It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama first term grade and historical rankings

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

What grade should his presidency receive? As I stated earlier in this piece, when Obama assumed the presidency, he was charged with resolving a nasty set of problems and issues. In response to this, his administration rose to the challenge and fostered positive change and progress in America. Because of this, I think the president deserves an B+, which reflects his solid record as Commander-in-Chief.
From a Huffington Post blog


President Obama’s first term is nearly complete. I feel it is time to grade the Administration up to this point. How has he performed in truly serving the American people? Is he directly improving our quality of life? The President is very sharp on debating talking points. But how is he performing where the rubber meeting the road? In that effort, I think he has earned a solid B+.
www.thejobagroup.org...


No serious legislative business will be conducted before Election Day. The outcome of that election will decide the fate of current tax rates, the next increase in the debt ceiling, and the looming sequester. Obama’s freedom of action has been restricted since Republicans gained a 41st Senator in 2010 and control of the House in 2011. His term effectively has been over for months. Its last gasp was the fight over the Budget Control Act in 2011. One reason the president has poured so much energy into scaring client groups for his reelection campaign is that he has nothing else, really, to do. We can therefore award him the grade he deserves: D Plus.
freebeacon.com...


It may be early in the general election contest for the White House, but Mitt Romney has not been pulling punches in his assessment of President Obama in recent weeks — and he was blunt when asked Thursday to grade Obama’s first term. “Oh, an 'F,' no question about that,” Romney told CBS News political correspondent Jan Crawford. “Across the board.”
LA times


"50 percent of Americans say President Barack Obama's first term has been a failure, according to a recent poll....
Fox News

The inspiration for this thread was an economic report card from The economist.

Crisis response - A-
Stimulus- B+
Housing- C+
Labor Market- C+
Trade- B-
Industrial Policy- F
Regulation- D+
Debt/ fiscal policy- Incomplete

The economist was a major supporter of the stimulus and bailouts.

So, there is a wide range of opinion when it comes to how the Obama admin has handled policy.


What grade would you give Obama for 08-12?


I'm torn on this question. There are all kinds of things to consider, but I'll say C+ for now. I don't think his economic policies have been a complete failure, I'm satisfied with his foreign policies. Where I feel he's fallen short of my expectations is the ability to motivate the population. Morale is very low and this is a reflection on leadership. Following his election, I expected more optimism and purpose from America but this proved impossible in the context of recession and uncertainty.



Part two of this thread will be applying Obama's grade to history. Where does he rank among presidents?



In this video, which I'm sure many remember, Obama tells 60 minutes that he'd put his accomplishments up against any with the exception of FDR, LBJ, and Lincoln.

Wikipedia Historical Rankings of Presidents

Presidents that finished in the top ten in various surveys are: Lincoln, FDR, Washington, Jefferson, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, Truman, Jackson, Eisenhower, Polk, Kennedy, John Adams, L. Johnson, Monroe, and Reagan.

Obama was only ranked in one of the surveys, conducted by Siena in 2010. He was #15.

The top presidents are unanimously Lincoln, FDR, Washington, Jefferson, Teddy, Wilson, and Truman.


Obama's ultimate ranking will not be settled for another ten years at the least. But, given a second term that avoids catastrophe and continuing economic recovery, I would say it is likely he will be viewed as a top ten president.

FDR, whose admin is probably the most similar to Obama's prior to WW2, is a top 3 pick in every survey.

Lyndon Johnson, whose policies are also similar to Obama, is in the top 15 despite the fiasco in Vietnam.

So how is everyone here going to deal with it if in ten years Obama's name is revered with Washington, Jefferson, FDR, and Lincoln?

Of course, it's possible that he loses the election and ends up with a ranking similar to Jimmy Carter, or he gets reelected and his second term is a total disaster leaving him at the very bottom next to Bush2.

But, my point is this: If Obama's second term is any better than his first, even if only slightly, he will be considered one of the greatest POTUS ever in the historical narrative.





edit on 3-9-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-9-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Crisis response - C
Stimulus- C
Housing- D
Labor Market- D
Trade- D
Industrial Policy- F
Regulation- E
Debt/ fiscal policy- Incomplete

Taking further steps to limit Americans freedoms - A+

Bailing out corporations - A+

Sending the national debt to it's highest levels ever - A+




edit on 3-9-2012 by Rubicant13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Everything : F-



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
The Economic/Debt issues are hard for me to see any question in and I don't need to wait 10 years for the lag effect to fully catch up and see the full impact. The numbers speak largely for themselves.

