Is Obama truly the worst POTUS of all time?

[ivwshane]

some may say add more debt than the combined debt of every president before him

Sure they will, in the same way they say it about reagan.

 

[LPCTech]

Come on man Carter was worst them all of them.

Carter wasnt a very good president, but Bush 2 and certain others did far more damage to America and the world.

 

[ivwshane]

Come on man Carter was worst them all of them.

Yeah? Economically speaking? Socially speaking? With regards to foreign policy? By scandal? By all means make your case.

 

[Jeffg010]

Yeah? Economically speaking? Socially speaking? With regards to foreign policy? By scandal? By all means make your case.

I'll sum it up in one sentence. Carter's greatest achievement was leaving office so the hostages could get free.

 

[glenn1]

History will remember Obama as one of the most accomplished presidents of all time. His detractors have been repeating how bad he is for so long that they cant even articulate why they think that. What measure could one possibly use to make such a case?

I'm very happy you think so. I'm very gratified his supporters think that something like Obamacare is a great accomplishment and you're satisfied with that. Dude had things set up for him to get one of the truly transformative Presidents of all time, to equal or eclipse someone like Reagan or even FDR. He was the best opportunity progressives had to get their agenda done in decades, and all you got out of it was passing the old Heritage Foundation healthcare plan from the 1990s and spiking inequality to record highs and more than any President since Clinton. Congratulations, the Republicans couldn't have done better themselves.

 

[echo4747]

Cuz the 1% should be paying that, but their plan is to bankrupt the government to increase their own power while reducing the ability of the government to keep things fair. So they can rule, Like they used to...

I doubt that even if you taxed the the 1% ers at 100% tax rate that you could make a substantial reduction in the national debt

 

[ivwshane]

I'm very happy you think so. I'm very gratified his supporters think that something like Obamacare is a great accomplishment and you're satisfied with that. Dude had things set up for him to get one of the truly transformative Presidents of all time, to equal or eclipse someone like Reagan or even FDR. He was the best opportunity progressives had to get their agenda done in decades, and all you got out of it was passing the old Heritage Foundation healthcare plan from the 1990s and spiking inequality to record highs and more than any President since Clinton. Congratulations, the Republicans couldn't have done better themselves.

LOL. That's certainly one way to spin it but history doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

What exactly would you have Republicans (or Democrats for that matter) "do for" those rural blue collar types?

The most glaring example is expanding rural availability and access to healthcare because that's where the biggest problem is in this country. And Obama and the Democrats did just that with the Medicaid expansion. But Republicans spent (and continue to) all their time and energy standing in the way of their base actually befitting from it and made Obama so toxic in the process that they couldn't even appear to compromise with him on it.

You know, those criticisms from the right about Obama being a "weak leader" aren't baseless depending on the metric used. He is willing to bend over backwards and compromise right off the bat more often than not and, instead of actually exploiting that to their base's advantage, the GOP instantly became the party of "no" and everyone except the establishment is worse off for it. The base is finally starting to catch on to the scam even if they aren't connecting all the dots yet. It's why Trump, helped by the perception of being a "deal maker," can say "liberal" things and keep or even gain support of exactly those people. The deep down dark secret about the GOP base is they want government to work for them just like everyone else does.

 

[Sonikku]

Come on man Carter was worst them all of them.

Eisenhower was worse than Carter. With no American coup of Iran there never would have been a hostage crisis. Iran people wouldn't be screaming "Death to America" with Repubs singing about bombing them like they do today.

 

[ivwshane]

I doubt that even if you taxed the the 1% ers at 100% tax rate that you could make a substantial reduction in the national debt

I'm curious to think what you think we gain by having a lowered national debt. What debt amount/percent do you think we should have?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I'm curious to think what you think we gain by having a lowered national debt. What debt amount/percent do you think we should have?

Well I for one would like to see a confidence fairy before I die.

