[poet]

Right...

0.) Cut taxes for 95% of America (EDIT: not referring to the most recent tax legislation... these are tax cuts Obama passed a while ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html. They truly are the tax cuts no one has heard of....).

1.) Reserved the policy of forbidding the media to photograph fallen soldiers and reversed Bush's torture policy.

2.) Signed legislation that provided health insurance to 4 million uninsured children.

3.) Prevented insurance companies from denying claims due to pre-existing conditions.

4.) Significantly expanded Pell grants.

5.) Expanded hate crime legislation to include sexual orientation and extended benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees.

6.) Created the largest and most significant nonproliferation treaty with Russia in our lifetime.

7.) Credit card reform to stop abusive practices.

8.) Ended don't ask, don't tell.

Here's a fairly complete list with references: http://obamaachievements.org/list.

Note: I'm not pleased with the mapping between Obama's rhetoric and reality either. But you too are guilty of unsubstantiated rhetoric.

[ck2]

Every single item you list has significant "catches" that basically void the entire reality of itself, they are all meaningless - off the top of my head:

0) simply renewed a republican tax plan that was proven not to work since they helped put us into recession and caved on the idea of people making over $250k actually paying proportional taxes to help pay back their incredible gains

1) allows people to still be imprisoned forever without being charged and/or in solitary confinement with inhumane conditions - refuses to prosecute Valarie Plame leaks that got informants killed but now wants to go after non-citizens that republish leaks that only make his administration look bad

2) allowed insurance companies to drop children entirely before policy applied

3) allowed insurance companies to radically raise rates to compensate for imaginary loss of future profits - made the IRS an (even more powerful) enforcement agency that everyone will literally have to fear for their lives

4) allowed student loans to be "recovered" far more aggressively

5) insists on "partnerships" being "good enough" refuses to recognize gay marriage, setting a national tone that it's okay to discriminate like that

6) this won't be likely be signed because it's too late and democratic led congress is over - he let it drag out since April

7) allowed credit card companies to max out rates months before policy went into effect

8) asked courts to keep DADT on the books, setting national tone, allowed massive caveats in replacing DADT, 60 day nonsense waiting period from a dead-senator - military dishonorably discharged have to apply all over again and get all records reviewed without compensation

I like to consider myself very progressive but I cannot wait for Obama to be gone in 2012 so we can endure the dumbfounding insanity of 16 more years of far right rule, so FINALLY, FINALLY in 2038 when all these ancient a-holes finally die off and the young progressives will take over for a more enlightened country.

I just hope I live long enough to see it.

[poet]

0.) Dude, wrong tax cut: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html. You'll laugh when you read the article, you're way off base here.

1.) Agreed.

2.) Agreed.

3.) Agreed.

4.) Strongly agreed.

5.) Disagree. Marriage is not a governmental institution and needs to be removed from our legislation and legal code in favor of civil unions.

6.) Strongly disagree. Sorry, how did he "let" that happen? Obama doesn't control Congress. He got the hard work done by, I don't know, negotiating with the Russia and writing the damn thing?!

7.) Agreed.

8.) I recognize what you're saying here, but to not support what Obama has done on DADT based on this feels like a stretch.

I'm not saying Obama has accomplished everything (my comment actually says the opposite and expresses displeasure in some parts of the job he has done). But do note that I was responding to someone who thought Obama was 100% rhetoric and no backbone, which empirically is not true. Also, I hope you realize that young people have thought the nation would be taken over by "young progressives for a more enlightened country" since the begininning of this nation. You do realize the people in power now grew up in the 60s, perhaps one of the most left-leaning decades this nation has seen?

[anamax]

> simply renewed a republican tax plan that was proven not to work since they helped put us into recession

Everyone else thinks that the recession was due to the collapse of housing prices and/or the credit markets.

> and caved on the idea of people making over $250k actually paying proportional taxes to help pay back their incredible gains

$250k is a pair of married mid-level individual contributors. It's also an engineering manager and a school-teacher.

BTW - what definition of "proportional" are we using? Both before and after, the marginal tax rates are progressive. (No, SSI doesn't count - it's a forced savings plan with better return for folks who contribute less.)

And, if you look at the difference between the Clinton tax rates and the Bush tax rates, you find that the Bush rates are more progressive.

Yes, compare someone who makes $300k with someone who makes $30k. You'll find that the $300k person got less than 10x the benefit from the Bush tax rate cuts that the person who made $30k.

