Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

To further round out the list of who Obama capitulated to: Big Pharma, the banking industry, and the insurance industry.

However, to suggest that either Obama or the Republicans are single-handedly responsible for a lack of a single-payer debate/legislation/option/whatever is to misunderstand the political climate.

You might also find this interesting: Republicans Hatched Idea for Obama's Health Insurance Mandate | Fox News

 

I'm willing to hear arguments against the idea that Obama is a neoliberal.

We've been talking about this. Obama's biggest "socialist program" is "Obamacare," a healthcare reform that, as it turns out, is a boon to health insurance companies. It was about making healthcare more affordable. It relies on private companies. It's not a single-payer system paid for by the government.

It's not socialism. It's more capitalist than socialist. It's healthcare reform that keeps health insurance in private hands, and it's based on conservative models.

Besides, who benefits the most? Besides users? Capitalists.

Someone point out the things that Obama has done that's actually socialist and colour me surprised.

Though, in my experience, when most Americans say "socialist," they actually mean "liberal" or "progressive," which are different things entirely.

Although I'm not that familiar with some of the groups on the left, I found the image below to be somewhat accurate:

 

I think Obama would barely be a 5. At least we aren't far off on our opinions.

You, on the other hand, have an unreliable score because of the split in your politics. You support laissez-faire capitalism in some respects, and socialist polices in others. That, perhaps, means you are a type of social capitalist, which, in a way, is an extension of neoliberal thought.

 

Ok, the editorial's premise is that Obama came in trying to stop the US wars and constant war footing.

Problem is THIS...the world didn't cooperate...
First - There ARE crazies out there that ARE trying to get us...and distinct allies. State leaders, state-sponsored, organizations...and random...all doing true evil and targeting America and its interests...and allies.
Two - BOTH the right and the left are asking for "action"...the Warhawks of course are wanting to be "strong"...but even the Left is asking Obama to "help" those in crisis and being victimized.

And while I don't believe he's catering to the Chickenhawks or the Military-Industrial complex...he is pushed to act to really help American interests and allies...and prevent the bad guys from winning or hurting others.
We are the world's policeman.
And even though they are "tired of it" ...the same media, politicians and citizens are clamoring for us to be the world's policeman.

The same isolationist libertarian...is saying now go in, use force. Do justice.
The same tree-hugging liberal...is saying now go in and help those poor people others are hurting. (and guess what? The crazies don't just listen to reason, you have to stop them...with force. Why? They're crazy mad...that's why)

So you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Or, you can do what you CAN...and end ongoing untenable conflicts...not cater to the Chickenhawks...and simply play Global Whack-A-Mole with your drones, missiles, spies & special forces.
And fuckin' ask your allies to kick in for their share of the meal... AND ask the local nation-states to try to kick it up a notch to clean up their own backyard...and keep it fuckin' clean.

I'm tired of people treating leaders like a frickin' genie...and then saying, you're not good enough, you're not making magic happen.
It's not magic folks.
Let's see YOU do it.

 

Agreed to a certain extent...but I don't think it's an ideology...as much as it is a social dynamic.

IMHO, the middle-east and Africa is having an elite problem even more than the west with its lopsided The 1% vs. 99% issue. (Russia is a whole other issue, with Putin wanting to be old-school testosterone USSR)
The ruling classes or groups have minimized the living capabilities and style of most of the masses...but in the Middle East, they've distracted them by blaming the West, Jews and "other" tribes.
So, the masses get riled up and angry and take for themselves.

It's not going to solve itself until the world leadership gets that they can allow the status quo of giving too much of the benefit of the doubt to the elite...and ignoring the needs of the rest.
Not that you can't have an elite/higher class...there's no issue there. Capitalism works, Communism doesn't.
It's when you let it get to extreme...overbalanced. Too much of the rules and resources benefit those with power. (corporations too)

The ruling classes in the Middle East, need to start sharing the wealth and authority...and allow more flexibility...and stop playing groups off each other.
The elites in Africa, need to stop being corrupt like crazy. Same with Valenzuela and some Central American countries.
And so on...
Thru-out the world.

Until you figure that out...you're going to continue to have uprisings, outbursts and ideological groups that take,
cause the volume of people just want to live decently...content people don't lash out.
How do you think the US got started?? ...rebelling vs. the ruling class. French. Russia. etc.

