What Grade Do you Give Mr Obama for His First 100 Days?

[Robor]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: sportage
I give Obama nothing cause this is totally retarted to grade on what???
A scale?
Looks?
The first lady?
The new dog?

I didnt notice him walking on water yet... either.
Give the guy a break... and a chance.


However...
I will give this thread an "F"

This thread is just a snap shot to see what the forum thinks about Mr Obama's performance so far.

Well I think we know there are 3 types of people on this forum, those that suck Obama's dick and believe in every word he reads from the teleprompter, Those that hate Obama and think he's a piece of shit and those the lurk and don't post at all.

Then there's you who hate Obama because he wont let you suck his dick.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: JD50

Hey, loser, you have a great point, Bush didn't spend even a third of what Obama has spent in his first 100 days. Good for Bush.

Just because Obama has done a lot of stuff, doesn't mean that it's good and that people agree with it. Looks like you're in favor of even more spending, that's idiotic.

In the last 120 days of the Bush Administration the United States incurred $833,484,299,633.84 of debt (that's $883.5 billion for you, our math-challenged friend and Bush Apologist ).

Since January 21st the United States has incurred $583,022,647,990.76 (or $583 billion) of debt. It could, of course, be argued that $350 billion of that amount was accrued from the $700 Billion Bush Wall Street Bail-Out / Hank Paulson Golden Bucket of Tax Payer Cash but that would most likely cause your little pointed head to explode as analytical reasoning does note compute with your bias and *truthiness*.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: eskimospy

The whole $200,000 per job thing is pretty dishonest because it implies that we get nothing else for the money we spend. If we spend $20 million to build a school and only get 100 jobs out of it, that's $200,000 per job... but we also have a school.

One of the cornerstone of his stimulus bill is job creation. He brags about 3.5 million jobs it will create\save. Those are his words, not mine. When you spend 800 billion to create 3.5 million jobs it will be used against you.

A school on a local level isnt a job creator but a tool used to teach children. I'd consider what it costs per student it spits out over how many teachers and construction workers were\are employed there.

The school was just an example. Replace it with just about anything else. A bridge.

Job creation was a cornerstone of his stimulus bill, but he also specifically, loudly, and repeatedly talked about the other things that were being invested in along with the jobs, such as schools, roads, bridges, an updated power grid, etc... etc. In fact, the name of the bill is the 'recovery and reinvestment act'.

I'm sure the number will be used against him, I'm just saying it's not being used in an honest way.

Here's an honest way to look at the "jobs" he'll create: what happens when the money dries up? Will he say he will lose 3.5 million jobs?

That's the key to this "stimulus" he's MAKING WORK NOT JOBS, when the money is gone so will the "jobs."
The only way to keep the "jobs" in obama's "stimulus" is to keep supplying the money. Government gets the money from tax payers, so government is pulling it out of the private economy and letting governmental spend it to get 1/2 the product, 1/2 as good quality wise, and at 2 times the cost.

We'll have some "great" extremely expensive government buildings and a lot of recently unemployed people; ohh yeah and $787B of debt.

Seriously answer this question: WHAT HAPPENS TO ALL THE "JOBS" WHEN THE MONEY IS SPENT?

 

[daniel49]

Economy D
Popularity C (compared to other pres at 100 days)
Foreign policy D
Teleprompters B-

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Here's an honest way to look at the "jobs" he'll create: what happens when the money dries up? Will he say he will lose 3.5 million jobs?

That's the key to this "stimulus" he's MAKING WORK NOT JOBS, when the money is gone so will the "jobs."
The only way to keep the "jobs" in obama's "stimulus" is to keep supplying the money. Government gets the money from tax payers, so government is pulling it out of the private economy and letting governmental spend it to get 1/2 the product, 1/2 as good quality wise, and at 2 times the cost.

We'll have some "great" extremely expensive government buildings and a lot of recently unemployed people; ohh yeah and $787B of debt.

Seriously answer this question: WHAT HAPPENS TO ALL THE "JOBS" WHEN THE MONEY IS SPENT?

No, what he's doing is having the government create aggregate demand in order to make up for the failure of the private sector to create demand. It's Keynesian economics and all the answers to your questions are easily answered if you just spend a few minutes reading up on it. It has nothing to do with some sort of permanent government employment as you appear to think from your post.

I would go through the trouble of typing out an explanation myself, but that link is all you are going to get out of me when you write insane, foaming, poorly informed rants.

 

[JACKDRUID]

nm

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Here's an honest way to look at the "jobs" he'll create: what happens when the money dries up? Will he say he will lose 3.5 million jobs?

That's the key to this "stimulus" he's MAKING WORK NOT JOBS, when the money is gone so will the "jobs."
The only way to keep the "jobs" in obama's "stimulus" is to keep supplying the money. Government gets the money from tax payers, so government is pulling it out of the private economy and letting governmental spend it to get 1/2 the product, 1/2 as good quality wise, and at 2 times the cost.

