How's Obama doing?
 

So, how do you the Obama is doing, relative to what you expected from his presidency? Does anything stand out as better or worse than you expected?

Personally, I think he's been mostly what I expected, with the exception of the terrible record so far on executive power and terrorism cases, a la Glenn Greenwald:

Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Very disappointing.

He also wasn't as strong as I would've liked WRT the bailout, and executing a simple, fair plan to help The Average Joe quickly. On the other hand, that sort of thing is incredibly complex and difficult to implement, especially with The Republicans being difficult.

Really? 3 votes for 'much worse'? Why? What issues has he been worse than you expected on?

This is a bad style for a question because it is measuring expectations but people are going to miss-use the results in order to say if people like or dislike Obama. This question should be accompanied by this question "How do you view Obama's performance so far? Very favorable, favorable, neutral, unfavorable, very unfavorable.

It'd be interesting to know what people's expectations were, and whether they feel he's met them, not met them, or surpassed them. My hunch is that people with low expectations would say he's not met even the low expectations they had, and the people with high expectations would say he's met them or surpassed them.

But then I'm getting cynical in my old age.

I agree, and I would love to hear from those who have voted "much worse than expected."

Yeah, I was afraid of that, but couldn't think of a better way to get the point across with a single poll question. I don't think the poll thingie has an option to split it out like you suggest. Even if it did, it's not like this sort of thing is scientific at all.

I'm more interested in people's actual responses than the results of the poll itself. Don't take my OP the wrong way - I still think he's far, far better than Bush was, or McCain would've been. And for most things I think he's doing fine...I just can't help being very disappointed by the executive power/secrecy issues I mentioned. We had a hint of that when he backed telecom immunity last summer, but I couldn't help but Hope that his position there was a fluke.

I don't have a problem with that. In certain ways I am disappointed with him as well (specially with the inaction with the banks), but on others he is actually moving faster than I expected.

What Ratbastid is getting at, and I agree, is that in all likelihood the people who thought he was a pink commie who was going to destroy the nation will still say he is doing much worse than expected.

I voted a little worse.

I expected him to be a big spender, but I did not expect a 4 trillion dollar budget with no sustainable means to pay it.

Nor did I expect him to actually try to do 'everything' during this recession, especially those projects which do not encourage national economic development.

ask me in 4 years

about what i expected. it's pretty close to politics as usual in DC. One man may not be able to change behavior and actions of the other 538 people.

Which spending to you think isn't helpful? TBH, I haven't really looked at the proposed budget much, but IMNSHO, a recession is exactly when government should start spending (and lending) into a deficit, in order to help get the economy running again. Of course, we're starting with a massive deficit, so it's going to suck for awhile no matter what.

Another thing - a large part of that 4 billion price tag, as I understand it, is that it actually includes the estimated cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Bush's budgets never did. That inflates the numbers quite a bit, so comparing it with last years budget is comparing apples and weasels.

I guess he's going about as good overall as I expected. I'm finding myself having trouble being objective after Bush, though. For so many years it was well deserved pessimism, I'm having trouble objectively reading about Obama's statements and activities. I hope it wears off.

About what I expected. With the country in this kind of shape there is only so much you can do.

Exactly as I expected - a mad dash to socialism before the country realizes what hit them. Yeah, yeah. My view is unpopular around here.

What has he done that would fall under the definition of socialism?

I voted "as expected." He hit office weeks after an economic crisis and years after a political crisis. It's too early to tell how things will pan out, but so far he hasn't disappointed me.

* * * * *

If this is what you think, I should probably let you know that socialism has already existed in your country. It's been there for years, and I hope Obama will spend much of his time reasserting the best elements of it.

I don't know how to answer the question. I thought Obama was a borderline socialist when he was running for President. But I expected him to govern to the center, similar to Clinton, if elected. My perception of his words and actions since becoming President indicates that he wants government to be the solution to every major problem in the nation and I see that as being more socialist than I thought he actually was. So, he is kinda more "socialist" than what I expected and moving this country in that direction at a faster pace than I thought possible, however I think his approach is harmful to the nation and future generations. So, does that mean he is better, or worse than my expectations?

I wish he wouldn't mess with re-instating the assault weapons ban that lapsed during the Bush administration. Mexico is having more and more problems these days - I believe partly due to our own problems here, the criminals have re-entered Mexico and are causing problems there. Come now, firefights in cities? Those folks are going to have their problems even if we do re-instate a weapons ban here, which is just to the detriment of law-abiding citizens. The black market will still exist, which is where most criminals get their weapons anyways...

