After three years on the job, President Obama gets a C+ grade with lots of room for improvement. There are many conservatives that claim that the President deserves nothing better than a failing grade. I believe that the President used much of his political capital getting the new Affordable Healthcare bill passed over his first two years. The Congressional elections in 2010 made getting anything passed with bipartisan support nearly impossible. Here are several components that went into the President’s grade:
Positive
Foreign policy was excellent. The decision to kill/capture Osama Bin Laden was courageous and successful. The decision to surge in Afghanistan was controversial, but he followed the advice of his military commanders. He is hoping for an outcome like Iraq - securing the country while training the Army and Police. In Iraq, the President kept his campaign promise and American forces exited by the end of 2011. Now the Iraqi people must “stand up” and do the right things. America gave them the training to have the tools to succeed - will they have the will?
President Obama campaigned on reining in the runaway healthcare costs. After bipartisan attempts, he pushed through the Affordable Healthcare Act in 2010. It was modeled after Governor Romney’s plan in Massachusetts. There are areas of the law that will be refined, but the intended consequences of lower costs and more people with insurance are happening.
The President initiated policies, in concert with the Federal Reserve, that slowed the decline and now has led to slow growth in the economy. After the economy hit the skids in 2007-08, the Bush Administration took many actions that angered Conservatives. The Obama Administration carried through on these plans and added a bailout of the auto industry. Some of these policies have been successful and some have not. Doing nothing would have been a worse option.
Negative
The economy has been slow to grow. Usually, at this stage of recovery and with this much fiscal and monetary stimulus, the economy should be accelerating more. The unemployment rate has stayed particularly high. The President used a lot of political capital to get healthcare reform passed and probably neglected the economy.
When President Obama campaigned he was praised as a great communicator. The economic crisis in confidence has been the worst since The Great Depression. During the Depression, President Roosevelt had his “fireside chats” to explain fixes to the economy and to allay the fear of the people. President Obama has chosen not to systematically talk to the American people – this has been a mistake.
Bottom Line
I am sure that my assessment will be judged too harsh or too easy by many. The President has set a fine example as a good family man in an age when many politicians fall short. The election in November and history will be the final arbiters of how successful the Obama Presidency has been. What grade would you give this President?
For those who would rather the government not get involved or don't feel the government is reliable, do you feel the same way about medicare and medicaid?
The government is setting guidelines for insurance companies - like expanded coverage for preventive care and screenings; new options for people with pre-existing conditions; greater consumer protections against insurance cancellations; end to lifetime limits on health insurance coverage; higher annual limits on health insurance coverage; expanded coverage for adult children up to age 26. This is not a new medicare/medicaid government program (although I hear from seniors that these are not plans that they would give up or fight to end in order to save the tax payer $). There is a lot in this initial piece of legislation, find out the facts so that you can obtain the best health care coverage for less.
Read up on what the new Health Care law covers - AARP.org has some well organized Fact Sheets and is a place to start. Let us know exactly what will help you vs. cost you. So far, my family has found more coverage for less $. We have also been told to revisit our plan and shop around yearly through 2014.
One more thing. What part of having more people pay into insurance companies making coverage less costly for all don't you understand? What part of paying into insurance companies constitutes a government takeover of health insurance? What part opf the insurance companies screwing us all for years are you defending?
As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book “The End of Prosperity” (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans’ pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.
cont: By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms. But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”
Unlike the current President, Bush was able to see when something was not working and had the courage to say he was wrong and change it
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
Why are they not hiring? Of those who said they were not hiring, 48% cited their concern about possible rising healthcare costs (ObamaCare). Another 46% said that they were worried about new government regulations. Who can blame them? The economy, of course, is also a huge factor. And here’s one more interesting stat: 71% of small businesses surveyed said that revenues from sales wouldn’t justify hiring additional workers. The cost of employing people, thanks to government regulations, is not worth it to an employer, even if they are successful at generating revenue.
I will remind you that this president had full control of Congress for the first 2 years of his Presidency. FULL CONTROL. And yet here we are.
I say again, this president(s) (party)had full control of congress for 2 years. Anything he or they wanted could have been passed. It has been almost 3 years since a budget has been passed. And again I say. Here we are.