You can play with numbers at http://www.giveitbackforjobs.org/

Curiously enough, that site's founders think that the tax rate cuts are a bad idea but suggests sending the savings to charity, which reduces tax liability, instead of sending it to govt....

[defen]

Regarding 8 - Don't Ask Don't Tell was never "on the books" as a law - it was a policy implemented by Clinton and continued by Bush and Obama as a de facto way to allow homosexuals to serve in the military. The relevant law (which forbids homosexuals from serving in the military) is http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

Can you point me to any information regarding Obama's stance on the issue? I hadn't been following it until recently so I'd be curious to see what he's said on the matter.

[eof]

Know what's not on your list?

1) Increased government accountability 2) Any reduction in the military industrial complex 3) A completely ironic nobel peace prize.

[poet]

Of all the things to pick, you picked accountability and the reduction of the MIC as points of criticism?! I wonder what you think about Obama's Secretary of Defense, who is one of the most fiscally conservative SoDs in recent history, pushing for reductions in spending across the board [1]. Hell, he nuked F-22 production which is like THE symbol of the MIC in the US. I'm also curious what you think about Obama ordering that all DoD interrogations be filmed [2], the voluntary (and unprecedented) disclosure of vistor records to the White House [3], the extensive anti-lobiest legislation created by Obama [4,5,6], and the creaton of a national Declassification Center to speed up the release of documents to the public [7].

Also, how is the Nobel Obama's fault? He knew he didn't deserve it (hint: read between the lines of his acceptance speech). The idiotic committee put him in that situation and I don't think you'll hear anyone arguing it was actually deserved.

Do you really expect people to engage in a conversation with you when you demonstrate such a clear lack of preparation and knowledge of the issues in question? It's a drain for all those involved. Dijkstra had something to say about this....

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates#Fiscal_restraint

[2] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870431490457525...

[3] http://www.whitehouse.gov/VoluntaryDisclosure

[4] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memo...

[5] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/427...

[6] http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/07/27/ClosingLobbyistL...

[7] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/420...

[eof]

Military Construction was 19% more in 2010 than 2009 at $24 billion [1]. Sure he nuked the F-22.. but we are still spending in 2011 $11.4B on F-35s, $5.4B on Virginia class submarine(+28%), and $3B on the Arleigh Burke class destroyer(+19%)[2]. You cannot pretend Obama isn't playing super nice with the Military-Industrial complex.

Naming a dozen good to decent things Obama has done, with or without citations, doesn't come close to dimming the fact that Obama ran on a platform of huge sweeping change toward a more rational, peaceful world--and has in fact delivered on some token items but not even touched the core issues of imperliasism, state distributed misinformation, and a corporate-government marriage (it remains to be seen if Obama's anti-lobbying bill will be followed/enforced/effective).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S...

[poet]

Awful, awful manipulation of statistics. I'm not even sure what subcategory of military spending Military Construction represents. How about we just consider all defense related expenditures instead of just the slice that fits your preconceived notions? Take a nice, hard look at this graph: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/PerCapita.... None how every single measure that is not interest being paid on past debt goes WAY DOWN when Obama becomes President. You're trying to claim that Obama is playing "super nice with the MIC" when the fact is he has instituted massive reductions compared to the last decade.

Your partisanism and preconceived notations are blinding you in this case, and I will say, it makes a conversation with you quite unenjoyable.

[eof]

>every single measure that is not interest being paid on past debt goes WAY DOWN when Obama becomes President.

No it does not! It goes up when Obama becomes president. It isn't 2014 yet

[fluidcruft]

Oh. Do you happen to mean the imaginary budget projections for 2012-2014 go down? Because when I look in the 2008-2010 range all the curves are heading up pretty sharply.

[AaronI]

Gates, as SecDef, has been pushing for many of those changes since he took office in 2006. There's quite a bit to give Obama credit for, but Gates as SecDef is not one of them.

[poet]

Patently false. Gates introduced these changes in April of 2009: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/06/gates.budget.cuts/ind.... I'd be interested in any sort of proof that Gates was working on changes like this during the Bush years, because as I recall, programs like missile defense were being expanded not cut during that time.

[waterlesscloud]

Giving Obama credit for Robert Gates as Secretary Of Defense is overlooking a few things.

