Jump to content


The Obama Legacy


Recommended Posts

With all the focus on the 2016 race, Obama is essentially a Lame Duck, and his tenure will soon be left up to historians. Here is how I see his legacy 20 years from now, but I know many Obama supporters will beg to differ.

 

1. He's the first black President we've had. Really the first non-white for that matter.

 

2. He presided over the country when gay marriage was declared legal by the Supreme Court.

 

3. He enacted an unpopular Obamacare program under much controversy.

 

4. Despite killing Osama Bin Laden, the threat of terrorism grew immensely under his watch, with the extremist group ISIS growing 4400%.

 

5. He inherited a difficult economic and financial climate due to the "Great Recession," but his policies resulted in the worst economic recovery on record.

 

http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/43/2712-obama-qrecoveryq-objectively-worst-on-record

 

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/02/01/barack_obamas_sad_record_on_economic_growth_101987.html

 

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-economy-fourth-worst-in-u-s-history/

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemoore/2016/01/05/obamas-economic-record-dismal/#3a91179b3f50

 

6. Obama was an extremely gifted orator and used those skills to be the first POTUS to receive more than 50% of the popular vote since Jimmy Carter in 1976

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

The Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) is an Alexandria, Virginia based U.S. nonprofit conservative policy advocacy organization, founded on the principle of securing individual freedoms as embodied in the United States Constitution and state constitutions. It was founded in 1998 by former tobacco industry executives who sought to counter government restrictions on smoking, but is no longer associated with tobacco or smoking.

 

The Center for Individual Freedom has led efforts to defeat efforts to compel "Dark Money" groups like it from being forced to reveal their donors.

 

In the United States elections, 2010 CFIF spent $2.5 million supporting Republican candidates, and in the United States elections, 2012 it spent $1.9 million

 

The Western Journalism Center (also called the Western Center for Journalism)[1] was founded in 1991 by Joseph Farah and James H. Smith. Based in Sacramento, California, the center produces a popular conservative newsletter.

 

Malcolm Stevenson "Steve" Forbes, Jr. (/fɔːrbz/; born July 18, 1947) is an American publishing executive, who was twice a candidate for the nomination of the Republican Party for President. Forbes is the Editor-in-Chief of Forbes, a business magazine. Forbes was a Republican candidate in the 1996[1] and 2000 Presidential primaries.

  • Fire 3
Link to comment

Well you are never going to find a place that shows a study that is completely neutral. So theres that.

 

I love how the libs will just exercise their right to say something like "Consider the source.....it's conservative blah blah blah"

 

Facts are facts regardless of who brings them to light.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

History will be far, FAR kinder to Obama than his present-day detractors would have us believe. He hasn't been a great president, but he's been a very good president. Factor in the unprecedented opposition he's faced, and what he's accomplished almost single-handedly, and he'll be remembered well.

 

History will largely forget about this ridiculously obstructive congress. They're non-entities compared to Obama's legacy. But they'll be footnoted in as some of the worst, most embarrassingly partisan hacks in the last century.

 

And Obama will shine the brighter because of it.

  • Plus1 1
  • Fire 3
Link to comment

Well you are never going to find a place that shows a study that is completely neutral. So theres that.

 

I love how the libs will just exercise their right to say something like "Consider the source.....it's conservative blah blah blah"

 

Facts are facts regardless of who brings them to light.

 

Yes, and what is ironic is that some of the more liberal members on here were claiming that Conservatives complain about liberal media and sources that are used. BUt when it comes to GDP growth, that's a hard statistic to contradict.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

History will be far, FAR kinder to Obama than his present-day detractors would have us believe. He hasn't been a great president, but he's been a very good president. Factor in the unprecedented opposition he's faced, and what he's accomplished almost single-handedly, and he'll be remembered well.

 

History will largely forget about this ridiculously obstructive congress. They're non-entities compared to Obama's legacy. But they'll be footnoted in as some of the worst, most embarrassingly partisan hacks in the last century.

 

And Obama will shine the brighter because of it.