If only one number, it's enough. It's MORE than enough. Annual Budget Deficit. Not national debt, just the deficit.

Bush ran one year just under HALF a Trillion dollars at 458 Billion for 2009 and really bounced up and down from 160 Billion in 2007 to 412 Billion in 2004 and of course, the last Clinton effect in 2001 with a surplus of 128 Billion.

Obama has started out with a BANG by finishing the 300 Billion TARP he had remaining in 2009 and then pushing right on in with Porkulus and let's not forget the funny business at the Fed and bailouts here, there and just about everywhere.

That led Obama to run 1.4 TRILLION in 2009 then in order, 1.29, 1.29 and 1.32 trillion respectively to 2012. Thats triple a YEARLY Deficit (almost exactly) for Obama's best year that Bush ran in his worst...and what had the nation HAPPY to see Bush get the heck out of the White House with his insane fiscal thinking of the 2nd term.
(To the logic that we had to spend ourselves over a trillion a year into NEW debt to solve old debt problems....One ought to consider the whole concept of 'screwing for virginity' as an easier example and then apply backward.
)

Oh..and there is the National debt at last, going from 9.9 in Bush's last full year of 2008 to 16.3 (projected by end of year) in 2012...in Trillions. I believe Obama's legacy in economics is pretty well cast in concrete and it's a failing grade. Bush only gets a D in my book because Clinton hadn't been a perfect example of failure before him to know what he was doing was financial suicide. Obama did have Bush as that example...so should have known better to boot.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
My answers are real close to the economist's and for similar reasons.

Crisis response - B
Stimulus- C
Housing- C+
Labor Market- C+
Trade- B-
Industrial Policy- D
Regulation- C-
Debt/ fiscal policy - Incomplete for the same reason the economist states.

Obama must find a way to deal with Republican Obstructionism. I suggest making filibustering work the way it used to. If you're going to filibuster, you have to be on the floor, actually filibustering! Sometimes I think he's somewhat naive in thinking that this term is going to be different. I also think some of the stuff he's done is total crap.

Healthcare - C-
Social Issues - A
Individual Freedom - D



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I actually agree, for the most part, with the grades given from the OP source. My caveat, however... The big let down for me was that President Obama renewed all of the really dangerous Bush era policies and doctrines, like the Patriot Act, et all.

Hope and change I did not get.

As for handling the catastrophe that he inherited upon entering office? I think he did well. We avoided depression and that is really the key. A lesser POTUS might have plunged us into real, South American style hyper inflation. We can whine and moan now. But imagine if a days labor wouldn't buy a loaf of bread. In reality we dodged a bullet and I have to believe that Obama had a hand in making it so.

My personal, overall grade would be somewhere in the B- to C+ range.

~Heff



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I agree with IRON 7. F-



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Its pretty much an incomplete across the board, and anyone who says otherwise is not being honest. How can you grade someone when he's had a congress that has made it their goal to block everything he's trying to do?



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   


If only one number, it's enough. It's MORE than enough. Annual Budget Deficit


NO, that is the wrong metric to look at. America, and the rest of the world were heading into a severe depression and Obama kept us from falling off the cliff. We would all be in soup lines right now if Obama hadn't acted, so he deserves a lot of credit for that. I'll give him a B-



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB328



If only one number, it's enough. It's MORE than enough. Annual Budget Deficit


NO, that is the wrong metric to look at. America, and the rest of the world were heading into a severe depression and Obama kept us from falling off the cliff. We would all be in soup lines right now if Obama hadn't acted, so he deserves a lot of credit for that. I'll give him a B-

We each have our own opinions of what running the nation off a cliff with 0's on the end looks like. I just know that before Obama came, America had never known a deficit over that 458 billion Bush ran up.

Now by the 2013 White House Budget figures.....the lowest annual deficit we'll see through 2017 is 609 Billion and that isn't the end point...it goes back UP to a projected -612 Billion for 2017 itself.