We'll have some "great" extremely expensive government buildings and a lot of recently unemployed people; ohh yeah and $787B of debt.

Seriously answer this question: WHAT HAPPENS TO ALL THE "JOBS" WHEN THE MONEY IS SPENT?

No, what he's doing is having the government create aggregate demand in order to make up for the failure of the private sector to create demand. It's Keynesian economics and all the answers to your questions are easily answered if you just spend a few minutes reading up on it. It has nothing to do with some sort of permanent government employment as you appear to think from your post.

I would go through the trouble of typing out an explanation myself, but that link is all you are going to get out of me when you write insane, foaming, poorly informed rants.

One of the keys to Keynesian economics is that you SAVE money when times are good. However, obama's lowest defict will be ca. $100B+ more than bushes highest. So he has no plan to EVER pay the money back--he's a tax and spender that knowingly spends more than he taxes or could possibly ever tax. So to say that obama is following keynesian economics is just plan bullshit. His deficits are insane; you'll realize this when America goes bankrupt.

The reason why I tried to get you to answer the jobs question is key to understanding the true reason for the "stimulus" and why the democrats and obama were mad that only 2 repubs signed on:
1. the "stimulus" won't stimulate a damn thing other than our nation's debt
2. the "stimulus" was never about jobs even though that is how obama sold it--even if he "created or saved" 3.5 million jobs, they will go poof when the money dries up (ironically right about the time that obama's tax increases start--so wait to see stimulus 2 and as with all sequels it will cost even more and be worse than the first)
3. the "stimulus" was all about the democrat's wet dreams for the last 40+ years and growing government
4. obama and the dems were upset that only 2 repubs signed it because they own it and they know it

But as I stated before, reguardless of the "stimulus'" affect (most likely negative since it just increased the size of government and need for future tax increases), the economy will pull out of the recession (much slower than without government's meadling), and the media will give all the credit to obama and the "stimulus"; sadly, most of the American people will believe it. If you keep repeating the lie, eventually enough people believe it.

 

[Cuda1447]

C for quality of moves made. A for effort.

 

[Jack Flash]

B, leaning towards a B+

 

[FlashG]

D, giving him room to grow further downward

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: FlashG
D, giving him room to grow further downward

rofl....must be a disgruntled Republican...hahahaaa

 

[KK]

A+ on fucking up the country.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: KK
A+ on fucking up the country.

Geez, by that standard what do give Bush?

 

[teclis1023]

B+

 

[Andrew1990]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: KK
A+ on fucking up the country.

Geez, by that standard what do give Bush?

Extra Credit of course, or a special lesson from the teacher!

 

[Pliablemoose]

Economy-F
Social issues-B+
Attitude-D-
Participation A

(Fiscally conservative, socially liberal independent, manwhore)

 

[SilentZero]

A-

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: JD50

Hey, loser, you have a great point, Bush didn't spend even a third of what Obama has spent in his first 100 days. Good for Bush.

Just because Obama has done a lot of stuff, doesn't mean that it's good and that people agree with it. Looks like you're in favor of even more spending, that's idiotic.

In the last 120 days of the Bush Administration the United States incurred $833,484,299,633.84 of debt (that's $883.5 billion for you, our math-challenged friend and Bush Apologist ).

Since January 21st the United States has incurred $583,022,647,990.76 (or $583 billion) of debt. It could, of course, be argued that $350 billion of that amount was accrued from the $700 Billion Bush Wall Street Bail-Out / Hank Paulson Golden Bucket of Tax Payer Cash but that would most likely cause your little pointed head to explode as analytical reasoning does note compute with your bias and *truthiness*.

Best post ever

my vote A-

 

[Siddhartha]

If asked this question to a couple of guys yesterday. John said he would give Mr Obama an A if he can keep the country out of a 1929 type depression.

I have to agree with him.

 

[monovillage]

I didn't vote for President Obama. I'll give him a D, because he could have been worse.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
If asked this question to a couple of guys yesterday. John said he would give Mr Obama an A if he can keep the country out of a 1929 type depression.

I have to agree with him.

so he gets an A for something happening completely out of his control?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
If asked this question to a couple of guys yesterday. John said he would give Mr Obama an A if he can keep the country out of a 1929 type depression.

I have to agree with him.

so he gets an A for something happening completely out of his control?

His spending stimulus was completely out his control?

 

[retrospooty]

At this point after 200 days - I give

Economy - B
Social issues - A
Attitude - A
Participation - A
Handling dimwitted Congress - D
Promised transparency - D


But... sending die hard reps into a new hissy fit with every new speech or piece of legislation... Priceless

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A on lack of transparency.
A on continuation of holding prisoners indefinitely regardless of guilt.
A on following Bush policies on government wiretaps.
A on pushing healthcare legislation without first determining what should be legislated.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
A on lack of transparency.
A on continuation of holding prisoners indefinitely regardless of guilt.
A on following Bush policies on government wiretaps.
A on pushing healthcare legislation without first determining what should be legislated.

<Burns> Excellent <Burns off>