Presumably you mean to say that he has steadily reduced the annual increase in the deficit - there has been nothing close to even a brief reduction in the total US deficit.
But even this claim is dubious. The annual amount went from $1294 to $1295 billion in 2010 - 2011 (a tiny increase) and from $438 to $587 in 2015 - 2016 (a 34% increase). The overall trend has been downward since 2009, but it has not been steady.
No…You are misusing the words and I am using them correctly. What you call the total US deficit is what is generally called the total U.S. debt and what you call the annual increase in the deficit is generally called simply the deficit (or the annual increase in the debt).
Fine…For your literalists, I didn’t mean to imply that by “steadily” that it was monotonically decreasing but rather that the overall trend has been significantly downward.
Fair enough.
I suppose Obama could have been more like BUsh and kept expensive things like the Iraq War costs sperate from the Budget so it didn’t look so bad. But he didn’t
Obama’s biggest issue was inexperience and naivette in his first term. If we had the Obama of the past couple of years in 2009 things would be a lot better.
That’s simply not possible. The entire debt up to Obama’s inauguration was 9 trillion. 8 years later it’s 20 trillion. He doubled the debt.
Almost every president has. That’s how exponential growth works.
What Dr Cube said. Do you understand the difference between the deficit and the debt?
The debt doubled during Obama’s time because Bush handed over a huge deficit plus an economy in freefall where there had been a huge drop in demand and the only thing that could prevent a full-blown depression was government stimulus of the economy.
Your view is very distorted. I don’t know what you are looking at, but it’s not what the rest of us are looking at.
The only thing pleasurable about Obama’s 8 years is that they will be over soon, and the worst President in history will be nothing more than a very bad memory.
Best President of my lifetime (and I’m old).
Was it his active communism or his desire to kill Americans in the name of Allah that was worse?
Think about what might have happened and then note that it didn’t. Obama has kept things ticking along when the world economy was on the brink of disaster. He has exercised quiet competence, and I think history will pick up on this sooner or later.
Yeah…I know he is looking at the sort of things that are pretty foreign to you conservatives…You know, things like facts and data. I can understand how in the absence of such bizarre things, you might reach opposite conclusions.
“The rest of us” is a much smaller number than you think it is. You sound absolutely delusional every time you comment on politics or social things.
Au contraire.
It may have cost him political points with his domestic opponents. It did not lose him face in the eyes of the rest of the world. Hell, it even restored just a little bit of the respect people used to feel for the US until 2000.
An even more obvious comparison would be Bill Clinton. What’s Clinton’s “legacy”?
People remember the economy got better. That’s not really a lasting thing, though. How was the economy during Eisenhower’s tenure? Beats the hell outta me.
This should serve.
Iran hasn’t abandoned its nuclear ambitions at all and it was totally naive of Obama to imagine that it would.
At least with this deal we can learn about it and enforce it. That’s a great thing.
Under Trump, I fear the attitude will be “who cares if a few more countries get nuclear weapons?”
President Obama, along with the Democratic leadership in Congress, made a significant mis-calculation over the Affordable Care Act. They thought that passing an attempt at Universal Health Care that was flawed would be acceptable to the people of the United States. They figured that they could go back and fix any flaws with follow-up legislation later. They should have paid attention to the Massachusetts senate election in January of 2010, and what it said about how Americans felt about what was going on in Congress with the ACA. They didn’t, they passed the flawed legislation (the ACA is so flawed, it’s hard to know where to begin discussing those flaws, even if you support the general idea, as I do), and they then ran and hid from it, knowing they couldn’t trumpet it.
The result was that they lost the House. 2010 was a smack-down of epic proportions.
