This is a genuine question from an Englishman who doesn't keep up with the news a great deal. The readers of AoM seem, on the whole, anti-Obama. Why? His praises are sung pretty often here in Europe.
Well, actual action on withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan is a start. Actual improvements to the military are more likely to come from their own scientists and/or generals rather than the president. I find that one hard to prove one way or the other. You could point to the removal of corrupt generals and ground being broken on civil rights in the military (the official end of "dont ask, dont tell" and women being able to serve in combat positions being excellent examples), but again, that really has more to do with the commanding generals than anything from the executive branch. Truth be told, i find the outrage with Obama to be quite humorous after the outright bufoonery of GWB. I really think it's just butt-hurt over him being black AND a Democrat.
I do deny Obama has been bad for the country. I have yet to see anyone provide actual evidence of harm.
It's a longish thread. You must have missed my post. It's on page 3 at the moment.
I was trying to ask OP, not how Obama has harmed the country, but I mentioned the harm in passing.
Summary: an exploded national debt, fewer Americans working percentagewise than ever before, increased dependency, increased punishments of whistleblowers, a new practice of persecuting private citizens for their political views (by IRS, OSHA, and DNR), a new principle that the President may refuse to faithfully execute laws he dislikes, a new principle that he may make recess appointments when Congress is not in recess, Obamacare looming, Obamacare establishing that employers who dissent from the President's views on abortion may be fined out of existence, a new precedent that the government may do warrantless spying on tens of millions of people without probable cause. Foreign policy: it's hard to show that Obama's reset button is to blame for the reset that followed, but the reset has been a disaster.
Ordinarily I like to give one answer, because it's easy to get lost in a flood of claims. An exploded national debt is a good single answer. The continued decrease in employment is another good single answer. Either establishes that Obamanomics has caused problems.
an exploded national debt, fewer Americans working percentagewise than ever before, increased dependency
Which just about everyone agrees would be true of anyone in office during the worst recession since the depression. The recession is improving, so are the unemployment numbers. I think he's handled it, albeit not as quickly as we would wish.
Increased punishments of whistleblowers, a new practice of persecuting private citizens for their political views (by IRS, OSHA, and DNR)
Agreed, problematic. No sign of the transparency we were promised, for sure.
a new principle that the President may refuse to faithfully execute laws he dislikes
Not a new principle.
a new principle that he may make recess appointments when Congress is not in recess
Not a new principle, a reaction to a totally ineffective congress and senate, (not to mention he has made far fewer recess appointments than any president post Carter (including Reagan)
Obamacare looming, Obamacare establishing that employers who dissent from the President's views on abortion may be fined out of existence
Long term effects unknown, but we'll see. Also hyperbolic regarding "fined out of existence" - Churches and non-profits get exemptions, for-profits a debate can be made but we're talking about birth control, not abortion.
a new precedent that the government may do warrantless spying on tens of millions of people without probable cause.
Not a new precedent. But definitely problematic.
Foreign policy: it's hard to show that Obama's reset button is to blame for the reset that followed, but the reset has been a disaster.
One major reason not to like him is his economic policy: borrow and spend your way out of debt. This nation is so deeply in debt we don't even know what to do. He promised to cut it in half in his first term, but instead doubled it. Instead of tightening Congress' and the White House proverbial belt, he went on a spending spree with money we don't have. Hence the downgraded credit rating. Sorry, that wouldn't have happened if he hadn't doubled the national debt in 4 years.
Besides this, the guy can't talk unless he has a professional speach writer and a teleprompter. Off the cuff he's horrible. "I've been in....53 states so far. 2 more to go." Really?!
Oh yeah, let's not forget the fact that he's a marxist stoner too. Who should have been arrested and fined (if not jailed) for possesion of a controlled substance.
The downgraded credit rating has little to do with the amount of debt. They were very clear when making the downgrade it was because they did not trust congress not to play political football with the risk of a default on our debts.
I can dig disagreeing with his economic policies - though that would have you disagreeing with many economics nobel prize winners, as well as most historical data dealing with bringing countries out of recessions. Cutting spending has historically been disastrous for getting out of recessions. Long term, it is necessary, of course.
We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.
Direct quote. I should have clarified, certainly it was not just congress - they attributed it to the parties inability to compromise. It just happens that one party in particular is less prone to do things involving that word.
The unemployment numbers are improving not because people are finding work, but because people are ceasing to look for work. That's not a plus.
It's the slowest recovery since WWII. This does not indicate that it was handled well, but poorly, since recessions always end. It's just that usually they end way more quickly than this one. Surely this one's not slow because Stimulus I and Stimulus II worked.
> a new principle that the President may refuse to faithfully execute laws he dislikes
> Not a new principle.
Actually, it is. Presidents have refused to faithfully execute laws on the grounds that they said they were unconstitutional. Simply choosing not to has not happened before.
> a new principle that he may make recess appointments when Congress is not in recess
>Not a new principle
Actually, it is. Clinton pioneered making pro tem appointments and leaving them as permanent, illegally, but Obama's the first to do recess appointments without Congress being in recess.
>Also hyperbolic regarding "fined out of existence" - Churches and non-profits get exemptions, for-profits a debate can be made but we're talking about birth control, not abortion.
By "fined out of existence," I refer to fines threatened on the order of a million per day, which would end the companies' existence by bankrupting them. The mandate does include abortion pills. Of course, the devil isn't in the details; it's in the big picture: people being punished for being unwilling to be involved in something they consider evil.
By "disaster," I mean that Egypt has fallen apart, Syria is in flames, Afghanistan remains a disaster and is getting worse in terms of American casualties, Russia is now offering aircraft batteries to help Iran defend its nuclear assets. Other things that were already going wrong (Iran and North Korea) are still going wrong. I don't blame Obama for these things, but it's clear he hasn't made things better, if things haven't gotten better.
wow..... this is going to ruffle a few feathers xD also I am not fond of our current president and I find alot of people I know have a blind faith for him... I consider that very dangerous.
Blind faith is always dangerous. I find that it's not restricted to any particular political party.
Obama is praised in Europe because he does what is good for Europe and cares about what Europe wants. The same is not true regarding the USA.
Can you clarify why you say that? I'm not seeing how Obama's policies benefit Europe.