<p>Well, in your opinion, how has President Obama done in his first year of presidency? Be as open, blunt, and verbose as you want.</p>
<p>I was quite disappointed that he didn’t get Guantanamo Bay closed withing a year. I actually thought that was going to happen.</p>
<p>I think that he’s done well so far. He seems to have acquired enough support for his ideas. It will be interesting to see how well the Keynes method works. I think that Americans in general expect immediate results. We need to realize that the economy’s recovery is a gradual process.</p>
<p>He postponed repealing the ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ policy. Noooooooooooo.</p>
<p>I am very disappointed and regret voting for him. I still think he is a great speaker but his actions prove that he has no clue what he is doing. He is going to lead America’s decline…I see him as a puppet for the fat cat bankers.</p>
<p>Why do you think this^?Please don’t think that I am trying to attack you for your opinion because I am not. I just like to know other people’s thoughts and ideas on certain things.</p>
<p>I thought he’d prove to be more action than talk. But so far, most of what he’s done has been done only halfheartedly. However, he has succeeded in following through with most of what he’s spoken about. The following website does a pretty good job of keeping track of his promises.</p>
<p>[PolitiFact</a> | The Obameter: Tracking Barack Obama’s Campaign Promises](<a href=“http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/]PolitiFact”>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/)</p>
<p>I’m more or less going to be discontent with any president who’s not cowering in a hole out of fear that he’s going to be killed in the next hour. </p>
<p>To clarify, I don’t want every president to get killed, just to be afraid of being killed (and to rightly be afraid of it, not be paranoid). </p>
<p>I guess he’s avoided major ****-ups, so that’s good.</p>
<p>B-. I voted for him. I would vote for him again (especially with McCain-Palin as the alternative <em>shutters</em>).</p>
<p>He has done a great job with the economy, even though he isn’t getting credit and we aren’t seeing the jobs bounce back yet (they’re always the last ones to come back). </p>
<p>He hasn’t done a great job for LGBT rights… although he did extend benefits to same-sex partners for government workers. </p>
<p>He has done a semi-decent job of getting us out of Iraq. </p>
<p>He’s tried to get health reform done, but it’s not his fault that the GOP is doing nothing. </p>
<p>All in all, he has done pretty well all things considered. He has Republicans who won’t do ANYTHING to help out or to even attempt to be bipartisan. The way he screwed up is that he tried to get Republicans to sign on to bills and projects, something that they obviously had NO intention of doing.</p>
<p>I’m disappointed. I was hoping he’d focus more on things like reducing our global military presence and repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Instead he has focused more on economic stimulus, healthcare regulation and financial regulation—none of which I support. </p>
<p>I do, however, like how he’s finally told the DEA to lighten up on medical marijuana. If only Congress would go a little farther…</p>
<p>^ Pretty much that</p>
<p>He has done horrible…and I’m not surprised at all…no offense to those who still are in favor of Obama.</p>
<p>^ Any specifics? It’s not like he’s had a lot of cooperation…</p>
<p>One Big Ass Mistake, America</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bipartisanship is a nice tagline, but fundamental political differences aren’t going to be resolved with a little give and take. For example, if you don’t accept Keynesian economics, no amount of tweaking a stimulus bill will make it acceptable.</p>
<p>^ Yes, but there has to be compromises or else government is at a standstill. Everything, including the economy. The government is now essentially at a standstill because the GOP won’t get their crap together. Dems have given in on almost every conceivable sticking point. The Dems need to grow a spine and demand that the Repubs participate in bills instead of just saying no and the Repubs need to get their heads out of their butts and realize that they’re screwing over the American public by just sitting there as dead weight. </p>
<p>Until then, no president will get anything accomplished- which does not bode well for America.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not buy into the idea that doing anything is better than doing nothing. And, I’m not sure you understand the Republican philosophy.</p>
<p>With fiscal conservatism, the government isn’t supposed to be piling on programs to solve society’s issues. Society can solve its own problems through its own activism and the zeal and compassion of its own citizens. Some Republicans would likely question your foundational assumption that the government should be doing something. To them, an inactive government is their goal.</p>
<p>Tell me, what has happened historically when we leave companies unchecked?</p>
<p>In today’s globalized world, we are seeing the effects of doing nothing to keep corporations in check. The heads of companies don’t care about how the average citizen is doing- they care about how their paycheck is doing. Therefore, we lost jobs rampantly in the unchecked era of Bush due to outsourcing. </p>
<p>So you tell me. What SHOULD be done? Should we let companies do whatever they want, create a monopoly, and then give all the jobs to people in China while America slowly becomes a third world nation? Then those companies will go bust because no one will be able to buy their products, but the heads won’t care because they’ve still banked millions.</p>
<p>So, I ask again, what SHOULD be done and show me how deregulation has helped in the past.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do not think for a moment that under Bush we had unadulterated capitalism. There’s a reason Ludwig von Mises, a founder of Austrian economics, predicted the Great Depression, and Peter Schiff, a current Austrian economist, predicted this most recent recession. </p>
<p>I’m not going to argue here. I just want to point out how this is an innate philosophical difference between the parties, and it should be respected as one. The gridlock shouldn’t be vilified as petty political maneuvering. I’ve heard too many people shout about “The Party of No.”</p>
<p>I respect economic interventionism as a viable political theory and don’t pretend that Democarts are advancing their agendas just to spite Republicans. I’d like to see more that type of respect from both sides.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Never said we did. But he let places run rampant… and that didn’t quite work out that well now did it?</p>
<p>And yes, the Republicans are gridlocking the system. The system as it is is failing. We need some kind of reform, and the Repubs aren’t working towards any kind of reform. No, let’s just sit here and let the economy keep spiraling downward. Great plan!</p>