So how muh longer until we can say Obama sucks?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Agree to disagree I guess. I think it's extremely important to look at what previous Administrations did when judging the character and effectiveness of the current one... I find that when some judge Obama without the context of previous President's it seems to fit a certain motive... my opinion though.

Does Obama suck now, or is he still a few weeks away?

I say he totally sucks now, but that can change at anytime. Maybe in a few weeks some of his more daring/innovative foreign policy ideas will come to fruition.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Yeah comparative politics isn't generally used to compare presidential administrations.

Comparative politics is used as a socio-scientific method to evaluate the effects of different government institutions and ideologies relative to each other. In essence it's trying to create as best possible a lab study using cases of different government organizations to measure their effects.

Generally, comparative politics would have very little to do with measuring Obama vs. Bush unless there were significant systemic or idealogical changes. The latter may hold but an analysis would only be useful after the fact.

I guess my opinion is that Obama cannot be measured well in a vaccuum. He's not the only person in the world, and his is not the only Administration the US has ever had. He needs to be seen in context and compared to previous Administrations to judge how effective he is. Without any kind of contextual comparison there is no way to judge him for better or worse. Whether or not Comparative Politics is the right vehicle to do this can be debated by you Poli-Sci types... my point is that without ANY kind of comparison, a determination of his effectiveness is useless.

I'm finding a lot of people say that 'you can't compare Obama to Bush', etc., but I'm not sure why not. Sure times are different... Bobby Orr played at a different time than Wayne Gretzky, but we compare the heck out of them as to who the greatest of all time is... I don't see a lot saying 'different times, no comparison'... people generally take a stab at it.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by peter12

I say he totally sucks now, but that can change at anytime. Maybe in a few weeks some of his more daring/innovative foreign policy ideas will come to fruition.

Really? He 'totally sucks now'? I thought you were a bit more pragmatic and reasonable than that... surely it takes longer than 60 days to make this judgement? Or did he have a 'sucks' label on him from Day 1, and now the debate is whether or not he can ever remove it?

I didn't even judge Bush as a lackwit this quickly into his first term (oops! Forgot I'm not allowed to compare...).

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Can anyone pass complete judgement on Richard Nixon? If it weren't for his efforts in opening up trade relations with China, we would be in an even worse mess now.

You can only measure certain policies and occasionally, ideologies, but we can't measure "men" on a holistic scale that encompasses everything.

Ah... my mistake then. I thought we were talking about policies and Obama's effectivness in his job as President, not as a man.

I wouldn't know how to judge any President as a man... only as a President.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I didn't even judge Bush as a lackwit this quickly into his first term (oops! Forgot I'm not allowed to compare...).

Its probably semantics, but you really can't compare, since the circumstances each one is in are totally different. For all we know, Clinton could have been an even bigger failure than Bush in the wake of 9/11, who knows, maybe Obama would have killed Bin Laden himself. Its impossible to say with any certainty.

For example, some people would even go so far as to blame Clinton for ignoring the warning signs, and allowing security to be lax enough to allow for the conditions to produce 9/11 to exist. This may indeed be true, but Bush didn't do enough to counter this (as a Republican would be expected to) in time to avoid the situation, he was the man in the hot seat at the time. Hence, Bush is considered the President related to 9/11 and not Clinton. Anything else is speculative.

The best we can do is critique how well he can continue on with what he was given. So in a way, he is both in a vacuum, and measured against everyone else.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Really? He 'totally sucks now'? I thought you were a bit more pragmatic and reasonable than that... surely it takes longer than 60 days to make this judgement? Or did he have a 'sucks' label on him from Day 1, and now the debate is whether or not he can ever remove it?

I didn't even judge Bush as a lackwit this quickly into his first term (oops! Forgot I'm not allowed to compare...).

Well, right now, I'd say he seems like a pretty mediocre Keynesian Liberal. His policies are often flat and more often than not, seem more politically motivated than in the interest of the whole country. That'd be fine, except he promised exactly the opposite. "Totally Sucks" is just a bad teenager colloquialism.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

But saying "let's keep trying fiscal conservatism. It might start working, for some reason" is the sort of magical thinking that lost John McCain the election.

Nobody has EVER tried fiscal conservatism. And it wasn't what McCain was proposing.

Cutting spending is a recipe for a deeper recession, and most people understand that at the moment.

And your recipe for a shorter recession is to spend money on things that have absolutely nothing to do with reviving the economy? Because that is exactly what Obama is doing.

Bailout ACORN, GM, AIG....numerous other companies that need to die and start over from scratch.

Not a recipe for success. Then again, I'm maintained from the beginning that Obama is using the 'recession' to enact his agenda, and spend money like a bunny on crack.

There is a way to spend responsibly even when money needs to be invested into the economy.

Billion here, billion there.....trillion here, trillion there.....and we all know how the government manages its budget. If they can't even control AIG bonus contracts, when they still could, why should anyone expect them to be able to properly look after a budget that is a thousand times bigger?

In the end, neither is particularly fair: my own view is that the President usually deserves less of the blame and less of the credit for the economic situation than he usually gets--but that's the way it's been in U.S. politics at least since "It's the economy, stupid" and perhaps before.

