What is your opinion of Obama?

1. 34

   Christa Swopeposted 10 years ago

   What is your opinion of Obama?

   replyreport
2. 56

   retief2000posted 10 years ago

   As a man, I have no opinion. He appears to be a loving father and faithful husband. Those are good things. He appears to like beer and burgers. Those are also good things.
   
   As a president, I think that historians in a two hundred years, if America is still relevant, will evaluate him as the worst president America has had, unless they face a gulag for doing so. No president has placed more Americans at risk of losing everything, especially liberty and prosperity, than has Obama.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      What relief2000 said... hits the nail on the head.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      So when we had the Great Depression, more Americans were not at risk of losing everything including liberty and prosperity. My grandparents lost their strawberry crop because the trains did not roll and gave up their cattle because the dairy closed.

      replyreport
   3. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps you should take a look around.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      What should I be looking for--I can find problems--I am very good at doing that. I can also find progress and recovery and am relevantly sure that the U.S.is relevant.

      replyreport
   5. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      To savvydating, IT CERTAINLY DOES.

      replyreport
3. 60

   cjhunsingerposted 10 years ago

   Christa
   
   I don't think we need to wait 200 years. Your assessment of him today is accurate and much more complimentary than mine. I would consider however, that Obama did not create the problems we now face, he is simply the new flag ship and charged with the final voyage. The stage had to be set by his predecessors, both Republican and Democrat. Without a bi-partisan effort we could not be here. Consider also the participation of Reid, Palosi and many other Democrats and Republicans now in Office. Consider the complicit action and inaction of the media (press), unions, education and those who effect public opinion. The problem is not one bad President. It is not an issue between Democrat and Republican. The issue is a war between the Constitution and Marxist Socialism and our side has been infiltrated.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You really ought to actually learn something about real socialism and Marxism. Your claims about them are just plain dumb.

      replyreport
   2. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      It is a war between the Constitution & the Government. It started long before Marx & has continued unabated.The History of Humanity is one of oppression and violence by Government. That is why the US is exceptional, the first to challenge his

      replyreport
   3. 60

      cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      junk-you will find that I am  a  good student, if you have anything that you would like to teach.

      replyreport
   4. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Anything you would like to teach about Marxism that a cold winter in a Siberian Gulag could not.

      replyreport
   5. 80

      junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Well the Russian experiment was pretty much the opposite of Marxism for starters.
      
      And it is a little ironic talking about the gulag from a country with the highest incarceration rate in the world.

      replyreport
   6. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The misadventures of liberty often result in a loss of freedom, so be it. Other countries do not have such high prison populations because their people are already in a metaphorical prison that Americans do not share. What a tired dodge USSR=Marxist.

      replyreport
   7. 80

      junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Treating communism/socialism/Marxism/Leninism/Maoism/Stalinism/Trotskyism as one giant sameness is like saying all theisms are the same. It is utterly simplistic and useless. USSR was no more Marxist than it was capitalist.

      replyreport
   8. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      What would be the equivalent term for atheist in regard to Marxist crap? I am that, and therefore much more enlightened because I don't believe. Amarxism is a much more powerful force in the world than atheism.

      replyreport
   9. 60

      cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      retief-Difficult to discern your comments, but are you saying that you are the equivalent to, "marxist crap" I cannot disagree with that, but please articulate. Not that it is important, but a bit of humor is always good.

      replyreport
   10. 56

       retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       How clever, "amarxism" will sweep Europe these next few years as they continue to recognize that the socialist garbage they have inflicted on their economies is a genuine disaster. Americans, natural "amarxists" will do the same this November.

       replyreport
   11. 93

       john000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Well bless your heart, junkseller. I would love to learn something "real" about socialism and Marxism. Especially since you are adament about the fact that "communism/socialism/Marxism/Leninism/Maoism/Stalinism/Trotskyism" are each apparently real?

       replyreport
   12. 80

       junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       They are real ideologies. Obviously. I suggest reading a book. You can find them at a place called a library.

       replyreport
   13. 93

       john000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       The rather small differences, meaningless. All will evolve into a strong man form of government once the power elite "socialists" get a taste of the better life. I suggest you stop selling junk books.

       replyreport
   14. 56

       retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Marxism and Gravity are both theoretical. The difference is Gravity is awesome in reality and Marxism is a brutal, repressive, dehumanizing nightmare, in reality.

       replyreport
   15. 80

       junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Are you guys reading quotes off of the butts of each other's FOX News underoos? Why people so proudly proclaim their complete ignorance on a topic is bewildering to me.

       replyreport
   16. 56

       retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Really, name a single Marxist/socialist success story that didn't involve Gulags and the Stasi.It is the leftist delusion that Marxism can exist in reality without FORCE. They pretend that Marx wasn't a self deluded fantasist.

       replyreport
   17. 80

       junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Mondragon.
       
