• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Obama a good president?[W:577]

Is Obama a good president?

  • Total voters
    176
radcen said:
To be fair the divisiveness isn't all him. The Reps are playing a significant part in this as well.

I completely agree with your first sentence in the first quote.
Click to expand...

I completely acknowledge that, but I think that part of the president's job is to try to find common ground and bring both sides to compromise and agreement. I know a lot of people disagree with that, but that's how I feel.
 
ChrisL said:
I totally agree, and the only real difference is regarding taxation, which is a pretty big thing I guess. However, people seem to think that raising taxes on a few is going to solve all the problems that our country is facing right now, without realizing that a big part of the problem is that so many are out of the workforce and are contributing very little if at all as far as taxes go, and with all of our entitlement programs and all of the people collecting off them, something's gotta give.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You ever wonder if beginning on January 20, 2009 if Obama had concentrated on the economy, jobs etc. instead of health care this country might be in better shape financial and employment wise. I could say health care wasted a good 18 months when the Democrats were in total charge of congress. Then after its passage so much time has been taken to defend it and keep it in place that may have been better used on lets say, the economy and jobs. Just a thought.
 
Perotista said:
Exactly. You ever wonder if beginning on January 20, 2009 if Obama had concentrated on the economy, jobs etc. instead of health care this country might be in better shape financial and employment wise. I could say health care wasted a good 18 months when the Democrats were in total charge of congress. Then after its passage so much time has been taken to defend it and keep it in place that may have been better used on lets say, the economy and jobs. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Yes! That was another moment (similar to the Iraq war announcement) where I was like "huh?" Is this really the right time to be taking on such a huge expensive issue with all the problems we're facing right now? :roll:
 
ChrisL said:
I completely acknowledge that, but I think that part of the president's job is to try to find common ground and bring both sides to compromise and agreement. I know a lot of people disagree with that, but that's how I feel.
Click to expand...

I agree too. Let me show my age, Back in the 50's it was Eisenhower who first went to LBJ, then senate majority leader and asked LBJ to work with him to get IKE's agenda through congress. LBJ did just that. JFK and LBJ when they were presidents, both first went to Everitt Dirksen, then Senate minority leader and ask for his help on their political agenda. How about Reagan and Tip O'Neal working together, Reagan had Tip over to the White House for talks and compromises, Reagan made the first move like the other presidents I mentioned. All 4 then had working relationships with the other party and friends they could go to when the going got tough. This president has not done that and in fact has done little outside demonizing the other party.

Bottom line, No hand extended, no hand grabbed.
 
ChrisL said:
Yes! That was another moment (similar to the Iraq war announcement) where I was like "huh?" Is this really the right time to be taking on such a huge expensive issue with all the problems we're facing right now? :roll:
Click to expand...

Exactly, Makes you wonder where their head was.
 
Perotista said:
I agree too. Let me show my age, Back in the 50's it was Eisenhower who first went to LBJ, then senate majority leader and asked LBJ to work with him to get IKE's agenda through congress. LBJ did just that. JFK and LBJ when they were presidents, both first went to Everitt Dirksen, then Senate minority leader and ask for his help on their political agenda. How about Reagan and Tip O'Neal working together, Reagan had Tip over to the White House for talks and compromises, Reagan made the first move like the other presidents I mentioned. All 4 then had working relationships with the other party and friends they could go to when the going got tough. This president has not done that and in fact has done little outside demonizing the other party.

Bottom line, No hand extended, no hand grabbed.
Click to expand...

I can't really comment on any of those presidents. I barely remember Reagan. But from what you describe, that is exactly how a president should be. It's like we have children in control. :roll:
 
MarineTpartier said:
How can you credit Obama with supporting gays? The dude pandered to both sides with his "evolving" statements. He played the middle of the road when it was convenient for him then shifted when it stopped being a risk to him politically. The guy obviously could care less about gay people.

Then, he pandered more by allowing us (servicemembers) to take polls about whether we wanted DADT repealed. When it became clear the polls wouldn't come back as favorable as he'd liked, he went ahead and repealed it before the results were official! That shows an absolute lack of testicular fortitude to me. We just want a guy who's going to tell us what to do. Yes or no, are we still following this order? That's it. None of this asking of our opinion then disregarding it when you don't like it. And our civilian leadership wonders why they can't get us to participate in these polls anymore.:lamo

Finally, regarding DOMA, he went about that in a totally unconstitutional manner. A POTUS can't pick and choose what laws to enforce and what not to. If he really cared about gays, he would have made a big public push for it's repeal like he does for all of his other pet projects.

Pres Obama is no champion of gays. He just pandered to them so he could get votes. Just like he has virtually every other voting demographic.
Click to expand...

