Obama shaping up to be one of the most succesful presidents since Reagan or FDR

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

No...just, no. Let's wait and see results. As of now, it's too early to tell. And successful can be defined in different ways.

And FDR really wasn't successful. I wouldn't consider taking 10 years to get out of a depression "successful". Even his own Treasury Secretary, who designed the New Deal, admitted that they failed.

LJS9502_basic

Exactly. People forget that it lasted 10 years! And even his own Treasury Secretary said the New Deal policies didn't work and he DESIGNED THEM!

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

Oh, and people voted for him so they wouldn't be called racist.

HoolaHoopMan

I don't think we'd be any better off with McCain/Palin. There was only one candidate who wanted to truly restore the Constitutional Republic, but he was mocked and called a racist by the media.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="narlymech"]

If you call getting bills passed that the majority doesn't want success, he has been successful. If you call claiming "racial profilling" about bills that don't racially profile and putting cops in danger success, then yeah I guess.

Radiatedrich91

If people really hate what he's doing, why did they vote for him?

Well, let's see...

- End the Iraq War? No (People say he's better than Bush because he's decreasing the number of troops, but he's got contractors replacing them anyway)

- End Warrantless wiretapping? No (Actually, he flip flopped on this in the middle of his campaign)

- Close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay? No (Although he's supposedly been trying to get it done)

- Health Care Reform? Debatable (I would say no because the health care bill was severely watered down before it was passed)

Oh, and people voted for him so they wouldn't be called racist.

This just in, voting is anonymous. You can vote for anyone you want and nobody will be the wiser.

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]Well... He seems to be doing what he said he was going to in his campaign.

If people really hate what he's doing, why did they vote for him?

topgunmv

Well, let's see...

- End the Iraq War? No (People say he's better than Bush because he's decreasing the number of troops, but he's got contractors replacing them anyway)

- End Warrantless wiretapping? No (Actually, he flip flopped on this in the middle of his campaign)

- Close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay? No (Although he's supposedly been trying to get it done)

- Health Care Reform? Debatable (I would say no because the health care bill was severely watered down before it was passed)

Oh, and people voted for him so they wouldn't be called racist.

This just in, voting is anonymous. You can vote for anyone you want and nobody will be the wiser.

But being an outspoken Obama supporter was the politically correct thing to do.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

No...just, no. Let's wait and see results. As of now, it's too early to tell. And successful can be defined in different ways.

And FDR really wasn't successful. I wouldn't consider taking 10 years to get out of a depression "successful". Even his own Treasury Secretary, who designed the New Deal, admitted that they failed.

SpartanMSU

Exactly. People forget that it lasted 10 years! And even his own Treasury Secretary said the New Deal policies didn't work and he DESIGNED THEM!

So far no. Even his popularity is no longer comparable to them.

He is shaping up to be a rather bland president besides being the first minority president.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

No...just, no. Let's wait and see results. As of now, it's too early to tell. And successful can be defined in different ways.

And FDR really wasn't successful. I wouldn't consider taking 10 years to get out of a depression "successful". Even his own Treasury Secretary, who designed the New Deal, admitted that they failed.

LJS9502_basic

Somewhat true. The new deal did cut unemployment significantly up until 1937 where some of the programs instituted were rolled back. However many argue that what would have helped the economy recover more was not less spending during the new deal, but much much more.

While it's true that WW2 did help with the final push, it should be noted that the government was mostly responsible for the war effort and employed all these people while spending massive amounts of money to do so. Technically speaking, the US government could have employed the same people and asked them to produce the same airplanes, tanks, ammo etc and threw all of it in some massive pit giving us the same end result of a recovered economy (minus the obvious war).

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

Oh, and people voted for him so they wouldn't be called racist.

jalexbrown

The effect of his race is impossible to determine.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Actually FDR didn't end the depression....WW2 did. Without it....he'd have remained in that economic state.LJS9502_basic

Exactly. People forget that it lasted 10 years! And even his own Treasury Secretary said the New Deal policies didn't work and he DESIGNED THEM!

So far no. Even his popularity is no longer comparable to them.

He is shaping up to be a rather bland president besides being the first minority president.

dercoo

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="Dark_Knight6"]

Well, it's the fact that he was caught covering it up. Had he not been caught, or had he not attempted to cover it up, he'd be seen as one of the better presidents. FDR, for example, got away with the surveillance thing and is now loved. And admittedly, he was a good president.