 

Your first statement can be said about most President. Reagan had plenty of Democratic detractors back in the day and is now viewed very favorably. Bush 43 was the worst POTUS ever if you listened to Obama and many of his supporters, and history is now judging him better too. I get that every POTUS will be judged more favorably, and what I noted was not all negative either. One item I did not reference as it's not always able to be measured through data, but he has been one of the most polarizing Presidents according to many polls, and racial tensions have increased under his watch.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

 

 

History will be far, FAR kinder to Obama than his present-day detractors would have us believe. He hasn't been a great president, but he's been a very good president. Factor in the unprecedented opposition he's faced, and what he's accomplished almost single-handedly, and he'll be remembered well.

 

History will largely forget about this ridiculously obstructive congress. They're non-entities compared to Obama's legacy. But they'll be footnoted in as some of the worst, most embarrassingly partisan hacks in the last century.

 

And Obama will shine the brighter because of it.

Your first statement can be said about most President. Reagan had plenty of Democratic detractors back in the day and is now viewed very favorably. Bush 43 was the worst POTUS ever if you listened to Obama and many of his supporters, and history is now judging him better too. I get that every POTUS will be judged more favorably, and what I noted was not all negative either. One item I did not reference as it's not always able to be measured through data, but he has been one of the most polarizing Presidents according to many polls, and racial tensions have increased under his watch.

Bush still might be the worst President we've ever had...

Link to comment

 

 

History will be far, FAR kinder to Obama than his present-day detractors would have us believe. He hasn't been a great president, but he's been a very good president. Factor in the unprecedented opposition he's faced, and what he's accomplished almost single-handedly, and he'll be remembered well.

 

History will largely forget about this ridiculously obstructive congress. They're non-entities compared to Obama's legacy. But they'll be footnoted in as some of the worst, most embarrassingly partisan hacks in the last century.

 

And Obama will shine the brighter because of it.

Your first statement can be said about most President. Reagan had plenty of Democratic detractors back in the day and is now viewed very favorably. Bush 43 was the worst POTUS ever if you listened to Obama and many of his supporters, and history is now judging him better too. I get that every POTUS will be judged more favorably, and what I noted was not all negative either. One item I did not reference as it's not always able to be measured through data, but he has been one of the most polarizing Presidents according to many polls, and racial tensions have increased under his watch.

Bush still might be the worst President we've ever had...

 

 

Well if you believe many of the liberal on here, that would be a true statement. Every POTUS has their pros and cons, and I think Bush will end up somewhere in the middle, ahead of Obama but behind Reagan and Bill Clinton. Obama really has not had many significant accomplishments. His supporters will cite Obamacare, but it's not delivering what it promised, and it's costing a heck of a lot more than Obama stated it would, including major hikes in premiums. They will also cite that he inherited a bad economic situation which is true, but Bush 43 inherited a far worse situation in his first year in office, with a recession taking hold in his first quarter in office, the Enron scandal, and 9/11. The reality of the economic situation since the financial downturn is that it's the worst economic recovery in modern times. They will point to the killing of Bin Laden, but that would not have been possible without EIT and the terror policies implemented by Bush which offered up the intelligence to catch Bin Laden. Moreover, terrorism is a greater threat today than when Obama took office in January, 2009.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

I love how the libs will just exercise their right to say something like "Consider the source.....it's conservative blah blah blah"

 

 

Immediately referring to anyone that calls out blatantly and demonstrably biased sources as "the libs" isn't helpful.

 

 

Obama has done very well in office, and will continue to do well afterwards imo. I couldn't care less about conservative vs. liberal or republican vs. democrat because depending on my environment I'm always accused of being one or the other. But Obama has presided over some big, important steps forward from our country while facing the most governmental opposition probably ever.

 

It's been far from a resounding success and it hasn't been all sunshine and roses, but I don't see a lot of causality to go along with the correlation of most of the claims in here. Obama the most divisive? Is he as a person that divisive, or does he happen to be the President in a divisive time? Terrorism is a greater threat today, absolutely. Does that have to do with Obama? Maybe. Or maybe it would have become much greater of a threat than it even has under a different president.