I've said all along, Bush may very well have laid the foundations of dumb that allowed everything which followed....but Obama built the McMansion on those foundations and it still going at it, full speed.

Gross interest...on this debt they've saddled us with? 809 billion (just a hair under one trillion) in 2017. Net interest due is 565 Billion.

Clinton had surplus....and he's probably the last President this nation will see that will have done it.


Both those after him, have done their fair share to sink the nation, economically. It's just a slow motion kinda thing...with the degree of games and Q.E. kind of postponement games they've been playing.

edit on 3-9-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: typo



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


In 1950 US national Debt was as bad as it is now as a percentage of GDP. By 1970 it was back to a manageable level even with expansions on benefits in the 60's and spending in Vietnam.

US national debt

I don't think these problems are unsolvable, and solving them actually may be contingent on believing them to be manageable. If we get through another two years with increasing confidence in the market and decreasing unemployment, US economy could have a period of high growth as we export information tech to more developing countries. If we can get out of wars and cut defense spending some, localize benefits some, and create a more efficient gov, it's realistic to reduce the budget by at least 5% and combining that with a reasonable increase in tax we could erase the deficit by 2020 and have the debt/GDP ratio back to 30% within 20 years.

All contingent on economic growth, of course. But definitely possible
edit on 3-9-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)


The point being, that we're still in a position to maintain a strong economy with good breaks, where four years ago that was much more uncertain.
edit on 3-9-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

what chu guys huffin'?
corexit?

HELLOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Gulf of mexico!!!!!!
BP!!!!!!!

POSUS's response to crisis:

faked swimming in the gulf with his kids
did jack sheeit about holding BP responsible

out warmongered the repugs warmongers

open in your face imperial delusions re holding power of life and death over everybody

F-
edit on 3-9-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Its pretty much an incomplete across the board, and anyone who says otherwise is not being honest. How can you grade someone when he's had a congress that has made it their goal to block everything he's trying to do?


Did you forget the entire first two years of Obama's first term?

Any Presidents dream would be to control both houses of Congress giving him the chance to do anything he wanted.

Obama did, and two years later the American people had enough and started electing Republicans to control this madman.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


If we can get out of wars and cut defense spending some, localize benefits some, and create a more efficient gov, it's realistic to reduce the budget by at least 5% and combining that with a reasonable increase in tax we could erase the deficit by 2020 and have the debt/GDP ratio back to 30% within 20 years.

I agree with the ability to cut the deficit if we do make the cuts....at least cut it DOWN... However, I've been making a thread on the US Federal Budget going by the 2013 W.H. Budget package. I'm making the thread real easy to read and friendly, but it should illustrate all the points I'm generally making on budget items, including this one.. Sourcing on these figures are all White House 2013fy budget. The full sourcing sheets I'm buildng have page, table or paragraph as it fits.
Here is some data from it on this specific area.

The numbers...they're just so far out beyond the ability to even put into sensible terms, fiat isn't a word that really fits as we go forward.

Specifically though, by the year you'd see the deficit breaking even, 2020..The following things will be true based on the 2013 White House budget.

  1. Federal Budget Total: 5.26 Trillion
  2. Medicare/Medicaid/Soc Sec (Annual) 3.47 Trillion
    [*]Annual Deficit: 658 Billion
  3. Gross Domestic Product: 23.4 Trillion
  4. National Debt: 24.06 Trillion
  5. Interest Paid on Debt (Net): 748 Billion (Just interest.....Not $1 paid on the debt itself)

By comparison....The entire Federal Budget is currently at about $3.79 Trillion (2012). Just those 3 entitlements run a bit shy of our whole budget today, by 2020.
That's a small part of what I've been putting together, but it speaks volumes.... All 100% sourced from White House produced numbers.

It's scary...and the media can't be bothered to read it at all, I'm guessing. They sure can't seem to mention much in the hard terms it requires.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Thanks, good post. I'll look forward to reading your thread when you have it up.

I'm optimistic about prospects in whittling this thing down, and you hit it right on by showing the proportion of the budget that is devoted to public benefits (health care/social security). In my view, we should be trying to handle these things on a more local level. It seems that if health care and SS were handled by states and counties things could be done more efficiently and stress on fed would reduce.