The problem is the drug cartels down there.

With all due respect, you are Canadian. You are not American. Our Constitution doesn't work for you, and I understand that. I happen to like it as is.

---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------

I started writing a list and then realized that if you are asking this question there really is no point it writing it. Your definition is different than mine and we will simply start debating the definition of socialism. I often wonder how far he has to go before his proponents will admit he is a socialist. Clearly, we aren't there yet.

Again, my view is not popular here and I have tried to avoid this part of the Forum.

How about them Steelers?

With all due respect, I made no reference to your Constitution, let alone anything pertaining to it being changed.

he would have to do even one thing that would be considered textbook socialism

Implementing any forms of socialism within the U.S. - even the "best elements" of it, is unconstitutional IMO. As an American, I would never wish that your president did something in your country which violated your constitution.

Briefly, socialism can be found in America in these forms:

• Government regulation of workers' rights
• Social services such as Social Security and subsidized education
• Protection of consumers' rights

I don't think this is against your Constitution; I seem to remember something in there about "general welfare."

(And, btw, Canada doesn't have a president; our head of state is the British monarch and our senior member of the executive is a prime minister.)

Yes.......I know that. I wasn't saying "I wouldn't do this to you, the Canadian...." Rather, I was implying 'If I were you....'"

I concede there are social programs which existed prior to Obama. I oppose them as well. The federal government should not be involved in social programs. That is the responsibility of individual States.

I think it's funny that someone who thinks the US constitution forbids socialism is lecturing anybody else about matters of constitutional integrity.

How about this: I think that heterosexual marriage is socialism and that all married heterosexuals are socialists. Now, let's make sure we don't get bogged down in superficial discussions about what socialism actually is. I'll just stick with my definition and you all can stick with being wrong.

States might be able to support social programs if they were taxing you at the same rate as the federal government.

I voted a little better. I probably should have voted "as well as expected", but I have to give him bonus points for last week's address to the joint session of Congress. Since the economic package has been discussed to death (not just here, but in the media, in daily life, etc.), I just want to mention how pleased I am that my President has closed Guantanamo, addressed the need for early childhood education, and affirmed that the United States will not torture. I'm glad these issues haven't gotten completely overshadowed by our troubled times.

Isn't the real problem that our government spends so much time, money, and effort fighting the drug war, while our citizens are apparently willing to spend so much money to acquire said drugs, it creates a huge profit incentive for criminal organizations to provide those drugs, and it turns out that criminals are bad people? I can't get over the fact that the neo-conservative movement and Republican party is so in favor of personal responsibility, individual liberty, right to bear arms, small government, etc, etc, etc. but is also the party of government sponsored religion, defining other people's marriages, and putting people in jail for life for selling a relatively tame narcotic substance.

---------- Post added at 12:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 AM ----------

Amen, sister! I have to struggle to keep all the good stuff in mind sometimes.

I didn’t vote for him, but once he was elected I figured it a waste of energy to be bitter for four years. I was more or less frustrated over the last eight years. I wanted to start my perceptions over the new administration with a fresh mindset. I thought his speech in Camp Lejeune was uplifting and I am encouraged with potential stance on the Palestinian issue. The country did need change. America seemed to have enough of the Neo-con mindset. I don’t think a shift to Neo-Marxism holds a bright future.

Our Troubled Economy Is a Response to Barack Obama's Policies - WSJ.com

that WSJ op-ed has been posted a lot recently, and it's full of nothing but anecdotal evidence that Obama's policies are causing the Dow to plummet.

Someone needs to teach that writer the difference between causation and correlation

The more I think of it, the more it seems Obama has landed in the driver's seat after the car has already gone over the cliff.

I see him less as a "fix things" president than a "pick up the pieces" president.

I find it hard to blame him for something that was at least 20 years in the making.

There is only so much one man can do in one country with such a global problem. (The U.S. economy is 18 - 25% of the world economy.)

It's better than doing nothing; it's better than starting another war.

It's still too early to tell anything.

I don't like Obama as a politician or as a person, but I'll be the first to admit that I'm somewhat pleasantly surprised by what *hasn't* been done (like banning guns, granting amnesty to illegals, restoring the Fairness Doctrine, etc.).He's only been in office for a month and a half, though, so there's plenty of time for him to anger me.