 

[echo4747]

I'm curious to think what you think we gain by having a lowered national debt. What debt amount/percent do you think we should have?

well... lowered operating costs to the country for one. Just the $$ spent on interest on this debt could be put to many good uses (infrastructure,healthcare,etc.)

 

[ivwshane]

well... lowered operating costs to the country for one. Just the $$ spent on interest on this debt could be put to many good uses (infrastructure,healthcare,etc.)

We can spend more now and acheive the same goal. You'll need to be a little more specific to convince me that we should be concerned about the debt.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm curious to think what you think we gain by having a lowered national debt.

Just for reference, we paid more than $400 Billion in interest on the federal national debt last year. Do you suppose we could find something better we could do if we had $400 Billion available? We could pay for massive upgrades to our infrastructure, power grid, education, etc etc with that money.

That's not even getting to all the other aspects of large debt.

What debt amount/percent do you think we should have?

The best amount of debt depends on a bunch of things, but I'm pretty confident that a long term ever increasing debt with no plans to ever reduce it is a failure.

 

[Vic]

Not even close. The worst POTUS ever was Buchanan, followed by Grant.
Obama is not the best by any stretch of the imagination, but his administration will be remembered as remarkably scandal free.

 

[ivwshane]

Just for reference, we paid more than $400 Billion in interest on the federal national debt last year. Do you suppose we could find something better we could do if we had $400 Billion available? We could pay for massive upgrades to our infrastructure, power grid, education, etc etc with that money.

Again, we can spend more now and achieve the same goal. Saving money from interest only to spend it on other things is fundamentally different how exactly? We can take things to their logical extremes but that doesn't mean we are currently in some sort of crisis nor does it mean we are close to being in some sort of crisis. So the question is, at what point do we reach the critical tipping point?

That's not even getting to all the other aspects of large debt.




The best amount of debt depends on a bunch of things, but I'm pretty confident that a long term ever increasing debt with no plans to ever reduce it is a failure.

I agree but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what is the turning point at which too much debt is detrimental.

The vague "exploding debt" meme is a great way to rally the rubes but with no specifics it simply serves as yet another boogieman to further the agenda of the right. Don't you think that it is odd that whenever the budget/deficit/debt is discussed the first things on the chopping block are the things that help the poor and middle-class while the things that help the wealthy aren't touched or are expanded?

 

[fskimospy]

Just for reference, we paid more than $400 Billion in interest on the federal national debt last year. Do you suppose we could find something better we could do if we had $400 Billion available? We could pay for massive upgrades to our infrastructure, power grid, education, etc etc with that money.

That's not even getting to all the other aspects of large debt.

Not quite that simple. A large amount of that interest went to Americans. So while our government might have had $400 billion more, Americans would have had some large fraction of that less in income. Presumably we care about America as a whole, right? Not only that, but bonds have in many cases been actually giving negative yields in inflation adjusted terms, which means the government is MAKING money by taking out debt.

The best amount of debt depends on a bunch of things, but I'm pretty confident that a long term ever increasing debt with no plans to ever reduce it is a failure.

Ever-increasing debt is not a problem at all. Ever-increasing debt to GDP ratio is a problem. So long as in the long term our GDP grows faster than our debt we can take on additional debts until the heat death of the universe. (and at that point all debts are cancelled anyway. Hooray!)

 

[echo4747]

Ever-increasing debt is not a problem at all. Ever-increasing debt to GDP ratio is a problem. So long as in the long term our GDP grows faster than our debt we can take on additional debts until the heat death of the universe. (and at that point all debts are cancelled anyway. Hooray!)

Can you provide the actual $$ amount of the debt since the day President Obama took office to this current time? At what rate has GDP grown for the same time period?

 

[fskimospy]

Can you provide the actual $$ amount of the debt since the day President Obama took office to this current time? At what rate has GDP grown for the same time period?