 

Truth is, you have to go back to 1999 to find a different democratic president besides Obama, and that's a pretty important reminder, because the Fox News effect, social media, the 24 hour media cycle...these things didn't exist for Clinton, and they only kind of existed for Bush (not in the same way). The left leaning news has always resorted to mostly making fun of the right, whereas the right leaning news shouts as loud and frequently as possible about how terrible things are all the time.

Link to comment

 

I love how the libs will just exercise their right to say something like "Consider the source.....it's conservative blah blah blah"

 

 

Immediately referring to anyone that calls out blatantly and demonstrably biased sources as "the libs" isn't helpful.

 

 

Obama has done very well in office, and will continue to do well afterwards imo. I couldn't care less about conservative vs. liberal or republican vs. democrat because depending on my environment I'm always accused of being one or the other. But Obama has presided over some big, important steps forward from our country while facing the most governmental opposition probably ever.

 

It's been far from a resounding success and it hasn't been all sunshine and roses, but I don't see a lot of causality to go along with the correlation of most of the claims in here. Obama the most divisive? Is he as a person that divisive, or does he happen to be the President in a divisive time? Terrorism is a greater threat today, absolutely. Does that have to do with Obama? Maybe. Or maybe it would have become much greater of a threat than it even has under a different president.

 

 

Can you explain what he has these important steps are and what his role was in making that possible?

 

As for causality, that can be attributed to just about any key events in any POTUS. Was Bush responsible for going into Iraq, or was it the fault of those who gathered the wrong intelligence about WMDs? Does he deserve any blame for the 2008 financial meltdown, or was this going to happen no matter what and his policies prevented it from being worse than it was?

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

As for causality, that can be attributed to just about any key events in any POTUS. Was Bush responsible for going into Iraq, or was it the fault of those who gathered the wrong intelligence about WMDs? Does he deserve any blame for the 2008 financial meltdown, or was this going to happen no matter what and his policies prevented it from being worse than it was?

 

 

I don't know, and neither do you, and neither does anyone who isn't on the inside. To say with any real certainty that Presidents X or Y were good or bad is just unfounded audacity. For one thing, they're just one cog in a machine with countless others, and for another, it only takes having a candid one on one conversation with a single person from Washington to realize that all of the headlines and talking points we waste our time being interested in as far as politics are a total facade.

Link to comment

Obama was what we needed after the disaster Bush created. He should go down favorably in history. Plenty of blind individuals will hate him simply because of his party affiliation and their own xenophobia but he has done well to bring us back from where we were in 08 and give hope for the future.

  • Plus1 1
  • Fire 2
Link to comment

Bush presidency - gets us into a war we didn't belong in, destabilized the middle East, and passed NCLB which was the worst thing for our educational system we've ever seen. That very well may be just scratching the surface.

 

I'd consider that failure.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

He's done a helluva job considering he's had to deal with a extremely uncooperative Republican congress his entire time in office. He staved off what was an almost certain economic depression (thanks Bush) and rebounded our economy as well as stimulated job growth among other things.

 

Bush nearly ran America into the ground. Obama has done a whale of a job making sure that didn't happen despite an uncooperative congress and has served the United States well despite Republican supporters continually saying just the opposite. No surprise there though.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

History will be far, FAR kinder to Obama than his present-day detractors would have us believe. He hasn't been a great president, but he's been a very good president. Factor in the unprecedented opposition he's faced, and what he's accomplished almost single-handedly, and he'll be remembered well.

 

History will largely forget about this ridiculously obstructive congress. They're non-entities compared to Obama's legacy. But they'll be footnoted in as some of the worst, most embarrassingly partisan hacks in the last century.

 

And Obama will shine the brighter because of it.

Can you explain, what is the difference of Obama being good, VERY GOOD, or great as POTUS in the bolded reference? Inquiring minds want to know, thanks

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...