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: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Using executive orders to bypass Congress: A+
Downgrading America's credit: A+
Socializing America: A+
Limiting freedoms: A+
Bailing out corporations: A+
Saying absolutely nothing when sites like Megaupload were illegally taken down by the Feds: A+
Failing to withdraw troops from Afghanistan: A+
National debt increased $5 trillion+ since assuming presidency: A+

Overall job: F- ad infinitum

Is this a President to be proud of? Hell no.




posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Obama acolytes? Man I hate ats this time of year.

For the record, I'm not voting for him. But hey, why let facts get in the way of some good ol political trolling, right?



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 

Of course, all the sourcing you use is political and highly partisan in nature.....for those who would attack the sources themselves, as I'm sure many tend to jump to.

I can't find anything factually inaccurate about what you're saying though....and the unlimited money aspect is..Well, when you consider the United States hasn't actually passed a budget, as such, since a couple months after Obama took office, it's actually a valid question to pose...how much really has been used? 300 Billion of TARP still sat unused in Jan. of 2009....so he had almost a 1/3rd of what Bush did carve out in the first giant stupid move of the crisis....and then Porkulus I and it's baby brother followup with Obamacare coming inbetween.

Yeah...He's had money and no shortage of it..to do almost anything a man could possibly want to do...and the odd thing is? As I gaze around the real world we all inhabit...as opposed to the one on paper Washington talks about......I can't see where all those literally UNTHINKABLE sums of money went. We ought to have an interstate system with gilded guard rails for all he spent..and that would have left some.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Ow Ow Ow ow I want to play too!!!


My grades are as follows.. and remember this is strictly based on Economic issues ONLY.

Crisis response: F. Sorry I am not fan of bail outs for business and that was his response.

Stimulus: F. These "Stimulus" packages have done nothing more than create more debt and make bigger bonuses available for those who helped create this whole mess to begin with.

Housing- D. I didnt give him an F because thankfully the law actually stopped him.

Labor Market- F. Inflating the College Bubble does nothing to help the labor market.

Trade: F. Am I the only person who remembers him saying that he would get us out of NAFTA and GATT?

Industrial Policy: F. Surprisingly I agree with the author here.

Regulation: F. 4 words.. Gulf Oil Spill Response.

Debt/ fiscal policy: I agree this is incomplete. This Administration is not yet finished destroying the dollar's worth.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Thanks for the response, thought this might have been dead.

Everyone has responded to economic issues, I was hoping for some grades on foreign policy and social issues too, as well as an overall grade.

I think he's been quite strong in foreign policy, with my stance being a lack of disaster outweighs a lack of accomplishment. Also, he considerably increased diplomatic relationships with China during his first two years.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



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...

I know...must have happened a thousand times around here, but this isn't one of them. I'm not abandoning my thread effort of weeks....but it is delayed. I regret mentioning anything publicly now as it will be a couple days. I ran into the brick wall of a fact contradiction and a big one. Oh uncle sammy.... Or is it Uncle Obama... How could ya?

It's a great thread here though as it is, and I'm really curious to see how more people would rate Obama inside economics and out! Hopefully a few more throw their opinions on this before the race advances further to show more clearly what an outcome may be.



edit on 4-9-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Glad you posted that, I actually just checked your profile in the last hour.

Gaining insight on the possible outcome can be beneficial. A thread in itself could be the market ramifications based on the winner.

money.usnews.com...

Research has shown that the stock market tends to go up during a presidential election year.



But mark your calendar. If you believe this theory, the presidential cycle tells us that we should hang onto our stocks for the rest of 2012. But it also says we should sell when the president is inaugurated in January 2013—no matter who wins.


That's one take. But certain sectors will respond differently based on the winner. If we find most are giving Obama low grades and Romney will probably win, maybe you invest in financial and insurance companies who will benefit from lower regulation and the elimination of public health care option competition. Or companies tied to natural gas and offshore drilling.

If Obama wins, maybe you invest in alternative energy companies that will continue to receive high R&D funding from fed, or even Chinese companies that won't face the tariff that Romney wants in place.

Any company with a stake in the election may stagnate or regress in value during the election week and see a big boost based on the winner.
edit on 4-9-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ForeverDusk
 


He is a President to be extremely proud of!