Our debt to GDP ratio has definitely gone up during Obama's tenure as president, but that's what SHOULD have happened. You're supposed to reduce your debt/GDP ratio during good economic times and increase it during bad ones. The decrease during good times enables you to increase it again when you need to.

 

[glenn1]

Our debt to GDP ratio has definitely gone up during Obama's tenure as president, but that's what SHOULD have happened. You're supposed to reduce your debt/GDP ratio during good economic times and increase it during bad ones. The decrease during good times enables you to increase it again when you need to.

I guess this is Eskimospy's roundabout way of saying it was bad economic times under Obama. Not surprising considering Obama adopted some of Eskmospy's recommendations early in his presidency.

 

[PokerGuy]

Again, we can spend more now and achieve the same goal. Saving money from interest only to spend it on other things is fundamentally different how exactly?

You do realize that we're talking about the interest right? That means additional expense you're incurring to borrow the money, but at some point you still have to pay the principal back. So yes, we can simply borrow even more, but that simply adds to the mountain of debt that the country will need to pay back in the future. By reducing the debt and thus reducing the interest, you're actually freeing up real money that you can use towards something else.

We can take things to their logical extremes but that doesn't mean we are currently in some sort of crisis nor does it mean we are close to being in some sort of crisis.

Interesting. Do you take the same approach with global warming / climate change? We're not currently in some sort of crisis there either, but we think it's a major potential negative impact on the future.

So the question is, at what point do we reach the critical tipping point?

I don't have that answer, just like nobody has the answer on when we reach that critical tipping point with the environment (if we haven't already).

The vague "exploding debt" meme is a great way to rally the rubes but with no specifics it simply serves as yet another boogieman to further the agenda of the right.

The exploding debt problem isn't a meme, it's a fact. Not some vague notion that is debatable, it's simple undeniable fact. When you start trying to pin the blame or decide how to fix it is where it gets political.

Don't you think that it is odd that whenever the budget/deficit/debt is discussed the first things on the chopping block are the things that help the poor and middle-class while the things that help the wealthy aren't touched or are expanded?

In much the same way as whenever the climate change issue is discussed the "solutions" always involve more government, more regulation, more money and power to the left.

 

[PokerGuy]

Ever-increasing debt is not a problem at all. Ever-increasing debt to GDP ratio is a problem. So long as in the long term our GDP grows faster than our debt we can take on additional debts until the heat death of the universe.

I agree that's a valid distinction. If the future benefits of current spending are larger than the borrowing cost of that spending, then I'm all in favor of that additional borrowing and spending.

However, as it pertains to this particular discussion, it's a moot point because debt to gdp ratio has also been growing at an alarming rate.

 

[fskimospy]

I guess this is Eskimospy's roundabout way of saying it was bad economic times under Obama. Not surprising considering Obama adopted some of Eskmospy's recommendations early in his presidency.

Yes it was definitely bad economic times for most of Obama's presidency at a minimum. You do remember that catastrophic global economic meltdown, right?

Funny you mention Obama adopting some of my preferred policies though, as the US has consistently outperformed countries that adopted your preferred policies. We should all thank our lucky stars he wasn't stupid enough to listen to people with ideas similar to yours.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree that's a valid distinction. If the future benefits of current spending are larger than the borrowing cost of that spending, then I'm all in favor of that additional borrowing and spending.

However, as it pertains to this particular discussion, it's a moot point because debt to gdp ratio has also been growing at an alarming rate.

I would say that we should look at debt/GDP rates on a longer time scale. I think that it's perfectly appropriate to grow debt/GDP during bad economic times, but that does have to be paired with decreasing it during good ones.

If you look at the trend our debt/GDP increased really sharply from 2008-2010 and then basically stopped growing. As the economy (hopefully!) strengthens we need to start thinking about moving from neutral to shrinking it.

 

[Thebobo]

Come on man Carter was worst them all of them.

Why?

I am going to go out on a limb and suggest you like most folks who just heard that and parroted along without knowing about any of his accomplishments.