[poet]

What, like the fact that he didn't replace Gates like had been done with almost every single Secretary Of Defense in the past? Note how in recent years new presidents typically have appointed a new SoD [1]. Not replacing Gates was a de facto appointment.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Defe...

[CamperBob]

Is it typical to replace a SecDef during wartime, though, if the SecDef is otherwise doing an OK job?

[batasrki]

Well, 0 is slightly off. Ge extended the Bush tax cuts, so he quite literally cut taxes for 100% of America and not the talking point number of 95. Also, failing to raise the taxes on those top 2% puts a huge tarnish on the rest of his achievements. Add this to that tarnish. Sorry, but he failed on his most important mandates. No public option, successful blackmail by the republicans and now most likely, no net neutrality.

[jeromec]

The Republicans were not going to allow Obama's preferred tax cut version to get through congress, and because the mid-term elections swelled Republican ranks better prospects in the new year with the next congress would be even more unlikely. But don't take my word for it. That's what Bill Clinton said, along with endorsing the tax cut deal by saying he didn't believe there was a better deal out there. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYHDPxohkrc

He failed on his most important mandates? In the middle of a historic financial catastrophe which nearly triggered a full-blown depression (which under his watch the freefall was stopped successfully and the stock market is now largely recovered) he gets a historic healthcare law passed which had been attempted and failed at for more than 50 years. And because it's only 90% instead of 100% of the desired outcome it's a failure? Why not give credit for what it is, and opportunity for improvement it provides? Social Security, one of the most important social safety nets we have was not what it was when it first started either. This doesn't even get into passing the biggest financial reform laws (against powerful lobbies) since the Great Depression. No, I see it another way. This president has already had a very busy two years.

[batasrki]

Better deal, maybe not. He could've and should've forced their hand by calling out those Republicans who were pulling for the rich and against the common man. The same must be said for the assholes who are voting down the 9/11 responders bill. Why should that fall on the shoulders of Jon Stewart? The young people want Obama to do this. His failure to do so has been the greatest disappointment to me.

[jeromec]

Something tells me it cut fairly deeply for Obama to extend all the tax-cuts, but you have to look at the larger picture. The U.S. economy has suffered a severe and historic financial fall. To recover from that it's theoretically more favorable to provide citizens with tax cuts than not. Add to that the hand Obama was dealt at the mid-term elections which tilted the scales of congress in the Republican favor, and you see much more pressure to compromise in order to govern for progress of the country rather than draw lines in the sand for gridlock.

I'm not saying Obama is Jesus in the flesh, and that he never gets anything wrong. At the same time, I don't think it's helpful for people to sit back and criticize with broad strokes. Have you called your representatives about the 9/11 responders bill? Or net neutrality? Have we, the tech experts that hang out on sites like HN, taken concrete actions to make our voice heard on things like net neutrality, or do we just wait until the verdicts are nearly in from politicians who don't understand the ramifications as well as we do, and then complain when it's not what we want?

[poet]

Wrong tax cut: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html.

[drivebyacct2]

You're right, but it's not like he didn't try. Everything you cite are things that he and the Dems push for WEEKS before "caving" because it wasn't going to pass unless they compromised with the Republicans.

Again, I agree with the sentiment, but not with the blame assigned.

[batasrki]

Compromising doesn't mean taking their version of the compromise. Compromising also means doing the math. In what world does 13 equal 24?

That's what I blame the democrats for. They're shit at compromising.

[InclinedPlane]

2 & 3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09...

6.) What good has it done? Obama's treaty signing seems to have done far less than a couple of coders and assassins on motorbikes.

8.) Grudgingly and with far more difficulty than it should have taken (assuming it sticks).

[poet]

Let's lump (2), (3) and (6) under a category of idealogical disagreement. I think if you believed in the ideology behind them you would agree these steps represent concrete progress being made. Although I will say you're objections to (6) don't make any sense. Congress hasn't approved the treaty yet, so of course nothing has happened.... However the measure is regarded by the international community as a measure that will "foster more favourable conditions for actively promoting security and cooperation and strengthening international stability". [1]

As for (8), how is that Obama's fault? He got the Secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs on board, he called for the removal during the State of the Union (note that the SotU is probably one of if not the most watched speech in the world), and then pressured Congress to take action. The difficulty comes from the Legislative Branch, which, thanks to the separation of powers, Obama has no control over.

[1] http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ga11033.doc.htm