The black president had 65% approval rating throughout 2009.
That approval rating would've dropped like a rock if he was the "transformative/radical" President
@mastermind wanted him to be. Again. They were upset he put his feet on his own desk. Yall wanted him to come in there guns blazing when white racists were calling him "boy" under their breath. The subtext his entire Presidency was "know your place"
This was a thing.
This was a thing too
He had 59 US Senators. 256 US House seats.
See abovementioned post. Yea, he should have done more when he had control of Congress. But I understand his viewpoint. This racist country was uncomfortable with a Black president. Senators were turning their back when Obama spoke and/or refusing to acknowledge him. People were saying he wasn't born here, that his wife looked like a man, that he was a radical Muslim, that he wanted to give handouts to Blacks and Mexicans, that he would end America as we knew it. If he upped the ante and took the adversarial approach Progressives wanted him to take, Republicans would have had all the fire they needed to convince the stupid half of America that he was everything they said he was. They did it anyway with Trump...maybe they could've done it four years sooner if he went scorched earth. So he tried to work with them. He thought he could rationalize with them. It didn't work. I won't fault him. Impossible situation
Stimulus shoulda been larger.
We could've done more but, for context, during the 2007-08 Recession, the U.S. spent more of its GDP relative to other countries/regions. In result, we came out of our recession faster than Europe did.
Total U.S. stimulus (2008 and 2009 packages) accounted for roughly 6 percent of the country’s 2008 GDP; Germany spent roughly 3.4 percent of its GDP on stimulus; Britain spent 1.5 percent; and France spent 0.7 percent. China, which suffered from a sudden collapse in exports during the downturn, allocated 4.8 percent of its 2008 GDP to stimulus spending. The share of stimulus devoted to tax cuts versus spending measures also varied across countries. Britain, for example, focused almost all its stimulus on tax cuts; China focused almost entirely on spending measures; The United States fell in between.
Here's his numbers.
Obama's Final Numbers - FactCheck.org
In comparison to other Presidents, Obama brought down healthcare costs. He got more people insured. The stock market boomed under him. Household income and job gains went up under him too but, not as well as with other Democratic Presidents. I acknowledge that but, I attribute this mostly to Obama facing the worst recession in the last 80 years. The only Presidents who should really be compared to him are Hoover (super trash) and FDR (top five) as no one else experienced what he did but, even then the dynamics weren't the same so its still not apt
ACA passed via reconciliation with 51 votes, do Medicaid expansion in 2010 not 2014. Instead of insane ACA exchanges Dems coulda just did Medicaid to 300% FPL in a quick reconciliation bill early in 2009.
Agreed. Not a bad idea.
DOJ prosecutes bankers who caused financial crisis
Was never going to happen. Who would you go after? The home loan originators writing mortgages to people with shytty credit? The banks buying the mortgages and spinning them into derivatives knowing it was dogshyt? The rating agencies grading securities high knowing they were dog shyt? The insurers writing swaps knowing they couldn't pay out the premiums if they all hit? This wasn't a Michael Milken event. The regulations were swiss cheese thanks to Clinton and Bush. Sh*t was systemic. You arrest one person, you have to arrest them all.
What he did do was good enough. He put forth Dodd Frank which forced banks to have higher capital requirements. Forced banks to undergo periodic stress tests. Forced banks to limit proprietary trading (e.g. what started the recession). Lehman failed (before he was sworn in). Warren via Obama started the CFPB which has gone a long way towards protecting consumers and enforcing regulations.
Instead of letting foreclosure wave hit, do a moratorium. Or do as Paulson suggested under Bush, write down mortgages.
The moratorium is not a bad idea in itself. I like it.
But keep in mind we're looking at 2008 with 2020 eyes. Spending $750 billion on a bailout was massive back then. And the government ended up getting close to half of it back from the banks. We only spent roughly $500 billion in the end in 2009. We just spent $2.2 trillion this spring for the Cares Act. Ten percent of total GDP. I don't think they were thinking that big back then. They wanted the quickest cheapest solution. They felt it made more sense to inject liquidity into the markets, have the banks lend out and have the banks repay. Whereas the Cares Act will end up costing us trillions.
Obama had many opportunities and tools at his disposal. He didn't even try to do executive orders until he lost the US House and it was 2014! when he said "I've got a pen and a phone"
Goes back to my first point. He thought he had to play mediator and thought Congress could be rationalized with. When it became clear it wouldn't happen, he tried other approaches. I understand why he did it
archives cause there was threads back then about this topic.
Y'all gonna stop calling everyone the cat dragged in a progressive.