No matter. The progress was made under his administration. We constantly knock the guy for everything bad that happens on his watch, so why can't we credit him with something positive that happens on his watch?

I don't like Obama but I believe in being fair. That's not my politics, it's my sense of right and wrong. Getting rid of second class citizenship feels right to me.

President Lincoln was no champion of Negros. He was a man who did the right thing.
 
ChrisL said:
I completely acknowledge that, but I think that part of the president's job is to try to find common ground and bring both sides to compromise and agreement. I know a lot of people disagree with that, but that's how I feel.
Click to expand...
I am one who agrees with this assessment. That's part of why I have long used "weak and ineffective" when describing Obama.


Perotista said:
I agree too. Let me show my age, Back in the 50's it was Eisenhower who first went to LBJ, then senate majority leader and asked LBJ to work with him to get IKE's agenda through congress. LBJ did just that. JFK and LBJ when they were presidents, both first went to Everitt Dirksen, then Senate minority leader and ask for his help on their political agenda. How about Reagan and Tip O'Neal working together, Reagan had Tip over to the White House for talks and compromises, Reagan made the first move like the other presidents I mentioned. All 4 then had working relationships with the other party and friends they could go to when the going got tough. This president has not done that and in fact has done little outside demonizing the other party.

Bottom line, No hand extended, no hand grabbed.
Click to expand...
Your points are good, but I sense that this Rep Congress group would be less likely to grabbed an extended hand. For reasons that go deeper than just the parties I think we've devolved into a more partisan and unforgiving atmosphere. Part of me thinks the media and the proliferation of knee-jerk political talk shows fuels the fire.
 
ChrisL said:
I can't really comment on any of those presidents. I barely remember Reagan. But from what you describe, that is exactly how a president should be. It's like we have children in control. :roll:
Click to expand...

Do we really have anyone in control? I think Boehner would have liked to work with the president, but he isn't a strong enough leader to control the all the different factions in his party in order to do so. McConnell and Reid are so partisan and put loyalty and the good of their political parties so high above the good of the nation, they leave the nation the 26th priority out of 25. Obama is too busy first blaming Bush and now all republicans for his failure to even attempt to reach across the aisle to find someone to work with.

Yeah, I guess children is probably the right word.
 
Perotista said:
Do we really have anyone in control? I think Boehner would have liked to work with the president, but he isn't a strong enough leader to control the all the different factions in his party in order to do so. McConnell and Reid are so partisan and put loyalty and the good of their political parties so high above the good of the nation, they leave the nation the 26th priority out of 25. Obama is too busy first blaming Bush and now all republicans for his failure to even attempt to reach across the aisle to find someone to work with.

Yeah, I guess children is probably the right word.
Click to expand...

I understand that passing laws and such things is not supposed to be an easy process where everyone agrees and that at times some healthy and productive debate and constructive criticism is warranted, but this is just out of control IMO. Like grid lock with just about every issue.
 
ChrisL said:
It's very discouraging, but I'm keeping my chin up! :)
Click to expand...

I gave up on the two major parties a long, long time ago. Until a political party comes along that is willing to put the good of America over party, that is willing to do what is right for the future of America and to make the hard decisions necessary to guarantee that future today and not just put off those hard decisions or find a way around them until after the next election, I do not see any hope or reason to keep my chin up.
 
Smeagol said:
I wonder if Obama's Presidency is in some way similar to Lauren Hill's performance at the Apollo. She's a highly talented performer who was unknown at the time. She took the stage and immediately was greeting by boos and jeers from the audience, so much so it drowned out the audience's ability to hear and affected her ability to perform leaving the audience with no idea on whether she was talented or not. When you start out on day one with stated mission of wanting him to fail in a system where co-operation is required across branches and one of which is controlled by those who want him to fail, its one of those questions we might not ever know the answer to.
Click to expand...

Barrack Obama began his presidency with the overwhelming approval of the American people. Your analogy doesn't work.
 
ChrisL said:
I understand that passing laws and such things is not supposed to be an easy process where everyone agrees and that at times some healthy and productive debate and constructive criticism is warranted, but this is just out of control IMO. Like grid lock with just about every issue.
Click to expand...

Compromise, giving a little to take a little. A willingness to take two steps backwards in order to move forward three steps. The realization that one can't expect to get 100% of what they want and the other guy 0%. That in order to move legislation forward, sometimes one has to settle for 60% while giving away 40%. Besides most Americans like incrementalism, they have their routine and massive change upsets their apple cart. But people will accept a little change here and a littler there and over time that massive change takes reality.