Dark_Knight6

Ah yes, that had slipped my mind. I'm not quite certain just how he avoided the consequences of that one.

Funny; I just got done reading Korematsu v. The United States for school. :P

He got away with it because the Court basically ruled that the military can do whatever it wants in a time of danger if it feels that the danger can be averted, including single out a specific race. Two justices dissented on this case, stating that we may as well say the military can do whatever it wants and call it constitutional, but unfortunately Korematsu lost and what I just described became legal precedent for all time in the USA.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

Well, let's see...

- End the Iraq War? No (People say he's better than Bush because he's decreasing the number of troops, but he's got contractors replacing them anyway)

- End Warrantless wiretapping? No (Actually, he flip flopped on this in the middle of his campaign)

- Close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay? No (Although he's supposedly been trying to get it done)

- Health Care Reform? Debatable (I would say no because the health care bill was severely watered down before it was passed)

Oh, and people voted for him so they wouldn't be called racist.

Radiatedrich91

This just in, voting is anonymous. You can vote for anyone you want and nobody will be the wiser.

But being an outspoken Obama supporter was the politically correct thing to do.

You can publicly support him and secretly vote for someone else though.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

Well, let's see...

- End the Iraq War? No (People say he's better than Bush because he's decreasing the number of troops, but he's got contractors replacing them anyway)

- End Warrantless wiretapping? No (Actually, he flip flopped on this in the middle of his campaign)

- Close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay? No (Although he's supposedly been trying to get it done)

- Health Care Reform? Debatable (I would say no because the health care bill was severely watered down before it was passed)

Oh, and people voted for him so they wouldn't be called racist.

Radiatedrich91

This just in, voting is anonymous. You can vote for anyone you want and nobody will be the wiser.

But being an outspoken Obama supporter was the politically correct thing to do.

Somewhat true. The new deal did cut unemployment significantly up until 1937 where some of the programs instituted were rolled back. However many argue that what would have helped the economy recover more was not less spending during the new deal, but much much more.

While it's true that WW2 did help with the final push, it should be noted that the government was mostly responsible for the war effort and employed all these people while spending massive amounts of money to do so. Technically speaking, the US government could have employed the same people and asked them to produce the same airplanes, tanks, ammo etc and threw all of it in massive pit giving us the same end result of a recovered economy (minus the obvious war).

HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

Oh, and people voted for him so they wouldn't be called racist.

BuryMe

THe effect of his race is impossible to determine.

If I had to guess, I would say that there are more white apologists than white supremacists in the US.

I think he was one of the worst presidents....and Reagan as well. So this thread amuses me with those analogies.....LJS9502_basic

Out of curiosity, and this in no way signifies a desire to debate or argue the topic, who's your favorite?

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

So far no. Even his popularity is no longer comparable to them.

He is shaping up to be a rather bland president besides being the first minority president.

HoolaHoopMan

Sorry, I was not born yet.:P

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

This just in, voting is anonymous. You can vote for anyone you want and nobody will be the wiser.

topgunmv

But being an outspoken Obama supporter was the politically correct thing to do.

You can publicly support him and secretly vote for someone else though.

People shouldn't have to do that out of fear of being called racist. White apologists are about as sickening as the KKK.

Um.....government IS always causing war. And no the government would have wasted money if they built weapons etc that weren't needed. Plus, soldiers left to fight which created the jobs making these weapons. Without the war.....those jobs would not have opened. So it's not correct to say making weapons would have had the same effect without the ongoing war.

LJS9502_basic

The war is a moot point to what I was saying. WW2 was essentially one huge massive government employment plan which cost them billions. Given that the war didn't happen, if they employed all these people and went on a massive spending spree the end result would have been the same. When people say "WW2 got us out of the depression" they're basically giving the government credit for employing people en mass and telling them what to build in bulk.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

But being an outspoken Obama supporter was the politically correct thing to do.

Radiatedrich91

You can publicly support him and secretly vote for someone else though.

People shouldn't have to do that out of fear of being called racist. White apologists are about as sickening as the KKK.

People shouldn't have to do that out of fear of being called racist. White apologists are about as sickening as the KKK.

Radiatedrich91

You've got to be kidding me.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I think he was one of the worst presidents....and Reagan as well. So this thread amuses me with those analogies.....Dark_Knight6

Out of curiosity, and this in no way signifies a desire to debate or argue the topic, who's your favorite?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Um.....government IS always causing war. And no the government would have wasted money if they built weapons etc that weren't needed. Plus, soldiers left to fight which created the jobs making these weapons. Without the war.....those jobs would not have opened. So it's not correct to say making weapons would have had the same effect without the ongoing war.

