Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

"The Obama Presidency by the Numbers
The president constantly reminds us that he was dealt a difficult hand. But the evidence is overwhelming that he played it poorly.

When it comes to the economy, presidents, like quarterbacks, often get more credit or blame than they deserve. They inherit problems and policies that affect the economy well into their presidencies and beyond. Reagan inherited Carter's stagflation, George H.W. Bush twin financial crises (savings & loan and Third World debt), and their fixes certainly benefitted the Clinton economy.

President Obama inherited a deep recession and financial crisis resulting from problems that had been building for years. Those responsible include borrowers and lenders on Wall Street and Main Street, the Federal Reserve, regulatory agencies, ratings agencies, presidents and Congress.

Mr. Obama's successor will inherit his deficits and debt (i.e., pressure for higher taxes), inflation and dollar decline. But fairly or not, historians document what occurred on your watch and how you dealt with your in-box. Nearly three years since his election and more than two years since the economic recovery began, Mr. Obama has enacted myriad policies at great expense to American taxpayers and amid political rancor. An interim evaluation is in order.

And there's plenty to evaluate: an $825 billion stimulus package; the Public-Private Investment Partnership to buy toxic assets from the banks; "cash for clunkers"; the home-buyers credit; record spending and budget deficits and exploding debt; the auto bailouts; five versions of foreclosure relief; numerous lifelines to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; financial regulation and health-care reform; energy subsidies, mandates and moratoria; and constant demands for higher tax rates on "the rich" and businesses.

Consider the direct results of the Obama programs. A few have performed better than expected—e.g., the auto bailouts, although a rapid private bankruptcy was preferable and GM and Chrysler are not yet denationalized successes. But the failed stimulus bill cost an astounding $280,000 per job—over five times median pay—by the administration's inflated estimates of jobs "created or saved," and much more using more realistic estimates.

Cash for clunkers cost $3 billion, just to shift car sales forward a few months. The Public-Private Investment Partnership, despite cheap federal loans, generated 3% of the $1 trillion claimed, and toxic assets still hobble some financial institutions. The Dodd-Frank financial reform law institutionalized "too big to fail" amid greater concentration of banking assets and mortgages in Fannie and Freddie. The foreclosure relief program permanently modified only a small percentage of the four million mortgages the president promised. And even Mr. Obama now admits that the shovels weren't ready in all those "shovel-ready" stimulus projects......."..article goes on....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... he+numbers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'll save you some time, BDK: It's all Bush's fault. Obama can't rescue this country from 8 years of Bush fuckups in a week. It takes time...in fact it might take 3-4 terms....

AZGrizFan wrote:I'll save you some time, BDK: It's all Bush's fault. Obama can't rescue this country from 8 years of Bush **** in a week. It takes time...in fact it might take 3-4 terms....

I won't disagree that Obama was dealt a bad hand from W. However, he's been in office 3 years now, Americans expect to see progress, instead a majority of Americans see things going the wrong direction. Obama & Congress are to blame.

Campaign 469.

AZGrizFan wrote:I'll save you some time, BDK: It's all Bush's fault. Obama can't rescue this country from 8 years of Bush fuckups in a week. It takes time...in fact it might take 3-4 terms....

Sorry to disappoint, but that article is a fairly decent account. Obama placed all his eggs in the Wall Street and FED basket with some window dressing stimulus measures to make him appear progressive.

exactly kalm. I don't see how people paint him as a liberal. He is nowhere NEAR liberal. It is like Bush's 3rd term. Both men have been the worst Presidents ever elected. Seriously. Bill Clinton is a damn genius compared to these 2. Clinton and Newt agreed to play nice, catching the dot com wave and riding it and man oh man were the 90s awesome or what. Ever since 9/11/01, this nation has went to hell in a hand basket. Time to vote the babyboomers out to pasture FOREVER!

clinton ONLY had the Internet Revolution... and being a disgusting pervert

lakesbison wrote:clinton ONLY had the Internet Revolution... and being a disgusting pervert

Many would disagree with your latter comment.

Serious question, for kalm and catamount man, what would Obama have done differently if he was in your view liberal (progressive, whatever term you prefer)?

How (in what ways) do you see Obama care as being conservative?

Is giving the economic stimulus out to state and local governments rather than building things conservative?

Is the % of people beholding to the government for assistance going up and the number of taxpayers going down conservative?

Was cash for clunkers conservative? How about the first time home buyers tax credit?

Is denying permits to drill for oil to make us energy independent in near term until green energy technology comes of age conservative?

Is proposing new spending programs at a time when budget cuts are mandated but not yet found conservative?

Is unilaterally raising fuel economy standards without any hope of compliance conservative?