       Marxism can't exist WITH force. You have it backwards. And being that our world requires force, it hasn't ever been given a chance. Capitalism has failed as well, so it isn't really much of a question.

       replyreport
   18. 60

       cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       junk-Can you give us your idea of Marxism and how it would work? And what is the difference between Marxism and Communism? And how did Communism effect the world. Educate us.

       replyreport
   19. 80

       junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Can I in three sentences? No. I am not an expert and it would take thousands of sentences, but those are good questions and I hope you realize they have very useful answers.

       replyreport
   20. 60

       cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       junk--With that you have lost any argument you may have.

       replyreport
   21. 80

       junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I can't condense a PhD thesis down to 3 sentences so I lose. Give me a break. Especially considering you're asking me to substantiate something I never made a claim to. All I have contended is that you know nothing about socialism. That still stands.

       replyreport
   22. 56

       retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       What's to know. Lefties pretend that it  works, but that the prime examples of Marx's ideas aren't "really" socialist. Soviet Communism roots itself and its ideas in "Das Kapital," especially the atheist dialectical materialism.

       replyreport
   23. 80

       junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Is the Dem Rep of Congo Democratic because it is in its name? Do you want to use them as an exemplar for Democracy? The end goal for Marx was NO state. Does that sound at all like Russia to you? Or the complete opposite?

       replyreport
   24. 56

       retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       The Soviet state was on the way to evolving into Marx's fantasy. They just never made it to that final Great Leap Forward(oops wrong Marxists).Marxism is just another in a long line of Utopian fantasies, this time couched in "scientific" language.

       replyreport
   25. 80

       junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       The American state was on the way to evolving into Smith's fantasy. They just never made it. Capitalism is just another in a long line of Utopian fantasies, this time couched in "scientific" language.

       replyreport
4. 80

   junksellerposted 10 years ago

   A pretend progressive populist who in actuality is in many cases big-state, center-right, though, thankfully he has been a little bit progressive on some social issues.
   
   I give him a lot of credit for accomplishing anything, even if I don't agree with it. The opposition he has faced, and still faces, is unprecedented. And he was given a pretty difficult starting hand.
   
   Worst president ever? Not even close, except to those who think he hasn't properly polished the city on the hill, but then that only exists in people's imaginations anyway.
   
   When the dust settles, I suspect history will remember him as a president who navigated an impossible mission with far more skill than he was given credit for at the time, and that his accomplishments will be seen as a mixed-bag of notable successes and missed opportunities and miscalculations.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      A very good and more importantly a very objective answer. I do not agree with every action Mr. Obama has taken, but when looking at the big picture, to use an old cliche, I think he will be remembered for being more than the first Black president.

      replyreport
   2. 77

      AlexDrinkH2Oposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It is unfortunate that our first black president was elected largely because of the color of his skin rather than the content of his character.

      replyreport
   3. 80

      junksellerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The only unfortunate thing about the skin color of our first black president is that there are still so many people like you around who will say stupid crap like what you just said. People like Obama regardless of his color. Deal with it.

      replyreport
5. 81

   bethperryposted 10 years ago

   I think he has great taste in clothing, is a good father, has a beautiful smile, is an excellent debater and plays a pretty good game of golf. And he obviously has commitment - I think when he visited Ireland, he didn't just kiss the Blarney Stone, he went down on it like a $300-a-night call girl.

   replyreport
   1. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for a visual image I will never be able to stab out of my mind's eye.I don't think debating two bowls of mashed potatoes to a stand still makes you a great debater, his golf game is mediocre-despite the enormous amount of practice.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      bethperryposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      LOL!

      replyreport
   3. 60

      arjana barakaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I suspect Eisenhower played more golf that Obama ever did, but people have short memories. As a solider, Eisenhower led us to victory in WWII. As President--well nothing stands out.

      replyreport
   5. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Eisenhower is actually in the golfers hall of fame, had a putting green at the White House and was a dedicated golfer long before his presidency - 800 rounds, Obama - 178 rounds. Bill "The Holy" Clinton - 400, GWB-24 and stopped playing in 2003

      replyreport
6. 0

   Larry Wallposted 10 years ago

   Let's see:
   He got Obamacare through the Congress, and the world did not come to an end. (I could not buy insurance and spent $19,000 out of pocket in one year). With Obamacare, I cannot be turned down for my age or prior health conditions. I think that is pretty good.
   The Stock market is higher than it was before the crash in 2008.
   