HoolaHoopMan

The war is a moot point to what I was saying. WW2 was essentially one huge massive government employment plan which cost them billions. Given that the war didn't happen, if they employed all these people and went on a massive spending spree the end result would have been the same. When people say "WW2 got us out of the depression" they're basically giving the government credit for employing people en mass and telling them what to build in bulk.

if only FDR were president today.....auron_16

If only TR was president today.:D

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

You can publicly support him and secretly vote for someone else though.

Theokhoth

People shouldn't have to do that out of fear of being called racist. White apologists are about as sickening as the KKK.

I'm referring to people with white guilt, who think minorities should have certain privileges because of their race.

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

People shouldn't have to do that out of fear of being called racist. White apologists are about as sickening as the KKK.

HoolaHoopMan

You've got to be kidding me.

Nope.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Um.....government IS always causing war. And no the government would have wasted money if they built weapons etc that weren't needed. Plus, soldiers left to fight which created the jobs making these weapons. Without the war.....those jobs would not have opened. So it's not correct to say making weapons would have had the same effect without the ongoing war.

LJS9502_basic

The war is a moot point to what I was saying. WW2 was essentially one huge massive government employment plan which cost them billions. Given that the war didn't happen, if they employed all these people and went on a massive spending spree the end result would have been the same. When people say "WW2 got us out of the depression" they're basically giving the government credit for employing people en mass and telling them what to build in bulk.

They were able to sustain it for four years. I don't believe I said that anything of that sort should be an ongoing policy.

Thomas Jefferson.....and Lincoln.LJS9502_basic

I....actually agree to an extent. Quite shocking. :o

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

People shouldn't have to do that out of fear of being called racist. White apologists are about as sickening as the KKK.

Radiatedrich91

I'm referring to people with white guilt, who think minorities should have certain privileges because of their race.

I know; an apologist is a defender. The word "apology" stems from the Greek word meaning "defense;" the word "apology" has changed meaning but "apologist" has not.

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] I'm not sure you know what an apologist is. . . Theokhoth

I'm referring to people with white guilt, who think minorities should have certain privileges because of their race.

I know; an apologist is a defender. The word "apology" stems from the Greek word meaning "defense;" the word "apology" has changed meaning but "apologist" has not.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

I'm referring to people with white guilt, who think minorities should have certain privileges because of their race.

Maniacc1

I know; an apologist is a defender. The word "apology" stems from the Greek word meaning "defense;" the word "apology" has changed meaning but "apologist" has not.

How could Obama and FDR be compared to Reagan?

[QUOTE="Maniacc1"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I know; an apologist is a defender. The word "apology" stems from the Greek word meaning "defense;" the word "apology" has changed meaning but "apologist" has not.

Theokhoth

Oh, I know you didn't put it in on purpose, it just came into my head. Sorry. :P

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

The war is a moot point to what I was saying. WW2 was essentially one huge massive government employment plan which cost them billions. Given that the war didn't happen, if they employed all these people and went on a massive spending spree the end result would have been the same. When people say "WW2 got us out of the depression" they're basically giving the government credit for employing people en mass and telling them what to build in bulk.

HoolaHoopMan

They were able to sustain it for four years. I don't believe I said that anything of that sort should be an ongoing policy.

How could Obama and FDR be compared to Reagan?

stupid4

Because they were all very charismatic and appealed to people's emotions rather than their reason.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

But being an outspoken Obama supporter was the politically correct thing to do.

Radiatedrich91

You can publicly support him and secretly vote for someone else though.

People shouldn't have to do that out of fear of being called racist. White apologists are about as sickening as the KKK.

You seem to be changing what you're asserting with each post; first it was that people voted for Obama because they were afraid of being called racist if they didn't, then it was that people were outspoken supporters of Obama because they were afraid of being called racist...

You realize of course that when people claim to support someone but actually don't, that shows up at the ballot box, and is called the Bradley effect. It did not show up at all in the 2008 election. Hence, those supporting Obama were in fact sincere, and it had nothing to do with being afraid of the "racist" label. It is possible to support a black man for reasons other than that he's black...

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

You can publicly support him and secretly vote for someone else though.

GabuEx

People shouldn't have to do that out of fear of being called racist. White apologists are about as sickening as the KKK.