He has lied about closing Gitmo.
He vowed to bring troops home immediately
He lied and said his term would be "no more Washington politics"
He has bailed out big businesses that needed to fail all at the expense of tax paying Americans
There were no shovel ready jobs as he proclaimed
states have already used up what federal stimulus money they were given

What he should have done from the get go was focus on how businesses can hire more by not adding regulations to their business practices but loosening them up and I'm not talking about Wall St, I'm talking about REAL jobs, he should have ran on a platform to repeal NAFTA, repeal the Fed, etc, but then again he's not running on a Libertarian point of view.

He's big government just like all republicans and democrats are. Bottom line, he lied to his voters about what he was gonna do and they bit it hook, line, and sinker. You cannot possibly tell me that the extreme left wing has been happy with his term.

We need candidates with enough balls to stand up to lobbyists and special interests, thank them for their opinion, but REFUSE to be led by them anymore and until THAT CHANGES, it doesn't matter who is in the White House.

Something else Obama inherited from Bush (along with a AAA S&P credit rating).

GENEVA (AP) — The U.S. has tumbled further down a global ranking of the world’s most competitive economies, landing at fifth place because of its huge deficits and declining public faith in government, a global economic group said Wednesday.

The announcement by the World Economic Forum was the latest bad news for the Obama administration, which has been struggling to boost the sinking U.S. economy and lower an unemployment rate of more than 9 percent.

Switzerland held onto the top spot for the third consecutive year in the annual ranking by the Geneva-based forum, which is best known for its exclusive meeting of luminaries in Davos, Switzerland, each January.

Singapore moved up to second place, bumping Sweden down to third. Finland moved up to fourth place, from seventh last year. The U.S. was in fourth place last year, after falling from No. 1 in 2008.

The rankings, which the forum has issued for more than three decades, are based on economic data and a survey of 15,000 business executives.

catamount man wrote:He has lied about closing Gitmo.
He vowed to bring troops home immediately
He lied and said his term would be "no more Washington politics"
He has bailed out big businesses that needed to fail all at the expense of tax paying Americans
There were no shovel ready jobs as he proclaimed
states have already used up what federal stimulus money they were given

What he should have done from the get go was focus on how businesses can hire more by not adding regulations to their business practices but loosening them up and I'm not talking about Wall St, I'm talking about REAL jobs, he should have ran on a platform to repeal NAFTA, repeal the Fed, etc, but then again he's not running on a Libertarian point of view.

He's big government just like all republicans and democrats are. Bottom line, he lied to his voters about what he was gonna do and they bit it hook, line, and sinker. You cannot possibly tell me that the extreme left wing has been happy with his term.

We need candidates with enough balls to stand up to lobbyists and special interests, thank them for their opinion, but REFUSE to be led by them anymore and until THAT CHANGES, it doesn't matter who is in the White House.

that makes him a liar not a conservative.

Bronco wrote:Something else Obama inherited from Bush (along with a AAA S&P credit rating).

GENEVA (AP) — The U.S. has tumbled further down a global ranking of the world’s most competitive economies, landing at fifth place because of its huge deficits and declining public faith in government, a global economic group said Wednesday.

The announcement by the World Economic Forum was the latest bad news for the Obama administration, which has been struggling to boost the sinking U.S. economy and lower an unemployment rate of more than 9 percent.

Switzerland held onto the top spot for the third consecutive year in the annual ranking by the Geneva-based forum, which is best known for its exclusive meeting of luminaries in Davos, Switzerland, each January.

Singapore moved up to second place, bumping Sweden down to third. Finland moved up to fourth place, from seventh last year. The U.S. was in fourth place last year, after falling from No. 1 in 2008.

The rankings, which the forum has issued for more than three decades, are based on economic data and a survey of 15,000 business executives.

Meh, we're still ahead of the Krauts and the Red Chinese!

LeadBolt wrote:Serious question, for kalm and catamount man, what would Obama have done differently if he was in your view liberal (progressive, whatever term you prefer)?

How (in what ways) do you see Obama care as being conservative?

Is giving the economic stimulus out to state and local governments rather than building things conservative?

Is the % of people beholding to the government for assistance going up and the number of taxpayers going down conservative?

Was cash for clunkers conservative? How about the first time home buyers tax credit?

Is denying permits to drill for oil to make us energy independent in near term until green energy technology comes of age conservative?

Is proposing new spending programs at a time when budget cuts are mandated but not yet found conservative?

Is unilaterally raising fuel economy standards without any hope of compliance conservative?

I can make similar lists for "conservative" presidents like Reagan and Bush.

Obama also escalated wars, has deported way more illegal immigrants, condoned the security apparatus, protected Wall Street and big banks, and is in the hip pocket of big pharma and health insurance companies. Hardly liberal or progressive positions.

Obama is an opportunistic corporatist, aka a modern politician. I don't use the modern conk definition of progressive. To me, progressives were people like Teddy Roosesevlt and FDR who protected the rights and economic interests of the common man against entrenched power and monopoly.

kalm wrote:

LeadBolt wrote:Serious question, for kalm and catamount man, what would Obama have done differently if he was in your view liberal (progressive, whatever term you prefer)?