   
   He has not been accused of having an affair--Remember Bill Clinton.
   He has been forced to resign in disgrace--remember Richard Nixon.
   He did not just let the economy fall apart like Herbert Hoover did--you know the great depression.
   
   He at least did something while in office--we have a long list of do-nothing presidents from after Andrew Johnson up to Roosevelt.
   
   I voted against Mr. Obama in his first election because I thought he lacked the needed experience. By the second election, he had gained some experience, and his opponent did not offer anything that impressed me.
   
   I suspect our next President will be a white male. I do not think Hillary Clinton can be elected. I think she was an outstanding Secretary of State, and she should enjoy that legacy. I do not see another Black president being elected for a long time.
   
   There have been many presidents better than Mr. Obama, but there have been many that have been worse.
   
   Tell me what Charles Arthur, Millard Filmore, and Zachary Taylor did for the country.
   
   Just for the record;
   Washington created the presidency and kept it from being a royal office.
   While he did not make the deal, the Louisiana Purchase was made when Jefferson was President.
   James Monroe gave us the Monroe Doctrine, which ended colonization of north America by other countries.
   James Madison gave us the Manifest Destiny, predicting the U.S. would stretch from cost to cost.
   John Kennedy gave us Camelot, despite is less than exemplary "private life."
   
   Lyndon Johnson expanded our presence in Vietnam. He also signed the Civil Rights Bill and enacted Medicare.
   
   Now, who will be looked upon as the worse President in History.
   
   
   Finally, I credit Harry Truman as the best. Dropping the atomic bomb was a horrible thing, but it did end the way, it did save American lives and is probably the best deterrent that has kept from other atomic weapons being used in war. Truman did an excellent job in returning the economy from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy. He also, through the Marshall Plan, played a major part in rebuilding Europe.
   
   Now, we have more material for bashing presidents.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Larry-The great majority of people will pay much more for insurance and have less  coverage-I am  glade you were able to profit from this.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I think profit is the wrong word. I did benefit and I do not think I am the only person in the country who did. I also do not agree that the great majority will pay more. Raising a $10 copay to $20 is less coverage, but is minor in the long run.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Larry- Not true, as easily researched material will indicate. Self-servicing greed speaks well to the cause of socialism.

      replyreport
   4. 80

      junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Self-servicing greed is the mantra of Capitalism, not socialism. In fact I'd say you have it completely backwards. Not surprising, though, since you know nothing about socialism.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      cjhunsinger: I let your comment  about-self-serving greed slide. If aimed at me, I resent it. If you have a child who accepts a nice scholarship is that greed? Circumstances are important. I needed insurance and Obamacare was the only viable option.

      replyreport
   6. 60

      cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Larry--You need not have let it slide. My sons all received scholarships and played by the rules going in. Scholarships funded by companies voluntarily not by mandate

      replyreport
   7. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      CJH, that is the essential difference that liberals cannot understand. One is liberty, the other tyranny. One is charity, the other is force.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Thus, the consensus is that government should not be involved in the providing or governing of health care in any way, shape or form. Every one will fend for themselves. Cj companies give scholarships for PR purposes. The distribution is not equal.

      replyreport
   9. 60

      cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Larry-Corps/individuals provide scholarships to promote competition, to spur achievement and yes to benefit them and the rest of us, by that achievement. To reward the non-achiever is to provide a better couch for the lazy.

      replyreport
   10. 56

       retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Does Government give you car care? How about house care? Yard care? These things are all governed by market forces, government still insinuates itself here, and therefore haven't suffered from massive inflation.

       replyreport
   11. 0

       Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       retief2000 you are reaching so far to make your argument that there is no credibility left to this discussion.

       replyreport
   12. 56

       retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Hardly why is government provided car/house/pet care any more absurd than government provided food/shelter/medicine? It will always be at the expense of liberty.

       replyreport
   13. 0

       Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       You are making no sense. Question, are you opposed to helping people in need or do you think its every person for himself. Community, national pride, common welfare, etc., or do you just like to argue. I will wait for your first Hub--if you write one

       replyreport
7. 74

   lone77starposted 10 years ago

   I suspect that Obama is a paid "actor." He is being paid to push through legislation and executive orders that support the programs of his benefactors -- the same ones who bought most of Congress through the lobbyists.
   
   In 2008, I was so enthusiastic about Obama. His message was fresh and I despised Bush, despite him being from my home state of Texas. All of the great campaign promises evaporated as soon as he took office. And many of the simply "nice" promises faded away after a few months. Then, Obama continued to push the same programs Bush rammed through.
   
