markedly. The past two years have in fact seen that curve beginning to bend downward.



What makes this record doubly horrifying is rapid growth is the norm after particularly deep recessions — but under Obama, our recovery has been historically weak.
No, it isn't the norm after deep recessions caused by financial crises: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313270678&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly: Carmen M. Reinhart, Kenneth Rogoff[/ame]


Reading more would be a good first step.
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,498
Reaction score
4,139
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
Nobody cares about Jon ALter........he runs an internet site that is followed only by the fringe on the political spectrum.

I love the k00ks posting up shit about Jonathan Alter like he is some kind of mainstream influence!!!
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,660
Points
48
Location
Maine
Regarding Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie?

A little history seems to be in order

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), colloquially known as Fannie Mae, was established in 1938 by amendments to the National Housing Act[6] after the Great Depression as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. Fannie Mae was established to provide local banks with federal money to finance home mortgages in an attempt to raise levels of home ownership and the availability of affordable housing.[7] Fannie Mae created a liquid secondary mortgage market and thereby made it possible for banks and other loan originators to issue more housing loans, primarily by buying Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured mortgages.[8] For the first thirty years following its inception, Fannie Mae held a monopoly over the secondary mortgage market.[9]

In 1954, an amendment known as the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act[10] made Fannie Mae into "mixed-ownership corporation" meaning that federal government held the preferred stock while private investors held the common stock;[6]

in 1968 it converted to a publicly held corporation, to remove its activity and debt from the federal budget.[11] In the 1968 change, Fannie Mae's predecessor (also called Fannie Mae) was split into the current Fannie Mae and the Government National Mortgage Association ("Ginnie Mae"). Ginnie Mae, which remained a government organization, supports FHA-insured mortgages as well as Veterans Administration (VA) and Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) insured mortgages, with the full faith and credit of the United States government.[12]

In 1970, the federal government authorized Fannie Mae to purchase private mortgages, i.e. those not insured by the FHA, VA, or FmHA, and created the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), colloquially known as Freddie Mac, to compete with Fannie Mae and thus facilitate a more robust and efficient secondary mortgage market.[12]

In 1981, Fannie Mae issued its first mortgage passthrough and called it a mortgage-backed security. The Fannie Mae laws did not require the Banks to hand out subprime loans in any way.[13]

Ginnie Mae had guaranteed the first mortgage passthrough security of an approved lender in 1968[14] and in 1971 Freddie Mac issued its first mortgage passthrough, called a participation certificate, composed primarily of private mortgages.[14]


In 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. The Act amended the charter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reflect Congress' view that the GSEs "have an affirmative obligation to facilitate the financing of affordable housing for low-income and moderate-income families."[15]

For the first time, the GSEs were required to meet "affordable housing goals" set annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and approved by Congress. The initial annual goal for low-income and moderate-income mortgage purchases for each GSE was 30% of the total number of dwelling units financed by mortgage purchases[16] and increased to 55% by 2007.

In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the CRA of 1977.[17] Because of the increased ratio requirements, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans. Shareholders also pressured Fannie Mae to maintain its record profits.[17]

In 2000, because of a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.[24
]

There's more here worth reading for those of us interested in the missteps this nation took leading to the RE meltdown.

I think if one approaches this history as a non-partisan one comes away from the history understanding that it took both a government AND A PRIVATE SECTOR, both REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS to really SNAFU things as badly as was done.
 

Sallow

The Big Bad Wolf.
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
56,532
Reaction score
6,241
Points
1,840
Location
New York City
President Obama has not at all be a failure.

If he were a Republican every Republican would be wildly cheering his success and pushing to name all sorts of buildings and structures after him.

Ronald Reagan was not only one of the worst presidents in the history of America..he was one of the biggest criminals. He really did commit treason. He really did violate the constitution. He really did break the law. He really did do massive damage to the economy. Yet conservatives hold this man up in the same reverence as the founders of the United States.

It's really quite shocking.
 

Sallow

The Big Bad Wolf.
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
56,532
Reaction score
6,241
Points
1,840
Location
New York City
I find Ransom's article much more responsive to Alter's challenge. He's making assertions rather than proving points, but one can hardly dissect Dodd-Frank in a couple paragraphs. This does seem to be a reasonable conservative critique of the Obama presidency. However, I do wish Ransom had more scrupulously followed Alter's dictum to avoid ad hominem attacks, and Ransom's use of quotation marks around entirely fictitious and unfair "quotations" could mislead some.
Considering the economic calamity caused by derivatives, Dodd/Frank is one of the most mild attempts to reign in executive criminal activity. It would be like putting up a law that mobsters be required to remove their hats before mass murder after the St. Valentines Massacre.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,078
Reaction score
13,583
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
President Obama has not at all be a failure.