How (in what ways) do you see Obama care as being conservative?

Is giving the economic stimulus out to state and local governments rather than building things conservative?

Is the % of people beholding to the government for assistance going up and the number of taxpayers going down conservative?

Was cash for clunkers conservative? How about the first time home buyers tax credit?

Is denying permits to drill for oil to make us energy independent in near term until green energy technology comes of age conservative?

Is proposing new spending programs at a time when budget cuts are mandated but not yet found conservative?

Is unilaterally raising fuel economy standards without any hope of compliance conservative?

I can make similar lists for "conservative" presidents like Reagan and Bush.

Obama also escalated wars, has deported way more illegal immigrants, condoned the security apparatus, protected Wall Street and big banks, and is in the hip pocket of big pharma and health insurance companies. Hardly liberal or progressive positions.

Obama is an opportunistic corporatist, aka a modern politician. I don't use the modern conk definition of progressive. To me, progressives were people like Teddy Roosesevlt and FDR who protected the rights and economic interests of the common man against entrenched power and monopoly.

Guys like that can NOT get elected now.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
I can make similar lists for "conservative" presidents like Reagan and Bush.

Obama also escalated wars, has deported way more illegal immigrants, condoned the security apparatus, protected Wall Street and big banks, and is in the hip pocket of big pharma and health insurance companies. Hardly liberal or progressive positions.

Obama is an opportunistic corporatist, aka a modern politician. I don't use the modern conk definition of progressive. To me, progressives were people like Teddy Roosesevlt and FDR who protected the rights and economic interests of the common man against entrenched power and monopoly.

Guys like that can NOT get elected now.

Agreed. And unless campaign finance is reformed we will continue to elect Obushma's.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Guys like that can NOT get elected now.

Agreed. And unless campaign finance is reformed we will continue to elect Obushma's.

You know....it IS allowed to NOT believe the drivel coming out of these guys mouths.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Agreed. And unless campaign finance is reformed we will continue to elect Obushma's.

You know....it IS allowed to NOT believe the drivel coming out of these guys mouths.

Oh I don't. I might be a bigger cynic than you. And I mean that as a compliment.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
I can make similar lists for "conservative" presidents like Reagan and Bush.

Obama also escalated wars, has deported way more illegal immigrants, condoned the security apparatus, protected Wall Street and big banks, and is in the hip pocket of big pharma and health insurance companies. Hardly liberal or progressive positions.

Obama is an opportunistic corporatist, aka a modern politician. I don't use the modern conk definition of progressive. To me, progressives were people like Teddy Roosesevlt and FDR who protected the rights and economic interests of the common man against entrenched power and monopoly.

Guys like that can NOT get elected now.

Sad, but true.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Guys like that can NOT get elected now.

Agreed. And unless campaign finance is reformed we will continue to elect Obushma's.

It never cease to amaze me that people think we will get " quality candidates" if only we had public financing of elections. Seems to me we'd get more hacks from the lunatic fringe on both sides.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Agreed. And unless campaign finance is reformed we will continue to elect Obushma's.

It never cease to amaze me that people think we will get " quality candidates" if only we had public financing of elections. Seems to me we'd get more hacks from the lunatic fringe on both sides.

The key is not getting hacks who are as beholden to monied interests, be that unions or corporations.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:

It never cease to amaze me that people think we will get " quality candidates" if only we had public financing of elections. Seems to me we'd get more hacks from the lunatic fringe on both sides.

The key is not getting hacks who are as beholden to monied interests, be that unions or corporations.

Gotta agree with Kalm here...The current campaign financing methodology hasn't prevented the hacks from the lunatic fringe (see Bachmann, Palin, Perry, Dean, etc) from running, has it?

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
The key is not getting hacks who are as beholden to monied interests, be that unions or corporations.

Gotta agree with Kalm here...The current campaign financing methodology hasn't prevented the hacks from the lunatic fringe (see Bachmann, Palin, Perry, Dean, etc) from running, has it?

Careful Z. You're moving dangerously close to mensa/jabber company.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:

It never cease to amaze me that people think we will get " quality candidates" if only we had public financing of elections. Seems to me we'd get more hacks from the lunatic fringe on both sides.

The key is not getting hacks who are as beholden to monied interests, be that unions or corporations.

But you still get hacks, and probably more parties with their hands out for public largesse, and we're no better off.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
The key is not getting hacks who are as beholden to monied interests, be that unions or corporations.

Gotta agree with Kalm here...The current campaign financing methodology hasn't prevented the hacks from the lunatic fringe (see Bachmann, Palin, Perry, Dean, etc) from running, has it?

It's all the same...just from different sources. With the Rep's it's from corporate, conservative retirees and ultra right wing extremists; with the Dems, it's from unions, dogma-donks, and hidden-agenda limousine liberals like Burkle, Lewis, Soros, etc..

Ivytalk is correct...the public mechanism just opens the door for every other lunatic too crazy to find normal financing.