Politics is said to be the art of the possible. Our politicians need to learn what is and what isn't possible and be willing to nibble at times when taking a full bite isn't possible. They need to talk to each other instead of over the head or around each other. They need to listen to each other and need to try to understand each other. This my way or the highway attitude has to go.
 
Perotista said:
I gave up on the two major parties a long, long time ago. Until a political party comes along that is willing to put the good of America over party, that is willing to do what is right for the future of America and to make the hard decisions necessary to guarantee that future today and not just put off those hard decisions or find a way around them until after the next election, I do not see any hope or reason to keep my chin up.
Click to expand...

Why not vote for the best candidate rather than the party? That might help to clear up the mess.
 
Grant said:
Why not vote for the best candidate rather than the party? That might help to clear up the mess.
Click to expand...

I do, this is why in 92 I voted Perot and again in 1996. In 2000 it was Browne and Browne again in 2004. In 2008 I determined that was McCain and in 2012 it was Gary Johnson. All in all, out of the 13 presidential elections I have voted in, 6 times I determined the best candidate was from a third party and voted that way. I will not voted for the lesser of two evils or the least worst candidate just to vote for a Republican or a Democrat.
 
ChrisL said:
I totally agree, and the only real difference is regarding taxation, which is a pretty big thing I guess. However, people seem to think that raising taxes on a few is going to solve all the problems that our country is facing right now, without realizing that a big part of the problem is that so many are out of the workforce and are contributing very little if at all as far as taxes go, and with all of our entitlement programs and all of the people collecting off them, something's gotta give.
Click to expand...

When Obama publicly stated that he would not discuss entitlement programs as part of the fiscal cliff talks unless he received major concessions from Republicans on taxes, there was an uproar from both sides. With 47 million people...one in every seven people in this country... on food stamps and other government assistance, an increase of more than four million people since 2011, that number is staggering. With talk of cutting the work week from 40 hours down to 29 or 30 hours because of Obamacare, there will be even less revenue flowing into Washington in the form of taxes from the average worker.

In 2010, the last year that figures were available, the top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes, the bottom 50 percent paid two percent of income tax, while half of tax filers paid no federal tax at all. How much more should the wealthy be expected to pay in taxes to take of everyone else? Too many in the wagon, with too few pulling the wagon is not a recipe for success.
 
Perotista said:
Compromise, giving a little to take a little. A willingness to take two steps backwards in order to move forward three steps. The realization that one can't expect to get 100% of what they want and the other guy 0%. That in order to move legislation forward, sometimes one has to settle for 60% while giving away 40%. Besides most Americans like incrementalism, they have their routine and massive change upsets their apple cart. But people will accept a little change here and a littler there and over time that massive change takes reality.

Politics is said to be the art of the possible. Our politicians need to learn what is and what isn't possible and be willing to nibble at times when taking a full bite isn't possible. They need to talk to each other instead of over the head or around each other. They need to listen to each other and need to try to understand each other. This my way or the highway attitude has to go.
Click to expand...

:agree: And that attitude seems to be more entrenched every day, instead of getting better. Reid using the nuclear option doesn't help relations between the two parties, either. What's wrong with DC?
 
polgara said:
:agree: And that attitude seems to be more entrenched every day, instead of getting better. Reid using the nuclear option doesn't help relations between the two parties, either. What's wrong with DC?
Click to expand...

Usually a president spends his first 6 years in office trying to get his agenda passed through congress and his last two year defending and protecting what he had gotten passed. If all the bridges to cooperation between the parties hadn't been burned already, that nuclear option Reid pulled burnt the last one. From that day forward, the last 3 years and 2 months of this president's second term will all be spent defending and protecting his one big agenda he got passed, the ACA. He is dead as far as future legislation goes.

Of course he might have already been dead as far as new legislation and his agenda goes even before he won re-election. Too much demonizing going on here.
 
Grant said:
Barrack Obama began his presidency with the overwhelming approval of the American people.
Click to expand...
Once I hired workers to fix my house. And pay them forward. Repair is still not finished.
The American people (very poor and the very rich) paid to Obama a big advance. Rich got back billions of dollars, poor, its free bread. The middle class got nothing.
 
Perotista said:
I gave up on the two major parties a long, long time ago. Until a political party comes along that is willing to put the good of America over party, that is willing to do what is right for the future of America and to make the hard decisions necessary to guarantee that future today and not just put off those hard decisions or find a way around them until after the next election, I do not see any hope or reason to keep my chin up.
Click to expand...

If you recall, you and I had a conversation recently about how to prop up 3rd party candidates. :)
 
Given where we were when Obama took office and the economic situation he was handed, along with the keys to the booze cabinet, I think he certainly has been a good president. I think he could have done better in some aspects of course, but overall I believe we're better off.

But we'll need to refill the cabinet for the next guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom