Vote on the job Obama is doing

[volinbham]

Poor for me. In the first one - my view was he was doing a good job of getting his agenda through (so a good job in that aspect) but his agenda blew goats.

Now, his momentum is slowing down. His agenda still blows but he's having trouble getting it through.

 

[utvolpj]

i voted poor, i was close to terrible. i just rem. that u use to be able to see who voted what. but i understand why this is a private poll

I think it's a poll option of whether the results are public or not. I have no problem saying I voted terrible

 

[wellway16]

Too early to tell....he does look like some early momentum has been lost......

But remember, a lot of people thought Bush was doing a swimmingly good job until probably 2004.......and regardless of party affiliation....72% of Americans would agree that he wasn't very effective.

 

[SavageOrangeJug]

With 63 voting so far, the poll results are almost a mirror image of the first poll.

I do wish at least one poster who voted great would list your reasons. At least cite one example of 'greatness'.

 

[dan4vols]

I voted fair. Some things in the current situation of the country are tough, some things seem to be showing some improvement. To be fair it isn't all on the one man, there are many politicians voting against him...not because they disagree with his policies, but because he simply is a democrat. I'm sure many republicans do vote their conscience/and what they believe to be right and true for the best intrest of the nation, some just vote against democrats period, IMO it's those that stall the recovery.

 

[SavageOrangeJug]

I voted fair. Some things in the current situation of the country are tough, some things seem to be showing some improvement. To be fair it isn't all on the one man, there are many politicians voting against him...not because they disagree with his policies, but because he simply is a democrat. I'm sure many republicans do vote their conscience/and what they believe to be right and true for the best intrest of the nation, some just vote against democrats period, IMO it's those that stall the recovery.

Dan, that statement holds true for both sides of the aisle. There are just as many Democrats who would not vote with a Republican, even if it was in the best interest of America.

I agree that one man can't repair our current situation. On the other hand, I also know that one man (Bush) isn't responsible for causing it all.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Too early to tell....he does look like some early momentum has been lost......

But remember, a lot of people thought Bush was doing a swimmingly good job until probably 2004.......and regardless of party affiliation....72% of Americans would agree that he wasn't very effective.

Too early to tell what? From an economic point of view, the guy is like a child.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[tm3]

justify "great?" OK lemme see...

change

hope



i'm done. i voted terrible.

 

[SWIL]

I voted fair. Some things in the current situation of the country are tough, some things seem to be showing some improvement. To be fair it isn't all on the one man, there are many politicians voting against him...not because they disagree with his policies, but because he simply is a democrat. I'm sure many republicans do vote their conscience/and what they believe to be right and true for the best intrest of the nation, some just vote against democrats period, IMO it's those that stall the recovery.

First sane post I've read in this forum in awhile.

Democrat..... Republican..... cutting each other's throats. Everyone has forgotten that we are on the same team here.

How far would the Vols get if the offense and defense were constantly at each other about the smallest things?

 

[KB5252]

First sane post I've read in this forum in awhile.

Democrat..... Republican..... cutting each other's throats. Everyone has forgotten that we are on the same team here.

How far would the Vols get if the offense and defense were constantly at each other about the smallest things?

I don't see it as you do. I don't think either party is on the same team as the American people anymore. They are both driving this country into the ground. Both democrats and republicans perpetuate this party warfare, mainly because it benefits them. They want us to fight amongst ourselves, that way they can continue to use their influence to arrange business deals for themselves and families, travel and live lavishly on the peoples money. They are not on our side anymore, haven't been for some time.

 

[tm3]

democrat/republican

offense/defense

i'll take a shot at the analogy...

iirc obammer's spending so far quadruples the national debt.

if the defense quadrupled the average points per game allowed, so that opponents were routinely scoring half a hundred or more, i'd say the offense would be justified in getting upset.

 

[VolDad]

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 31% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-three percent (33%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2. That matches the lowest level yet recorded"

Rasmussen Reports: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

 

[wellway16]

democrat/republican

offense/defense

i'll take a shot at the analogy...

iirc obammer's spending so far quadruples the national debt.

if the defense quadrupled the average points per game allowed, so that opponents were routinely scoring half a hundred or more, i'd say the offense would be justified in getting upset.

I see your point, but Bush was the guy who thought it was wise to spend up the surplus, start the $600 paybacks, all the while, fight two wars and run us into debt. And start the trend on bailouts.

Can't blame Obama for all of that stuff. His economic recovery package may be flawed, but why are we needing the economic recovery?

That's where all the bash Obama at all costs people lose all credibility with me. The country Clinton left Bush was a lot more stable that the country Bush saddled Obama with.

Bush had some unforseen circumstances in his 8 years, I grant him that, but he left whoever won the 2008 election with a hot mess.

I think its totally unfair to critique Obama right now.....too many moving parts domestically and abroad.

 

[KB5252]

I see your point, but Bush was the guy who thought it was wise to spend up the surplus, start the $600 paybacks, all the while, fight two wars and run us into debt. And start the trend on bailouts.

Can't blame Obama for all of that stuff. His economic recovery package may be flawed, but why are we needing the economic recovery?

That's where all the bash Obama at all costs people lose all credibility with me. The country Clinton left Bush was a lot more stable that the country Bush saddled Obama with.

Bush had some unforseen circumstances in his 8 years, I grant him that, but he left whoever won the 2008 election with a hot mess.

I think its totally unfair to critique Obama right now.....too many moving parts domestically and abroad.

All the points you made are valid, but you ignore the fact that Obama has continued the spending and many of the policies that Bush got us into this mess with in the first place.

We needed an economic recovery plan because Bush, Congress, bankers/lenders and homeowners all failed us. Yet when Obama proposed this bill he allowed one of the important cogs in the wheel O deficit spending (congress) to inject more spending into that bill. Obama has continued Bush failed policy with his own failed policy, not to mention pushing agendas that will hinder economic recover and saddle us with even more spending to account for down the road. For this he deserves very low marks, I would grade him poor for these reasons.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

All the points you made are valid, but you ignore the fact that Obama has continued the spending and many of the policies that Bush got us into this mess with in the first place.

We needed an economic recovery plan because Bush, Congress, bankers/lenders and homeowners all failed us. Yet when Obama proposed this bill he allowed one of the important cogs in the wheel O deficit spending (congress) to inject more spending into that bill. Obama has continued Bush failed policy with his own failed policy, not to mention pushing agendas that will hinder economic recover and saddle us with even more spending to account for down the road. For this he deserves very low marks, I would grade him poor for these reasons.

+1!

Government is not the answer!

 

[wellway16]

All the points you made are valid, but you ignore the fact that Obama has continued the spending and many of the policies that Bush got us into this mess with in the first place.

We needed an economic recovery plan because Bush, Congress, bankers/lenders and homeowners all failed us. Yet when Obama proposed this bill he allowed one of the important cogs in the wheel O deficit spending (congress) to inject more spending into that bill. Obama has continued Bush failed policy with his own failed policy, not to mention pushing agendas that will hinder economic recover and saddle us with even more spending to account for down the road. For this he deserves very low marks, I would grade him poor for these reasons.

Good points.......I'm not a big believer in throwing money at problems myself, so I'm not a huge fan of the recovery....but I'm smart enough to realize that somebody was going to do something.

Anyone who has had a change at the top realizes that the new guy will "rearrange the deck chairs" to show they are doing something. That's where we are right now.

I just think it is too early to really gauge the totality of one's job performance after 4-5 months. Come back to me in October 2010...we'll have a better idea then.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Good points.......I'm not a big believer in throwing money at problems myself, so I'm not a huge fan of the recovery....but I'm smart enough to realize that somebody was going to do something.

Anyone who has had a change at the top realizes that the new guy will "rearrange the deck chairs" to show they are doing something. That's where we are right now.

I just think it is too early to really gauge the totality of one's job performance after 4-5 months. Come back to me in October 2010...we'll have a better idea then.

Heck, we might as well place an over under on the % of our lives ruled by government.

I say 99% is the benchmark.

 

[tm3]

I see your point, but Bush was the guy who thought it was wise to spend up the surplus, start the $600 paybacks, all the while, fight two wars and run us into debt. And start the trend on bailouts.