Also, a big part of this is a cultural issue as much as an economic issue. Health care costs would be a fraction of what they are if people simply took care of themselves better. Also, with federal benefits expanded it seems that the population seems to feel less of a responsibility when it comes to taking care of each other in the community.


The volunteer rate rose by 0.5 percentage point to 26.8 percent for the year ending in September 2011, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. About 64.3 million people volunteered through or for an organization at least once between September 2010 and September 2011. The increase in the volunteer rate in 2011 followed a decline of equal size in 2010.
Bureau of Labor volunteering stats

Only 26% of Americans over the age of 16 are engaged in volunteer work and community service. If this number were more like 50 or higher, entitlement costs could be reduced big time. And that number (26) includes people who volunteered once or twice throughout the year. Imagine if the majority did community service on a regular basis.
edit on 3-9-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-9-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 

You know, you are right about this being reversible. In looking at it.....well, It's hard to acknowledge a window of opportunity is still open to change it and I don't think it will be for much longer.

The problem is the extreme nature of the 'austerity' it would require. I'm not sure America is even up for the discussion, let alone reality of TRUE hardship and sacrifice the way the Great Depression generation knew it.

To not only stop the runaway train of compounding debt figures but actually turn it around would take a level of self sacrifice it's hard for me to imagine my Son's generation taking as anything but the punch line of a hilarious joke, if suggested as a serious need here. There *IS* one way they can fix this...almost over night and certainly within a single year...but I gotta keep something for my thread.
I gave more than I meant to here. lol...



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Crisis response - D-
Stimulus- F-
Housing- F-
Labor Market- FFF-
Trade- F-
Industrial Policy- F
Regulation- FF-
Debt/ fiscal policy- F- (Treason)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Carseller4
 


Nope didn't forget. If you think you can grade a president on less than 4 years, you don't get it. And really, anyone who thinks they can grade a president until at least 1 full term after they are out of office doesn't get it. A presidents work isn't about right this minute. Someday I hope americans get less short-sighted.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I also enjoy predicting the playoff teams in the NFL before the season starts.

You can view this type of thing as short sighted because the grades aren't credible, or long sighted for the same reason. My views are based on my opinion that the US economy will be fine and grow throughout Obama's second term.

Your stance seems more in favor of hindsight than against shortsightedness.


And no one has commented on the prospect that Obama may go down as one of the greatest presidents, no ideas on that? I'm expecting passionate disagreement, anyone agree?
edit on 3-9-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-9-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-9-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
...
Obama must find a way to deal with Republican Obstructionism. I suggest making filibustering work the way it used to. If you're going to filibuster, you have to be on the floor, actually filibustering! Sometimes I think he's somewhat naive in thinking that this term is going to be different. I also think some of the stuff he's done is total crap.
Healthcare - C-
Social Issues - A
Individual Freedom - D


This is a "president" who's had majorities in both houses of Congress, the unwavering support of the MSM and the unlimited funding (he falsely foreswore in 2007 and 2008) to "sell" his agenda and policies to his credulous followers. Only the completely "bought in" would blame Obama's failure of leadership and lack of credibility on his predecessor, his party's Congressional and Senate majorities, or "Republican Obstructionism."


Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Its pretty much an incomplete across the board, and anyone who says otherwise is not being honest. How can you grade someone when he's had a congress that has made it their goal to block everything he's trying to do?


This is the same "president" who began his "post-partisan" term by ramming "stimulus" and Obamacare down the throats of the public, and of Republican in Congress, by reminding them during his first meeting (January 23, 2009) with them, "I won," and rejected any and all compromise from thence forward!
www.huffingtonpost.com...

As the president, he had told Kyl after the Arizonan raised objections to the notion of a tax credit for people who don’t pay income taxes, Obama told Cantor this morning that "on some of these issues we’re just going to have ideological differences."
The president added, "I won. So I think on that one, I trump you."

abcnews.go.com...

This is the "post-racial" "president" who catered to ethnic supporters by imploring them to consider Republicans to be their enemies and to punish them.

... we're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us ... .

latimesblogs.latimes.com...
Did the President of the United States Describe Some Americans as Enemies?

But, hey?
Since when did Obama's acolytes let facts get in the way of their blind devotion?

deny ignorance

jw

edit on 4-9-2012 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join