After that, I think President Obama has done a decent job, if not a particularly scintillating one. He was never going to manage anything in the way of domestic reforms because the Grand Old Party decided to refuse to play nicely, hoping that they could parlay the generalized dissatisfaction with the direction of the administration and Democrats in general into a return to power. They won that bet, as it turns out, sort of (they lost in 2014, and they lost some Congressional power in this last election, AND, of course, they only won the White House at the cost of having a non-Republican Republican candidate win it). Against this tide, the President has tried to steer a course that respects the primary goals of his party, without being so far out of step with the Congress that they simply moved to remove him. The fact that he’s been criticized constantly by those on the “left” of the spectrum for not doing enough is proof to me that he’s done that fairly well; the fact that neither he, nor any of his cabinet have been impeached by the House is proof to me that he’s done that with a reasonable degree of decency.
I find it quite notable that our President is seen as being a good President by most of the “Western” world. Sometimes, I think we in this country are seriously out-of-touch still with what is going on outside our borders. How Canadians, the British, Germans, Latvians, etc. view him is a reflection that the horror with which super-conservatives view his actions abroad is mis-placed. A little humility now and again is a good thing, even if it doesn’t fit into the mold of American Exceptionalism™.
Having said that, his foreign policy is often naive, and with the exception of “nailing Bin Laden”, there’s very little positive that it has accomplished. I suppose you could assert that he’s nudged and cajoled the world into some significant treaties, including the climate change pact that we are likely to immediately disavow in January. But many of those are the effort of multiple world leaders, not just the President. The Middle East policies have been found wanting; we have GOT to stop pretending we know better than the residents of those countries what they “need” in the way of a government. The so-called “Arab Spring” has been a disaster in all countries except Tunisia (where it started, and where the populace was actually ready for the change they initiated). Libya still doesn’t have a functioning government, and no real prospect of one. Egypt is now ruled by a government that’s “worse” than the one the people rose up against, and given the tendencies of the Muslim Brotherhood that took power, we have to be thankful that’s true. And Syria is a morass that no one has any answer for, except the Russians, who are pragmatic enough to realize that re-establishing Assad’s control over that country is probably the only thing that will stabilize the region, despite the human costs involved.
And let’s not forget the Philippines, which are finally throwing off the shackles of United States imperialism, and cozying up to the People’s Republic of China, in large part because President Duterte doesn’t think the US can keep China from claiming everything in the South China Sea, so he’d best play nice with them and take what he can get in negotiations.
Which highlights one aspect of US foreign policy that has become very vexing to us, and to our presidents: with the Cold War over, just how much can we dictate what happens around the globe? We cannot just point at Russia/China and say to a country, “If you don’t go along with us, you’ll be eaten up by them.” Americans have been used to wielding enormous military might and foreign power, sufficient to impose our will most of the time. Our expectations got raised by the two wars over Iraq, where we smashed our opposition militarily. But do we really want to be the country that always gets its way by using the military? And what happens when what we want is opposed by Russia or China (Ukraina/Syria, South China Sea)? President Obama has had to face this uncertainty without much of a road map to guide him. Not sure he’s managed to do that very well, but since we’ve not ended up in war again, he certainly didn’t bottle it entirely.
To his credit, he DID accomplish one diplomatic goal: normalizing relations with Cuba. That’s been long over-due. 50 plus years of ineffective embargo hasn’t accomplished diddly. America accomplishes its best work when we economically co-opt you into our system. If you don’t believe me, ask the people of China.
Over all, he’s an average president. I think much of America hoped for much more. adaher nails it above when he points to the raised expectations of minority groups (and, I would argue, “liberals”), which weren’t met, as resulting in increased tension as those groups agitate to obtain what they thought they were promised with the 2008 election. In 50 years, looking back, he’ll be seen as having been average. Which is not a bad thing: after all, average is what you get the most of, by definition. 
I couldn’t find the number in the article, but previously I seem to recall that they had exceeded the 130 metric tons limit by a few tenths of a ton. It was about the equivalent of going, say, 55.2 mph in a 55 mph zone.
Your article also says:
So, just out of curiosity, what is your better idea for stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon?
Hijack? 