If he were a Republican every Republican would be wildly cheering his success and pushing to name all sorts of buildings and structures after him.

Ronald Reagan was not only one of the worst presidents in the history of America..he was one of the biggest criminals. He really did commit treason. He really did violate the constitution. He really did break the law. He really did do massive damage to the economy. Yet conservatives hold this man up in the same reverence as the founders of the United States.

It's really quite shocking.
Only to you, man.

That you can't see why Reagan was awesome is just an indication of your myopia...

He brought back the economy from the mess Carter had left it and won the Cold War.

I remember in the 1970's, people were talking about whether America was over or not.

But after Reagan, we were standing tall again. Which is why nobody really cared all that much that he sold obsolete weapons (for four times their actual value) to Iran to get hostages out.

Under Obama (or Carter II) we seem to be suffering from that same old "Malaise", which is why Obama is a failure. He doesn't inspire confidence. His argument is not how we are getting better, it's "Well, things could be worse". And then they get worse.

What we need is another kick-ass Cowboy to make us great again.

(That would be your cue, Gov. Perry!) :eusa_whistle:
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,078
Reaction score
13,583
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Considering the economic calamity caused by derivatives, Dodd/Frank is one of the most mild attempts to reign in executive criminal activity. It would be like putting up a law that mobsters be required to remove their hats before mass murder after the St. Valentines Massacre.
Dodd and Frank were both in bed with the criminals who caused this mess you decry. Frank was having sex with one of them.

And to date, the Obama Adminstration has brought very few of these crooks to trial for their roles in the meltdown. He seems more intent on assuring them he's not really a socialist.

What caused the meltdown was that these guys were allowed to make risky investments, but they were also promised that if they failed, they would be bailed out. Both parties also insisted that they make loans to people they never should have made loans to- or else.

The banks went along with it because even if Momma Welfare defaulted on her house she bought with food stamps, they could always resell it for more money- until the real estate bubble burst.
 

Sallow

The Big Bad Wolf.
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
56,532
Reaction score
6,241
Points
1,840
Location
New York City
Only to you, man.

That you can't see why Reagan was awesome is just an indication of your myopia...

He brought back the economy from the mess Carter had left it and won the Cold War.

I remember in the 1970's, people were talking about whether America was over or not.

But after Reagan, we were standing tall again. Which is why nobody really cared all that much that he sold obsolete weapons (for four times their actual value) to Iran to get hostages out.

Under Obama (or Carter II) we seem to be suffering from that same old "Malaise", which is why Obama is a failure. He doesn't inspire confidence. His argument is not how we are getting better, it's "Well, things could be worse". And then they get worse.

What we need is another kick-ass Cowboy to make us great again.

(That would be your cue, Gov. Perry!) :eusa_whistle:
Reagan was the stuff that real dictatorships are spawned from. He broke the law..and I mean seriously broke the law with Iran-Contra. He also violated the Constitution and committed treason.

I find it amazing that Conservatives, who cheered wildly when President Clinton, who didn't violate the Constitution..and was hooked on an arguable technicality, was impeached, while Reagan, who got people killed and engaged in criminal activity, skated.

He left us with a terrible economy to boot.
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,498
Reaction score
4,139
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
President Obama has not at all be a failure.

If he were a Republican every Republican would be wildly cheering his success and pushing to name all sorts of buildings and structures after him.

Ronald Reagan was not only one of the worst presidents in the history of America..he was one of the biggest criminals. He really did commit treason. He really did violate the constitution. He really did break the law. He really did do massive damage to the economy. Yet conservatives hold this man up in the same reverence as the founders of the United States.

It's really quite shocking.

To me, whats shocking is people who can so embrace a view held by so few. Apparently, some people are enamoured with taking the view of the fringe.........wear it as a badge of honor, in fact. Thats cool on some level I guess..........but when you start talking abut Reagan in terms of "a criminal" and you are in mixed company, there is little doubt that those types come off looking like a bottle short of a six pack.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,078
Reaction score
13,583
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Reagan was the stuff that real dictatorships are spawned from. He broke the law..and I mean seriously broke the law with Iran-Contra. He also violated the Constitution and committed treason.