   After 9/11, our Constitution and Bill of Rights are in tatters. Changes are made as knee-jerk reactions to supplied stimuli. In other words, Americans are being played through their egos. Obama isn't the leader of this gang of thieves; he's merely the figurehead to keep the masses thinking that they still have a choice. By keeping the masses polarized, the real power brokers (behind Obama) can manipulate Americans as a whole -- divide and conquer.
   
   Obama is merely a useful pawn. Who are the power brokers? They are the owners of the Federal Reserve -- the private bank that pretends to be part of the government, but which refuses to divulge its inner workings to Congress. Their names might include the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. These are the blue bloods who have started and financed both sides of every war since the early 1800's.
   
   Obama is merely their current flunky. And he's playing his part very well. Just as his term is nearly over, I'm sure he will do some very distasteful things to make people clamor for the other puppet of the Corporate Party -- the Republicrats.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      lone
      Where in your estimation is this taking us? I too, thought Bush incompetent, but I also knew Obama was worse.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You do not like any president, or trust any political party and I think you are opposed to social welfare, Obamacare, food stamps, college loans, Medicare, housing supplements. Will you seek election and solve these issues. Congress might stop you.

      replyreport
   3. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      It is simple, the welfare state is nothing ever intended by the framers. It has ruined generations of Americans and has ended actual prosperity and liberty. We now live with multiple generations of parasites.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Larry-No, I lack the dishonesty character required and at 70+ the best I can do is try to counter those who would prostitute the Constitution.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I am 60+ been poor and middle class. Studied history, government and journalism in college. Providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare as promised in the Constitution covers a lot of ground that I think you want to ignore.

      replyreport
   6. 60

      cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Larry-It would seem that you are promoting the idea that government via the forceful taking of money from others to give to you is what the Const is all about. Is that correct?

      replyreport
   7. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Guaranteeing the general welfare is not constitutional, nor humane. We are created to work and strive. Madison rejected all notions of the welfare state, and he wrote the damn thing.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If you call taxes forced giving, then the answer is yes. No government of any kind, can run without revenue, taxes are necessary. Are they excessive--sometimes. Are they always fair--no. Do some serve the purpose for which they were intended--yes.

      replyreport
   9. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Larry, yet another argument for severely limited government, as the Constitution required and has been eroded over the years by such things as Social Security,Medicare,Medicaid and Obamacare.

      replyreport
   10. 0

       Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       retief2000: What do you expect from government, armed forces, local police, anything else. Do you trust any Cabinet agency. Should anyone print money. What do you want. Why do you stay if it is so bad.

       replyreport
   11. 60

       cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Larry--It may seem strange, but how about the government does  its job. It is simple. All on one piece of paper. Confine itself to its responsibilities and authority within the Const.

       replyreport
   12. 56

       retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Printing money? The government out sourced that to the Federal Reserve Bank.  Local police-you are conflating our discussion to include local government.Take a look at the Constitution, it is all there.

       replyreport
   13. 0

       Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I have read the Constitution several times--it is a great document because most people can read into it anything you want. The President, Congress and Supreme Courtare suppose to have equal power--checks and balance. The Congress does not do its part

       replyreport
8. 93

   john000posted 10 years ago

   I think that your opinion about President Obama and what ails the U.S. is well thought out and accurate.
   The President is a baby boomer, and as such has a mind bent toward liberalism that has, I think, crippled his ability to look at the world as it is. It is a bestial place, as someone else once said, and until the notions of fairness, equality, representation, liberty, and freedom are viewed as something that can be achieved and enjoyed ONLY with a cultural inclination for them, the president's policies will be no more than band aids for another president to deal with. He suffers from what most Americans suffer from - having only lived in the United States and been taught about a liberal world (ok, maybe in Indonesia as a kid). If it were only true. Whether it is the Middle East going up in smoke (can anyone really say that Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarcak, or Muhammar Gaddafi were worse than what exists now, or what will develop as the nastiest folks gain control?) The number of dead in all of these places is astounding, and I am sure it is absolutely mind boggling to those in the executive branch. Twenty or thirty thousand children coming across the border and more anticipated every year is better than securing the border? As far as health insurance, I was able to pay for my own, but my premium increases due to the health care act, if they don't stop, are going to push me into Obama Care, and many other folks. The economics of this program will be a nightmare in the not too distant future.
   By destroying an individual's desire to succeed economically, the seeds of self destruction are sown. We need presidents who understand these things.
   I give the President a grade of C - he has kept us from entering another conflict overseas that will change nothing politically. That is a big accomplishment.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      john000-You accuse Obama of "destroying an individual's desire to succeed economically," and you give him a 'C', We are being destroyed from within, war not needed.