So, if Obama and other leaders want to cool it down...they need to figure out how to get the ruling classes and elites to start truly allowing some "trickle-down" and making the laws not lop-sided.
An issue that current exists in the US too...although, not as an extreme. (although, you may see the "blame game" dynamic in the South)
There is a reason why there's so many articles on it these days.
It's all the same problem, just varying reactions and results.

Obama administration has started pushing for it bit by bit in the US. Where they can, when they can.
But he's got to convince the other leaders, that's where the issue is...and how to let the steam out, in their own way.
It's hard...the elite like their goodies.
And will rationalize anything to keep them.
Kind of like trying to get Congress to stop giving themselves raises...or dealing pork.
Or corporations from getting their legal perks.

In other more imbalanced countries and regions...the reaction and resulting backlash is even more extreme.

 

Methinks WE protest too much...
Meaning, we treat the Presidency as a Football game. (not basketball or baseball...which are much more calm by comparison, no this is "war")
We take sides.
We're fickle.
We're have Attention Deficit Disorder...and no memory, except for the stats that make our argument.
And we have illusions and unrealistic expectations.

It ain't over until the Fat Lady Sings, folks.
And this is true for ANY president.

I agree with Mr. David Brooks...Snap Out Of It.

 

Does he deserve credit yet??

All I'd say is the translation of all that to wage growth...but that's not really something the President can control.
Only Congress can enact the suggested minimum wage.
And only businesses can push up what they're willing to pay to keep people.
But I have a feeling they'll change their tune as unemployment keeps going down and their options are reduced as employees make the leap elsewhere.

However, if people feel more comfortable...they'll buy more...but you can't convince corporate mgmt to invest for that reason...even if it is to their benefit.
They'll hide under a rock or cater to short term gains until they're forced otherwise.

Let's hope the upward trend continues.

 

And Obama is up there with Clinton in terms of fiscal conservatism. If only the Republicans would learn a lesson or two from them.

 

True, the annual deficit for the federal government is down to a 1/3 of what it was when he came in.
Link from Forbes (not a liberal site...)

And even if we're doing Syria/ISIS in a drone/diplomacy/intelligence war...still not the same as full scale long-term wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Actually, I'd say what most of the spending these days amounts to is what Congress forces the government to spend. (Pork, etc)

If they could force the DoD to actually complete an audit...and get rid of the Congressional pork.
They'd have enough money left over for all the other stuff.

 

Yes, Forbes has compared Obama to Reagan favourably when it comes to the economy. Despite all the Reagan-worship Republicans have done of late, I doubt they'll give Obama much credit anytime soon (if ever).

First term: Obama prevents economy from suffering a collapse. / Republicans want Obama's policies to fail.
Second term: Obama ushers economy back to health. / Republicans claim that Obama's policies have failed.

If Obama has failed in any respect on the economy, it is the failure to enact enough change regarding low wages/income/wealth amongst lower- and middle-class Americans. But it's not that Republicans give a shit about that. They're likely fine with Obama continuing the trickle-up economy.

If there is anything to complain about regarding Obama's economic stewardship, it's the fact that the wealthy are doing just fine while everyone else has to make do with whatever they can get. In other words, things are more or less back to normal, except they aren't quite as tolerable as they used to be (if you aren't wealthy).

But you'd sooner blame Reagan for that than Obama.

 

My only question is when the media going to make the story that Obama's overall hasn't failed, despite what the GOP claims. (CONSTANTLY)
If anything, he & his administration is terribly poor at making their case and taking some credit.
It's like the anti-GWB administration. (GWB - Make poor decisions, claim success....Obama - Make reasonable decisions, claim meh)

When is the story going to be not the "controversy"...but the contradiction???
At least Meet the Press really pressed the point this week on the GOP not having any policy (nothing to replace what they say failed)

 

In Defense of Obama

Now...this is from a VERY liberal mag (Rolling Stone) ...from a fairly liberal author (Krugman)
BUT...the title should be taken lightly...this is actually a pretty good summation of the Presidency so far.
Busting the opinions on BOTH sides. (pretty good down the middle observations)
Realistic on the expectations of what a President can actually do and in contrast with real history and ability.

It would be nice that both the citizens and the media would not constantly go on a petty hunt...and treat goals and efforts more fair minded.
Let the politicians and parties do the agendas and sniping.
But that doesn't make good drama.
Kicking & Screaming always gets good results, as we know.

If Obama is going to change anything after the elections in a change up as they're expecting...he should do two things.
Get a better Public Image Consultant.
Get a better Marketing Director.

We don't need spin or hype, but they need to make a better presentation of what they HAVE done. (or want to do...)