I agree that the process must be changed. The easiest and immediately effective change would be term limits. If our congress was held to one, 6 year term, lobbying and all the nonsense that goes along with re-election would come to a grinding halt. Lifers on both sides of the isle have spent more time on re-election than anything else. And the amount of no votes on bills is appalling. But I still stand by my words. This president came in with many, many promises and his party ruled court for 2 years. He has no one to blame but himself and his fellow Dems for the mess we are in. His words almost 3 years ago were " If I cannot fix the economy then I will be a one term President. Well it ain't fixed but he has his spin doctors out blaming everyone and everything but himself. At least Bush realized the mistakes he made, took ownership and changed what needed changing.
It's turning the corner to the point of the only way that you're going to be able to get 'cheaper' insurance is to get on the government's roles. Of course, I'm convinced that's the plan anyway. Easiest way to get single-payer insurance is to make the private plans so bad that there's really no choice.
I hope that you are able to find someone knowledgeable about the different health plans out there so that you can take advantage of the lower rates and new services that are now covered. It has been a positive relief to our family to finally end the ballooning 20-30% yearly premium increases and get our yearly wellness exams covered. My best to you and your family in finding a plan that is helpful to you.
And if you want to know were Gov controlled heath care will take us, ask any soldier that has been through the VA system. http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/23/new-cbo-report-proves-we-cannot-afford-obamacare/ http://www.cbo.gov/publication/22000
medicare and medicaid take up the largest part of our nations budget. All these programs cost billions of dollars. Instead we need a mandatory individual health savings and retirement savings. If all the monies I had put into Social Security was put into a individual retirement account, I would get 5,000 amount instead of 1200. We cannot keep raising taxes to pay for them. Something has to be cut and cut deeply. In theory BOA , GM and others have to stand up to standards or the customers go elsewhere. But the Feds just step in to bail them out so there is no incentive for them to perform well. But if federal programs fail, we keep funding them to buy votes.
It's not a matter of defending the rich. It's defending liberty and common sense. The rich create the jobs, they supply the jobs. I've never gotten a job from a poor person. The rich already pay more than others - anything else you hear from the left is a lie, don't fall for it. So how much is enough? Should they be paying twice the rate of everybody else, on average? Would that make you happy? Or maybe three times the rate? At what point would you be satisfied that the rich are paying their 'fair share?' If more people paid into insurance and could compete across state lines and the insurance companies could dictate policies based on needs and not on what the government dictates needs to be covered. Where it constitutes a takeover of insurance companies is when the system is set up to fail so that more and more people wind up on the government teat. Insurance companies really haven't had a lot of opportunity to lower our rates with the government regulations they keep getting piled up on them.
The fact is that 49% of the working population pay no taxes at all, 0. Nada. That leaves 51% paying 100% of the taxes. And the top 1% pays 40% of that. And that does not include the massive charitable donations the 1% make. So what is the Presidents definition of "Fair"?? As long as the well off feel they are being punished for being successful. they will continue to hold on to their money. And that means no new start ups. No new jobs. No new raises. So just how fair is fair? How much is enough. How rich is to0 rich? If I am only making 250,000 and have a family of 4 and live in NY city I am worst off the then a similar family in Greenville SC bringing home 100,000 a year. Stop punishing people for being innovated and successful. Those are the people that create new jobs. Not the federal government.
Since when was it the Christian way to demand that the poor pay up while those with massive excess get a pity party? I think that those with many resources have the funds to stick up for themselves. If you are feeling the pinch, talk about that, but no need to recite the 'talking points'. I also find it a bit hypocritical that those who are crying the loudest now of how "deficits are insanity", have been saying from the 1980s through the early 2000s, to quote Dick Cheney, "Deficits don't matter". After 2 wars, tax cuts, and an economy that collapsed in 2008 it is about time that everyone is in agreement on at least this issue. Now maybe we can all move forward, together, to find solutions that will help all Americans, especially those in need.
If the 53% who do pay all the tax, were taxed at 100%, it still wouldnt be enough to eliminate the deficit for even one year. You can try to blame on it on who ever you want, the numbers dont lie.
At any point it would actually be OK to teach abstinence or personal responsibility rather than just handing out prophylactics with our money to whoever wants it and saying "Have Fun!!!!" Let's hold people accountable. Have a kid? Be prepared to take care of it. Can't? Then you WILL fund that child for the first 18 years of his life - regardless of whether he winds up in foster care. And no, abortion is not an option for being stupid. We'll save that little procedure for rape and health issues. We make it too easy to make mistakes. Maybe if we didn't, the problems would be greatly reduced in number. Maybe. And you're right about the other - we can't tax the tax base enough to carry this current level of spending. But the liberals are right, it's definitely an income problem, not a spending problem. God help me....