      replyreport
   2. 93

      john000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps I am too charitable? Contributing to the destruction may have been better said? I get your point, though.

      replyreport
   3. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      John000, C is too good a grade for Obama.  He deserves an F minus for dismantling the great things this country stands for.  Obama"care", the Benghazi scandal, Fast and Furious, & making America ONE GREAT WELFARE state!

      replyreport
   4. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Zogby's tracking poll gave Obama an "F" today, 12 July 2014. Mark it on your calendar as the day Americans woke up.

      replyreport
   5. 77

      AlexDrinkH2Oposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Frankly, I think a "C" is way too high.

      replyreport
9. 77

   AlexDrinkH2Oposted 10 years ago

   He is the worst president in American history, bar none.   He is actually damaging the country.

   replyreport
   1. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      As was his intention from the beginning.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Retief200f--How about a little proof to your statement and why is Obama worse than Wilson, Hoover, Charles Arthur, Jimmy Carter, and a list of others who did nothing.

      replyreport
   3. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Precisely because he is not doing nothing.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Nice word play--implying that I was saying Obama was doing nothing. Now we are playing smoke and mirrors instead of truth and logic.  Have a nice day.

      replyreport
   5. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Yes,Alex, this "president" is actually the first ANTI-American president in history.There's no other president who reviles America & what it stands for as much as Obama.He's a socialist & anticolonialist who has a racial/class animus against

      replyreport
10. 70

    dashingscorpioposted 10 years ago

    I believe his (intentions) to help prop up the declining middle class and fight to fix a long-term problem of concerning offering healthcare options are well meaning.
    Overall former KPI (key performance indicators) such as stock market performance has quadrupled and remain at all time highs compared to when he took office. Unemployment has dropped from 10% to 6.3%, interest rates remain low for home loans, and we're starting to see an uptick in the value of homes. He has not gotten us into any (new) civil wars.
    As far as Obamacare is concerned the verdict is still out. Some people benefited right away like those who have adult children who can now keep them on there insurance until they are 25 and others who couldn't qualify to get insurance due to pre-existing illness. As more and more people sign up the fees are likely to drop and this is especially true if a lot of states continue to accept the expanded Medicaid.
    Most federal programs like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, and Minimum wage laws initially were met with distain by many voters. Today those same programs are seen as "sacred cows". This may happen with Obamacare in 20 years.
    Although many people are angry at him they fail to acknowledge the law was passed by both the Senate and congress as well as was upheld by the Supreme court. Even if Obama were impeached today and put out of office it is very unlikely that a (President Joe Biden) would repeal Obamacare. After all this was not (one) man's brainchild it was part of the Democrat party's platform for many years! It was also fashioned after Republican Mitt Romney's insurance model. And if Hilary Clinton or some other Democrat runs and wins in 2016 that will be the final nail in efforts to repeal the law.
    Having said that I believe things could have been a whole lot better if Democrats and Republicans had chose to work together to solve the nation's problems. Compromise has become a dirty word especially with the advent of the Tea Party in the Republican base. There is no such thing as a "Moderate Republican" or "Conservative Democrat" these days. Party loyalty is all that matters!
    If it rains and you're Republican you have to blame Obama and if you're a Democrat every bad thing is the result of George W. Bush's decisions. If you're the opposition party you don't want things to improve too much because it means the other party will get the credit and re-elected! Gridlock is the American Way!

    replyreport
11. 68

    hubsyposted 10 years ago

    Honestly, although I know he has made some mistakes, the recent success in the economy is I think proof that his slow to start, but long-term effective economic plan was the right choice. I am very happy now although it seemed harder in the process

    replyreport
    1. 56

       retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       What success has their been in the economy. GDP contracted by nearly 3%, unemployment shrinks because people have stopped looking, more on disability,food stamps, section 8 on the rise, etc.... Reagan's recover dwarfs Obama's. None is so blind....

       replyreport
12. 61

    Justin Peeleposted 9 years ago

    I would say that initially he could have been a good president but his agenda was more important than the people he is supposed to lead.  He pushed through health care which has done nothing.  It gave a few people some healthcare but look on the other side.  Companies large and small have had to either raise healthcare costs or get rid of policy all together.  In the two years working for a city I have had 4% raise in salary but a 6 % raise in healthcare costs.  Thats a -1% loss in salary and I just work for the city, I can not imagine what other companies are having to do.  Second you can see how he tried to pull troops out of Iraq but ended up sending more back.  That was some swift backpedaling.  Not to mention the immigration reform that he jammed down everyone's throats.  So No not good at all.

    replyreport