America came back from the edge of the cliff to hell!

I cannot grade him until he is done.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


Everyone has responded to economic issues, I was hoping for some grades on foreign policy and social issues too, as well as an overall grade.


The federal government has no business whatsoever in legislating "social issues," which are inherently diverse, divisive and best left up to individuals and individual states.

For using "social issues" to pander, buy voting blocs and divide the people, Obama gets an F.

His "foreign policy" consists of behind-the-scenes appeasement of terrorists and terorr-supporting states (e.g., Taliban, Iran) and the betrayal of allies (e.g., missile defense, Jerusalem) in ill-conceived attemps at "Reset" and subjugation of American industry and sovereignty (Russia, AGW, L.O.S.T.) to special interests and critics.
Grade? F.

jw
edit on 5-9-2012 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


If the US federal gov had never legislated on social issues we'd still have slavery, male only voting, segregation...

At this point problems don't seem that severe, but I have no problem with a central push toward social progress.


I'm sorry, anyone who gives this administration F's across the board isn't making sense to me. America could be in much worse shape than it is now. These four years can't be considered a complete failure. F is the lowest grade, and there is still a lot of room for regression.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


If the US federal gov had never legislated on social issues we'd still have slavery, male only voting, segregation...


Nope!

Slavery and suffrage were NOT legislation; they were addressed via Constitutional amendment.
As for segregation, THAT was the direct result of Southern Democrat legislation. It, too, was addressed, not with legislation, but with SCotUS decisions based upon Constitutional interpretation.

Try harder.

jw



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Alright, I'm going to look into those processes. I didn't realize constitutional amendments didn't qualify as legislation technically. Regardless, these changes were initiated by the federal government and laws were created as result, whether by SCOTUS or congress.

Will post if I can firm up my stance that federal legislation can be an instrument of positive social change and hope you will counter if my find my reasoning insufficient.


Edit:

Alright, a few points. One, I hope you apply your Fed stay out of social issues stance to the Republican party as well. Under Bush we had No Child left Behind, and Partial Birth Abortion ban. Romney has a good number of social issues platform. I'm not sure whether you are anti Obama, anti Dem, or anti national political parties, so I thought I'd make that point first.

One area that comes to mind considering positive social change and federal legislation is the student loans programs. Because the federal government can offer lower interest rate, more young people from low income families can go to college.

Also, each administration has an effect on social issues whether they legislate or not. I think Obama can be given a somewhat high grade in social issues simply for making history as the first black president. Whether that initial high grade is erased by a series of failures afterward is less clear.
edit on 5-9-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ForeverDusk
Using executive orders to bypass Congress: A+
Downgrading America's credit: A+
Socializing America: A+
Limiting freedoms: A+Bailing out corporations: A+
Saying absolutely nothing when sites like Megaupload were illegally taken down by the Feds: A+
Failing to withdraw troops from Afghanistan: A+National debt increased $5 trillion+ since assuming presidency: A+

Overall job: F- ad infinitum

Is this a President to be proud of? Hell no.


I'm willing to entertain the points not in bold, however the bolded points are pure lies. Obama has not socialized America, name me one area which he has socialized. I'll wait.

Limiting freedoms? How exactly?

He is withdrawing the troops, it's a long process however. Pulling out at once would be a disaster. Afghan soldiers must be ready to take the burden once foreign troops have left.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   


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


With a subjective list like this, I think we can pretty much dismiss any other comparisons...Wilson? He was an abject failure as a president. As is Obama. All politicians over the past 40 years, with the exception of Reagan and Paul have been abject failures.
edit on 5-9-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by thepresident
 





I cannot grade him until he is done.


You better get your grade in before his policies shut down your ability to post.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Glad someone finally replied to the historical aspect of the thread. In the lists cited on wikipedia, Reagan was much lower than I thought he'd be. I think he was in the middle of the pack for the most part. Maybe a reflection of liberal media bias.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
I'd have to give him two "Fs" - for "F"ast and "F"urious.

I'd give him a "D" for - Debt - massive new debt

He should receive a "C" for Communist (you didn't build that!)

He should receive a "D" for Dope-head (well Pot-head - the type that causes a 10 point drop in IQ)

He should receive an "E' for Employment of Illegal aliens (damn the unemployed African Americans)

And let's give him an "A" for A-hole...



