Fair enough and in some cases I would agree with but with the way global economies are intertwined these days something happening in the middle east could potentially have a large impact on the US and our issues.
I do agree we have issues here we need to fix as well.
Seems like we pretty much agree on our global policy. If I were an 8, you'd be a 6 on the "non-intervention" policy.
Right now, I think the US is sitting at a 2 to 1 on the "non-intervention policy."
To better flesh out what I meant with the UN stuff, I think the UN should have stepped in with the Somalian genocide and asked for various help from around the world, to give an example.
Probably the same holds true for the Kurdish situation in Iraq in the 80s but, iirc, the UN was not as mature as it is, now, making such a decent call to arms and aid an impossibility. However, here's the problem: we pretty much setup the problem in Iraq, to begin with. It was the US's fault (again, pretty much) that the events against the Kurdish took place in Iraq because we were meddling with the machinations of other countries like we should not have.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Jul 29th, 2014 at 02:02 PM
I think most of the time when someone calls a president "bad" or "good" they're not looking at whether the president is competent or incompetent but whether the president was "bad" or "good" for them and their demographic/party/country/interests.
President Regan is a great example of a decisive president who is still today reviled by significant segments of the population and idolized by others. While I'd argue that Regan made the USA a stronger country and helped hasten the end of the Soviet Union with his aggressive policies, he failed to adequately address racial and other social issues and those same aggressive policies under different circumstances could have led to a catastrophic war with the USSR.
As for Obama, depends on who you ask. If you ask me, I think he's an adequate president who's got his hands tied at home and thus appears ineffuctual. In terms of foreign policy, he's probably one of the worst presidents we've ever had, but I put that down on him trying to rehabilitate America's global image as a global policeman while also trying to keep policing the world. What's happened the last few years is a series of half-hearted interventions around the world that have caused almost no American casualties but have failed to change anything significant. The only real product of these interventions and 'red lines' is to dilute the credibility of American power. America has now become the sheriff with the really big gun that he never draws. In sum: America is still not well liked around most of the world, but now America also isn't respected as much as it used to be.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
I think by the time the true impact of Obama's presidency can be determined most people won't really care and will be debating about the current impact of whatever new president is in office at the time.
If nothing else he maybe one of the more scrutinized presidents of modern times and some of that has possibly held him back from making the choices he really wants to make.
Reagan is an example of a president that is disproportionately praised from his objective performance (both based on his campaign promises and his actual performance). One of the most irritating things about Americans is how much they praise Reagan. Even many Dems praise Reagan's presidency but it was littered with mistakes, lies, and broken promises just like most presidencies.
Yup. My brother-in-law, who is an economist, gets frustrated with stuff on the TV when major news outlets (like CNN, Fox News, etc.) talk about the immediate and all-encompassing impacts of economic and tax policies of a president. I have heard and read this several times from other economists: it takes a bit (2-4 years) for a president's policies to have a substantial impact on the economy. To Obama's credit, some of his policies in his first term are actually coming to fruition in his second term and the economy is improving, partially, due to his and congress' actions.
I am of the opinion that the repair to the economy cannot be attributed very much to the Obama administration. I think he has had very little positive impact on economic recovery in the US. In some ways, he has actually worked against the recovery. In others, he has benefited it. I think Romney would have been a better choice for 2008 and 2012 for economic recovery. Again, we had to choose between a turd sandwich and a douchebag in both elections (imo).
Perhaps closer to 2008 but not as bad as 1929. In fact, most historians agree that we were righted by 1843. Their crash occurred around 1837. Actually, in some ways, the 2008 recession is worse than the one from 1837 because some economists (Maybe not...maybe it is just the people that think that...) think we are still recovering and still in a recession.
You know what one of the major contributing factors to that crash was? Shitty loans. You'd think America would have learned its lesson from history about giving out sub-prime loans.
Of course, there were other factors that contributed to the recession/depression of 1837 (such as the Specie Circular which pretty much forced people to have to use hard currency (Gold and Silver) in the West).
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Jul 29th, 2014 at 06:47 PM
There was, but Jackson killed it. He regarded doing so as his most important accomplishment.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 29th, 2014 04:23 AM
You'd think America would have learned its lesson from history about giving out sub-prime loans.