It is fair to blame Obama for spending money he doesn't have. It is fair to blame him for not implementing a SINGLE policy that would stop future bank problems.

Then again, he has no idea what he's doing......which probably explains why he 'economic team' isn't talking to the public or being open about what they're doing.

[Ronald Pagan]

Nobody has EVER tried fiscal conservatism. And it wasn't what McCain was proposing.

BZZZZT Wrong.

Look up Canada's initial reaction to the recession of the early 1930s.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Did YOU read the article?

The Economist questions him but they hardly blame him for all the problems and even offer up at the end of the article that things could be turning around.

Talk about splicing out what satisfies your bias and ignoring the rest.

Talk about putting words in my mouth and then beating me about the head with those words. I posted the article because I thought it was balanced criticism of Obama's Presidency so far.

So what did I splice? What is my bias? And what did I ignore? Since you know me so well.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nobody has EVER tried fiscal conservatism. And it wasn't what McCain was proposing.

The only one offering that was Ron Paul. However, he never had a chance. Everyone else proposed some sort of Keynesian method.

Thing is, people didn't want a long term solution. They wanted a return to "normal" as soon as possible. Obama is delivering that. "Normal" will likely return in 2010. However, policy makers and financial planners will be dealing with this solution for decades to come.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

There's a whole field of political science called Comparative Politics.

Which is a load of crap in regards to the comparison between Obama and Bush.

During Bush's first year, there was a major terrorist attack on American soil. Any push to worry about 'domestic' stuff went out the window, and his 8 years in office were largely based on foreign policy stuff.

During Obama's first year, he is dealing solely with domestic stuff. As a result, all the foreign policy stuff has been largely to the background. Sure there is Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, China, Russia and North Korea to deal with, but the American people don't care. They want the economy fixed.

So how can you even BEGIN to compare two Presidents that are basically going the opposite direction in regards to what is the most important thing to deal with?

If you want to compare Obama to someone, compare him to a President that was in office that last time the economy fell. Like Carter, or Reagan. Or FDR.

Not Bush.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

BZZZZT Wrong.

Look up Canada's initial reaction to the recession of the early 1930s.

Agreed, a pure fiscal conservative solution would likely fail miserably, like it did in the 1930s. However, 1930's economies had virtually none of the controls they possess today, so its impossible to say with certainty that elements of fiscal conservatism would fail today.

However, in Obama's defense, his hardline stance on GM and Chrysler, while decimating the stock market today, is a fiscal conservative stance. The markets will likely get over it, and the overreaction today will likely disappear by late this week.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

BZZZZT Wrong.

Look up Canada's initial reaction to the recession of the early 1930s.

Are we talking about Canada? Besides, I'm not talking about a fiscal conservatism approach to a recession.

I'm talking about the policies that have brought the US to this point. Nobody has ever tried real fiscal conservatism.

[peter12]

Haha, here we go again... I'll admit I love these fruitless ideological discussion.

I easily fall on the more liberal free-market side of the spectrum. Let people do what they want, let them feel the consequences of their decisions, and let the market select the most efficient outcomes.

Fiscal conservatism as an ethic does not apply to only government, but should apply to all within a society. I cannot deny that a huge part of this recession is the fault of banks over-leveraging and greedy Wall-Street brokers essentially making huge risk gambles with people's pensions and 401ks.

It would not be a bad thing, in my mind, if governments were to make appropriate expenditures designed to maximize the workings of the market and to apply an efficient and minimal social safety net that helps people get back into the workforce.

It would not be bad if businesses took into account the fundamental irrationalities and rationalities of human nature when examining the probability of success for long-term investments.

The ideology of big government is stifling, but that doesn't mean that many libertarians do not accept an appropriate level of regulation and even investment by the state. But too often, we see politicians work only for short-term gains, that is, re-election.

[Ronald Pagan]

Fact is that we're in uncharted territory. It's exceedingly easy to be a critic of policy at this point because no one knows what to do. I think that blaming Obama is juvenille. The American system of government is proving to be just as culpable of much of the blame in its clunky handling of the crisis.

And, in the end, the economy boils down to human decision making and interactions. Meaning that there are not a whole lot of levers that the government can pull to just turn things around. Especially under a globally diversified economy and a now global downturn.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Fact is that we're in uncharted territory. It's exceedingly easy to be a critic of policy at this point because no one knows what to do. I think that blaming Obama is juvenille. The American system of government is proving to be just as culpable of much of the blame in its clunky handling of the crisis.

And, in the end, the economy boils down to human decision making and interactions. Meaning that there are not a whole lot of levers that the government can pull to just turn things around. Especially under a globally diversified economy and a now global downturn.

Sadly, I don't think the waters are all that uncharted. We've been through some of these things before. Look at the Savings and Loans Crisis, that was like... 25 years ago.

The response must be holistic and from all portions of society. In fact, at this stage, we probably need a global response.

[Azure]

People seem to think that by having a fiscally conservative government, the government just stays out of the economy.