You seem to be changing what you're asserting with each post; first it was that people voted for Obama because they were afraid of being called racist if they didn't, then it was that people were outspoken supporters of Obama because they were afraid of being called racist...

You realize of course that when people claim to support someone but actually don't, that shows up at the ballot box, and is called the Bradley effect. It did not show up at all in the 2008 election. Hence, those supporting Obama were in fact sincere, and it had nothing to do with being afraid of the "racist" label.

I didn't say that; someone else did. And I replied saying it's sickening that people would have to do something like that out of fear of being called racist.

[QUOTE="stupid4"]

How could Obama and FDR be compared to Reagan?

Radiatedrich91

Because they were all very charismatic and appealed to people's emotions rather than their reason.

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

[QUOTE="stupid4"]

How could Obama and FDR be compared to Reagan?

Serraph105

Because they were all very charismatic and appealed to people's emotions rather than their reason.

[QUOTE="stupid4"]

How could Obama and FDR be compared to Reagan?

Radiatedrich91

Because they were all very charismatic and appealed to people's emotions rather than their reason.

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

[QUOTE="stupid4"]

How could Obama and FDR be compared to Reagan?

Serraph105

Because they were all very charismatic and appealed to people's emotions rather than their reason.

Well I don't know you closely, so I don't know how you think. Only you and people extremely close to you can determine that. Often times, people like to think that they are rational and reasonable, but in the end, their emotions dictate what they actually do. I'm not saying you do that though, so no hard feelings.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

People shouldn't have to do that out of fear of being called racist. White apologists are about as sickening as the KKK.

Radiatedrich91

You seem to be changing what you're asserting with each post; first it was that people voted for Obama because they were afraid of being called racist if they didn't, then it was that people were outspoken supporters of Obama because they were afraid of being called racist...

You realize of course that when people claim to support someone but actually don't, that shows up at the ballot box, and is called the Bradley effect. It did not show up at all in the 2008 election. Hence, those supporting Obama were in fact sincere, and it had nothing to do with being afraid of the "racist" label.

I didn't say that; someone else did. And I replied saying it's sickening that people would have to do something like that out of fear of being called racist.

Yes you did, you said that "being an outspoken Obama supporter was the politically correct thing to do", implying that not being an outspoken Obama supporter would be politically incorrect. The fact remains that Obama's polling average was the same as the results on election day. This means that Obama's support was sincere, not, as you claimed, as a result of being afraid of being called a racist.

[QUOTE="Dark_Knight6"]

The only thing Obama shares in common with Reagan and FDR is that he is incredibly charismatic. As far as being as president, he's not even close to their levels of success.

Theokhoth

Have you heard of Lend Lease? They weren't making equipment to sit around and collect dust.LJS9502_basic

I don't think you're quite getting it.

You said WW2 got us out of the depression, let's assume that's true for the moment being. This would mean that the main contributor to the US economic recovery from the depression was merely massive government spending in the form of massive employment and manufacturing paid for by the US government. Okay?

The US could have gone out and dumped all the goods we had made into the ocean and the economic recovery would have been there. The war was merely an excuse to let the government go on an epic spending spree. The only difference between the New Deal and the government spending on WW2 was the scale and the goods/infrastructure they dictated on manufacturing at the moment.

In doing what, exactly? All he did was increase debt and enact policies that helped put us where we are today.

Dark_Knight6

In the 1970s, the U.S. had difficult problems with chronic unemployment and rising inflation, was still struggling over Vietnam, and suffered from leadership that was well-meaning but incompetent at best, and hopelessly corrupt at worst. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, had a comparably better time economically, and continued to build up its arms and influence events around the world even while the United States sought to remove itself from world affairs due to "Vietnam syndrome."

Due in no small part to Reagan's own actions, The United States underwent the greatest economic boom in history in the 1980s, beat back Soviet influence in Central America and Central Asia, and pursued a productive and diplomatic competition with the Soviet Union that left it bankrupt. Reagan's policies revitalized the military industrial complex, and his rhetoric restored faith in the nation that was faltering after the turmoil of the 1960s and 70s.

The eventual Soviet collapse, shortly after Reagan left office,constituted the largest world political shift since the Second World War. Eastern Europe threw off Communism, and Liberal Democracy became almost completely unchallenged throughout the world, paving the way for the moderate American leadership under George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and the liberalization of global trade and the global spread of democracy that are characteristics of globalization.

He was pretty important, in retrospect.