My views on how a nation should be run are very different than Obama's, so I'm sure I'll end up irritated. The question is how irritated will I be? Politically speaking, I have a lot more in common with George W. Bush than Obama, and I thought Bush was a terrible president in many ways. :no:

Still nothing from those who voted "much worse."

I would love to hear the rationale there.

It is still early but as I pointed out in the other thread he has done much worse than I expected. Raising taxes on lower income groups and appointing tax cheats to his cabinet are among things I did not expect.

It was sad yesterday watching his Treasury Secretary Geithner testifying in front of congress in regards to revenue. When asked if he was going to try and collect the billions of taxes uncollected from tax cheats he indicated that the administration was going to get tough on those who evade their tax obligations. I swear, it looked like he was almost chuckling to himself as he said it.

Also I'm not convinced the trickle down economics of the Stimulus Package will do much good. Perhaps they should try trickle up economics for a change. With all the corruption at the federal, state and local levels, giving aid directly to people instead of through their government overseers might do more for the economy.

i don't know what sense the question makes, really. i don't understand how it came to pass that the measure of addressing a systemic crisis is what the talking heads say that obama says, nor do i understand how exactly obama is supposed to single-handedly "fix things"...it's ludicrous. it's like folk see the president as a father figure and so by extension themselves as children. you want to see how the moves that he's made work, wait until there's been enough time for things to start to happen.

right now, folk have no idea what these moves mean because they have no idea how and in what way they'll have effects.

i don't care at all about the ways conservatives use the terms "socialism" or "neo-marxism" because now, as always, they've no particular understanding of what the terms mean. i see them as rightwing memes aimed at attempting to keep the republican approval ratings from dropping into single digits by giving the few remaining faithful something to focus on that they don't like. bad words, bad bad.

fact is that older style democratic socialist politics were predicated on a very different economic geography, both in terms of production and in terms of political power--you know, economies with significant large-scale industrial production in the context of powerful trade unions. you can take a measure of the vaporization of that world by the phenomenon of "outsourcing" and the extent to which labor is now a variable cost.

so i didn't answer the poll.

I think we are in the final stage of government which is the looting phase. The powerful and wealthy are grabbing as much money as possible before the thing collapses. Obama is instrumental in perpetuating that so I think he is doing 'much worse' than I expected. Obama gave me a bit of hope, but crushed it with these massive bailouts to bankers and corporations while leaving the people who paid for them in the dust. Meet the new boss....

Exactly, your federal taxes should never be larger than your State taxes.

---------- Post added at 02:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

Really? So it is your contention that, based on your reading of the Constitution, that the framers intended the Federal government to OWN our banks?

You believe the framers intended on our government buying controlling interests in private industry, then plant representatives on the Board of Directors?

You believe the framers intended on our government buy interest in manufacturing so that they could tell the company what type of products to build?

Tell you what guys: we aren't going to change each other's minds politically. I don't come here for politics and should have known better than to get involved. Enjoy, I'll see you elsewhere.

I like how you ask questions and then say you aren't going to come around and read the answers.

I voted 'about as expected' because I knew things weren't going to change instantly and that the republicans would jump all over the fact that things didn't change instantly.

Huh?

How has he raised taxes on lower income groups?

Yes, Geithner and others have had tax problems - yes, someone in his position should be able to get his taxes right, but I haven't seen any credible evidence that would lead me to conclude he's a 'tax cheat'.

Ok...so how is the stimulus package 'trickle down economics'. I could maybe see that term applied to the bank bailout...

Let me put it this way...if the stimulus package were trickle down economics, then Republicans would've voted for it. :-)

i don't think most of you get what's happening.
there is no particular relevance in what a group of guys sitting around a table in 1788 thought about what might happen over 200 years later as they were trying to fashion a constitution. if in this context, that's what you think about, then you're running away from reality. pure and simple. nothing more, nothing less.

it's no wonder conservatives have a problem with obama at this point. not only has nothing been demonstrated about the effectiveness of his actions up to this point, not only does the right have a brand credibility problem, but the basic situation created by capitalist transformation outstrips their most basic categories for thinking about capitalism. i don't see why anyone takes the right seriously. i think it is a mistake for obama to play around with the republicans when he is in a position to not do it. i understand the gesture, but for fucks sake the right's got nothing to say at all of any interest or utility. unless you confuse brand identity preservation with something bigger than it is. but that'd be wrong.