I find it amazing that Conservatives, who cheered wildly when President Clinton, who didn't violate the Constitution..and was hooked on an arguable technicality, was impeached, while Reagan, who got people killed and engaged in criminal activity, skated.

He left us with a terrible economy to boot.

Funny, I remember the Reagan economy being pretty fuckin' awesome.

Please detail what Law Reagan broke in Iran-Contra. Lawrence Walsh spent 43 million dollars and 7 years trying to prove Reagan broke a law, and he came up with nothing.
On the other hand, Clinton really did lie in court. Not "technically", but really did. Knowingly said something he knew wasn't true.

But there's a reason why sensible people didn't hold it against Reagan.

Reagan was trying to save American lives and saved American lives.

Clinton was just trying to avoid a beatdown from his mannish wife.
 

peach174

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
26,246
Reaction score
6,761
Points
290
Location
S.E. AZ
President Obama has not been a leader. He has been in campaign mode ever since he took office.
He believes that Government can create jobs. It is the private sector and small businesses that create jobs.
The health Care bill has caused premiums to rise and the cost of Medicare has come down,but that is because of the caps paid to Doctors.
Doctors can not afford the caps so they are not accepting any new patients that have Medicare.
This will in turn, cost more, because Seniors will have to go emergency rooms.
It will eventually cause Hospitals to turn seniors away because they can't afford the low payments.
that Medicare will pay.
This is a terrible bill for our seniors.
 

Sallow

The Big Bad Wolf.
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
56,532
Reaction score
6,241
Points
1,840
Location
New York City
Reagan was the stuff that real dictatorships are spawned from. He broke the law..and I mean seriously broke the law with Iran-Contra. He also violated the Constitution and committed treason.

I find it amazing that Conservatives, who cheered wildly when President Clinton, who didn't violate the Constitution..and was hooked on an arguable technicality, was impeached, while Reagan, who got people killed and engaged in criminal activity, skated.

He left us with a terrible economy to boot.

Funny, I remember the Reagan economy being pretty fuckin' awesome.

Please detail what Law Reagan broke in Iran-Contra. Lawrence Walsh spent 43 million dollars and 7 years trying to prove Reagan broke a law, and he came up with nothing.
On the other hand, Clinton really did lie in court. Not "technically", but really did. Knowingly said something he knew wasn't true.

But there's a reason why sensible people didn't hold it against Reagan.

Reagan was trying to save American lives and saved American lives.

Clinton was just trying to avoid a beatdown from his mannish wife.
The Iranians let the hostages go 20 minutes after Reagan's inauguration. In his apology, Reagan admits a deal was struck for weapons for hostages, just that it was not documented accurately. When did this deal occur? That's a neat trick..20 minutes?

Congress denied funds to the Contras. Reagan secretly funded the Contras anyway. That's a direct violation of the law and the Constitution. He also allowed the bombing and killing of over 200 marines to go unanswered and ramped up funding for the Muj..with the specific goal of pushing the Russians out of Afghanistan. The previous policy was harrassment only.

Reagan's economy saw the bailout of the Bond industry and Banking industry..most notably Silverado..who executive board included Neil Bush (Son of George HW Bush). Silverado was one of the biggest bank bailouts in history.

Reagan doubled the debt and deficit.

One of the worst presidents in history.
 

BDBoop

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
35,384
Reaction score
5,443
Points
668
Location
Don't harsh my zen, Jen!
You Think Obama

A Few Rebuttals
Threads Merged
From the left: “He should have pushed for a much bigger stimulus in 2009.”


That’s the view of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, now gospel among liberals. It’s true economically but bears no relationship to the political truth of that period. Consider that in December 2008, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a hardcore liberal Democrat, proposed a $165 billion stimulus and said he would be ecstatic if it went to $300 billion. President- elect Obama wanted to go over $1 trillion but was told by House Democrats that it absolutely wouldn’t pass. In exchange for the votes of three Republicans in the Senate he needed for passage, Obama reduced the stimulus to $787 billion, which was still almost five times Rendell’s number and the largest amount that was politically possible.

From the right: “The stimulus and bailouts failed.”

When Obama took office, the economy was losing about 750,000 jobs a month and heading for another Great Depression. The recession ended (at least for a while) and we now are adding several thousand jobs a month -- anemic growth, but an awful lot better than the alternative. How did that happen? Luck?
 

Truthmatters

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,263
Points
0
Because hes against EVERYTHING they stand for.

Just ask Obama what he stands for and they will take the other side even if it means they have to flip flop.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top