It does.....to a point, but you still HAVE to have regulations to keep crap like this from happening again.

I have no problem with certain laws being in place, and the government having a small hand in keeping the economy running smoothly. But I do have a problem with trillions upon trillions of dollars being spent for nothing.....except to place a bigger burden on the future generations.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

I say he totally sucks now, but that can change at anytime. Maybe in a few weeks some of his more daring/innovative foreign policy ideas will come to fruition.

Well, at least you're honest, and aren't pretending that you had some regard for him before he was elected.

I agree that people should be able to hold informed opinions about their leaders whenever they like. However, you yourself said that it's impossible to judge certain things without the benefit of hindsight, and I agree. With that said, two things have to happen before a "judgment" of Obama can ascend beyond the realm of opinions and ***holes (i.e., everybody's got one.)
1. You have to decide what success would have looked like, and what failure means in a specific sense.
2. You have to wait long enough to see if the predicted results of his policies either came true or did not.

In that sense, here's an important wrinkle: let's hypothetically say that in the month of March, the economy had turned around completely and things right now were just hunky-dory, smooth-sailing, happy times. Could Obama be given credit for that?

I say no. Why? Because as recently as the last week of January, Bush was still president. An economic recovery this fast would have to be noted as the final achievement of the Bush administration's TARP-bailout from last fall. Obama would then get to ride the coattails of that recovery, but it would not be his achievement.

So... if you can't give him credit for success, it's probably still too early to blame him for failure. Your Nixon example is quite telling: you chose a policy the true implications of which could not have been fully understood for many, many years. That's probably the case now.

However, feel free to form an opinion now--or rather, to stick to the opinion you already had. As you say, it's your right. Just remember that there was a President, who 60 days into his administration had:
1. Overseen the secession of seven states, largely in response to his own election.
2. Tried, but failed, to relieve sectional tensions through a compromise that would have effectively enshrined slavery in the constitution.
3. Severely underestimated the gravity of the crisis, leading to Federal troops getting caught with their pants around their ankles at Ft. Sumter. Lincoln then mishandled the aftermath, leading to four more states seceding.
4. Refused to negotiate with the new confederate government, thus passing up his only opportunity for a bloodless end to the crisis.
5. Suspended the writ of habeas corpus, temporarily demonizing his own side and galvanizing antipathy to the Federal government in border states like Virginia.

In the ensuing months, he appointed the incompetent Gen. George McLellan to command the Union army, oversaw the humiliating defeat at Bull Run and a number of other places, and generally was at the center of a complete cluster****. He is now remembered as perhaps the greatest President, and probably rightly so. But his first 60--indeed, his first 100 days, were a complete disaster--and he could easily be (and was) criticized for his bungling of the entire affair from start to finish, as long as you ignore what happened later.

The point is--give it time. I'm not so foolhardy as to suggest that I know the mettle of this man any better than anybody else. And I agree that comparisons should be bracketed--Bush is not Obama, they face different challenges, etc. But it's equally dumb to take the Rush Limbaugh approach, to hope he fails, and then invent impossible tests to prove that he did. There's a little of that going on in this thread, frankly.

[peter12]

IFF, I'm not condemning the man. However right now, his performance leaves much to be desired and that for a man who campaigned (only) on promises of hope and change, we are seeing much of the same old, same old.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nobody has EVER tried fiscal conservatism. And it wasn't what McCain was proposing.




And your recipe for a shorter recession is to spend money on things that have absolutely nothing to do with reviving the economy? Because that is exactly what Obama is doing.

Bailout ACORN, GM, AIG....numerous other companies that need to die and start over from scratch.

Not a recipe for success. Then again, I'm maintained from the beginning that Obama is using the 'recession' to enact his agenda, and spend money like a bunny on crack.

There is a way to spend responsibly even when money needs to be invested into the economy.

Billion here, billion there.....trillion here, trillion there.....and we all know how the government manages its budget. If they can't even control AIG bonus contracts, when they still could, why should anyone expect them to be able to properly look after a budget that is a thousand times bigger?



It is fair to blame Obama for spending money he doesn't have. It is fair to blame him for not implementing a SINGLE policy that would stop future bank problems.

Then again, he has no idea what he's doing......which probably explains why he 'economic team' isn't talking to the public or being open about what they're doing.

ACORN again? Wow--that's more passe than a giant cell phone.

Anyway, when was the auto-bailout passed? Seems weird to lay that at Obama's feet. We may not be able to compare, but we should at least remember that TARP and the auto bailout were done in 2008, during the Bush administration. So... no. I don't blame Obama for bailing out GM--because he didn't do it: Bush did.

Laying the AIG bonus thing at his feet is even sillier. The bonuses were paid by AIG (a private company) to its executives in fulifilment of their contracts with AIG--using TARP money that they received from the Bush administration in 2008.

I'm not sure how you can know that his economic team doesn't know what they're doing, but.... opinions are free. However, when Geithner announced the new TARP regulations last week, Wall Street seemed to disagree... Personally, I don't really care about TARP--the stimulus package is the much more important action in my view, and we won't know whether it fails or succeeds for many months.