People are disagreeing with his politics, both economically and decision making. But from what I've read it's been mostly economical. These are just points that people are making while I try and make it neutral.
> He spends more, which is believed to be the reason for the high debt
> His plans on furthering healthcare will only further hurt the economy
> His drone strikes and decision making on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not that much different than Bush
> He didn't end such bills like the Patriot Act and others that were created under Bush and believed to be in violation of people's rights
> And that his foreign policy is not much different than Bush

There's more, but that is just the most concise I can make it while staying on neutral terms. Again this is just a neutral summary

Almost all economist agree that spending money in a crisis is the responsible thing to do to stimulate growth. The great delusion of our time in the public is that a government running a deficit is failing economically when in reality running a deficit is often the responsible thing to do ask my boy John Maynard Keynes. That said I do agree with you on the patriot act and his slow withdrawal from the middle east. But voting for republicans because of that is like voting for cancer because the scientist hasn't cured it.

Friedrich Hayek laughs at your silly Keynesian ideas.

Oh dear god not a classical economist I can't handle the weight of your libertarian insights. hahaha

A lot of economists agree on that. Spending money will actually help the economy. The problem is no one on here is really a professional, or at least at the level of understanding as real economists and politicians are. Many have their own theories on how governments conduct their business, but we don't have all the data as users on this site to say first and foremost what our opinions are.

Yes it is slow, and maybe he has his reasons for keeping the Patriot Act in place. Does it have to do with the current affairs in the Middle East? Maybe, maybe he really is no different. I tried to remain neutral in my last post. But I will say that those things that he has done have been stirring up problems. Did it have to do with him trying to reach out to Republicans so they'll be willing to negotiate better politics? I don't know.

Romney was far worse, and I don't see why people don't understand that. He is pretty much identical to Bush, and seeing as how most people on this site despise Bush, I would think they really wouldn't have wanted him in office. But most people on here were too young to understand politics under Bush and what happened

I blame his wife to be honest, she spends so much damn shit(accordingly) and also, he was thrown into bushes mess, and people blame him. Especially the ones that dont know much about politics.


and I stand by my think that romney would have started a war or something