Can't blame Obama for all of that stuff. His economic recovery package may be flawed, but why are we needing the economic recovery?

important point of clarification -- by criticizing obammer, i'm definitely NOT praising bush! as you note, W certainly had his share of shortcomings. and the obammer supporters were very successful during the campaign of selling the nonsense that to vote against obammer was to vote for george bush.

my gripe with the stimulus package, for example, is not just the total cost. my gripe is how it was hurriedly constructed, bundled into a 1,021 page document, and rushed through congress in a couple of days -- so fast that there was no way it would be read, much less challenged and/or changed. as it gets dissected, long after it has been enacted, the pork comes to light. but too late. i call that a snow job.

if obammer had assembled a team of top economists for a meaningful period of study and crafting of options, along with some attempt at bipartisanship, and still had come up with the same multi-gazillion $$ price tag, i would be much more forgiving and opining that we should not nit-pick but roll with it to see how it works.

unfortunately when it comes to USA health care (much room for needed improvement on that one), i see another big cold front moving in and the flurries are starting.

 

[SGMVols]

Heck, we might as well place an over under on the % of our lives ruled by government.

I say 99% is the benchmark.

I'll take the over.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Good points.......I'm not a big believer in throwing money at problems myself, so I'm not a huge fan of the recovery....but I'm smart enough to realize that somebody was going to do something.

Anyone who has had a change at the top realizes that the new guy will "rearrange the deck chairs" to show they are doing something. That's where we are right now.

I just think it is too early to really gauge the totality of one's job performance after 4-5 months. Come back to me in October 2010...we'll have a better idea then.

Rearranging the deck chairs is a long way from gov't run everything topped off with gov't solutions for all iced with free mine for the downtrodden.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

I see your point, but Bush was the guy who thought it was wise to spend up the surplus, start the $600 paybacks, all the while, fight two wars and run us into debt. And start the trend on bailouts.

The surpluses were vapor regardless of POTUS due to the Tech Bubble crash and recession. Add 9/11 and the surpluses were toast.

Where Bush did overspend was in some domestic programs (e.g. prescription drug benefit) and Iraq. I doubt we had much choice with the Afghan spending and the tax cuts (at least early on) were stimulative.

Can't blame Obama for all of that stuff. His economic recovery package may be flawed, but why are we needing the economic recovery?

For many reasons dating back through multiple administrations and governmental actions. Also a little thing called the business cycle.

That's where all the bash Obama at all costs people lose all credibility with me. The country Clinton left Bush was a lot more stable that the country Bush saddled Obama with.

Possibly more stable but not stable. Clinton left a country high on irrational exuberance and a huge economic bubble. He left a depleted intelligence system and apparently didn't do anything about ME ill-will towards us since we were hit repeatedly during and immediately after his presidency.

Bush had some unforseen circumstances in his 8 years, I grant him that, but he left whoever won the 2008 election with a hot mess.

Turns out he inherited a warm mess.

I think its totally unfair to critique Obama right now.....too many moving parts domestically and abroad.

I'm not here to defend Bush. I point out the above because it's the same line BO has been pushing. Not my fault - that other guy really screwed it up and I'm going to fix it all immediately so don't question me. If he really believes this then we are all screwed.

It's entirely fair to criticize Obama based on his stated policies. Personally, I think his economic policies are quite disturbing. Add to that, I think he's irresponsible by simultaneously calling for massive overhaul of key sectors but only allowing brief time periods to make the changes. It's shoddy management. I personally believe that if his version of energy and healthcare are passed and coupled with his outrageously high spending (making Bush look like a miser) we are setting ourselves up for a hole that the next 4 - 6 POTUS's will have to dig us out of.

 

[J-P]

I suppose that depends on your perspective. If you think the U.S. needs to be more like Venezuela, Cuba or Canada, I suppose he's doing great! :jpshakehead:

 

[SWIL]

I suppose that depends on your perspective. If you think the U.S. needs to be more like Venezuela, Cuba or Canada, I suppose he's doing great! :jpshakehead:

What's wrong with Canada?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

 

[J-P]

What's wrong with Canada?

I'll have to ask a Canadian next time I see one sitting in a doctor's waiting room down in Tampa...