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


Alright, I'm going to look into those processes. I didn't realize constitutional amendments didn't qualify as legislation technically. Regardless, these changes were initiated by the federal government and laws were created as result, whether by SCOTUS or congress.


It is truly sad that our schools cannot impart even a rudimentary appreciation of government, politics and what we used toi call "civics" to our children. I am deeply saddened and embarassed. Maybe if this was couched in terms of "Nibiru" or "the Illuminati" we could generate a vigorous, informed discussion?

1st, legislation is not a "technicality." It is usually the result of an underlying sentiment that "somebody needs to do something;" and, the responsibility devolves upon the state, locla or federal legislature.

I didn't come here or start this thread to teach anyone basic American History or Government; but Constitutional change is not necessarily indicative of "federal government" processes, and has often been in opposition to such.

2nd, the SCotUS doesn't create laws, it interprets them juxtaposed against the Constitutional restraints upon federal intervention into local and private affairs.

Why should a few people in D.C. decide what is appropriate or lawful for the people in Anchorage or Atlanta, or that those rules should be the same everywhere? How, in a republican government, can this even be considered appropriate?

If Indiana wants children to be independent at 21, why should they coddle the children of Sacramento who can't find their way even at 26?


I hope you apply your Fed stay out of social issues stance to the Republican party as well.

Catering to social issues is the main reason I do not consider myself a "Republican." I am a conservative/libertarian.


Under Bush we had No Child left Behind, and Partial Birth Abortion ban.


The federal government has no "right" to dictate how a State educates its children, although it is certainly entitled to offer imcentives to those willing to sacrifice its people's interests to those of the collective. Isn't that what got us where we are today?

As for "partial birth abortion," our state, local and feredal governments have long been ceded the privilege of determining what constitutes "equal protection" as prescribed under the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment.
When a fetus is born alive, whose "choice" should its survival depend upon? The doctrine of parens patriae acknowledges that at a certain point, the state has a right to interven on behalf of the welfare of a child.

From your question, I suppose you endorse the euthanization of Down Syndrome, blind, deformed, female or otherwise "unacceptable" children, if the mother so chooses. (I'd love to go back in time time and talk to your mom's OB/Gyn.)


One area that comes to mind considering positive social change and federal legislation is the student loans programs. Because the federal government can offer lower interest rate, more young people from low income families can go to college.


That is complete BS. All of my student loans were from private sources, with a State or federal guarantee. None of my loans are above 5% APR., This is not a social issue, but one of control.


I think Obama can be given a somewhat high grade in social issues simply for making history as the first black president.


Perhaps we should avoid the whole campaign/policy/governing thing, and just pick the person who is most popular to the most blocs? The Bandidos and Mexican Mafia would definitely earn at least 80% of the dopers' votes. The winner of American Idol would get 80% of the 'tweens and brain dead. These are all "social" blocs.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


In the lists cited on wikipedia ... .


You use Wiki as a source?

Next.

jw



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


It's too bad the federal government doesn't provide funds to teach respect to people who have a hard time not being condescending.

Wikipedia's presidential ranking lists come from credible institutions and are side by side and synthesized, pretty good source really.

I really would be interested in hearing more about your political thoughts, because the statement that the federal government should stay completely out of social issues is baffling to me to the point where I think it's obviously ludicrous.

I'm okay with poverty assistance, health care, and education being funded by the federal government. I think the economic issues are more the result of the majority of people in America neglecting social responsibility, and people could really learn a thing or two from the values reflected by federal legislation. If more people were involved in community service and took care of themselves costs wouldn't be so high.

You and I probably aren't as far away as you think. I am an Obama supporter, but mostly for foreign policy reasons. Neither party stacks up to my views domestically, where I think all of these social programs should be shifted in majority to state and local governments.

Also, my view is that at some point we need to stop talking about government and talking about the detrimental patterns among the citizens. These politicians can't get votes if they tell everyone to start doing their part and working harder, but someone has to say it. I don't expect the government is capable of solving problems in current form, it needs to come from public initiative.

So yeah, in a perfect world I'd agree that fed should minimize influence on social issues actually. But right now it seems that people need to be guided.

Started this post angry because you were exposing some of my argumentative flaws, now more appreciative.




edit on 6-9-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join