Obama damages the US and also specifically the economy by putting politics and "being right" above benefitting the citizens. (See discussion and backups, below)
Delays of confronting huge, growing problems compounds the problems and hurts us all.
Yes, I like him, too. And I voted for him. But what matters is the results he produces - or doesn't produce.
Though he means well and is driven by politics and winning, it is important that we neither judge the moral character of the man nor judge him as a man. The only clean (non-righteousness) criteria is "does he do what works for the American people." - not just specific groups or his constituency of voters.
It is a matter of ethics (not imposed "righteousness" by an interest group). It is a matter of good results, for greater good of all concerned.
Ethics defined: Doing what creates the greatest total good for all concerned. And I would add, without doing harm. (The real world has hard knocks in it, which we can't totally protect people from. But we can protect them from undue harm.)
But he is a good guy. Well, this is not about whether he is a good guy, though I think he is. This is about what really matters: creating good for all.
Obama appears to be more of a political animal, who wants to do right but lets politics and votes and ideology-above-good-results prevail.
VIOLATIONS OF WHAT IS BEST
Obama does extreme things that Romney would never do, as it would violate his core principles.
Encouraging dissension between groups - Name calling (fat cats, perpetrators, hostage holders, the unfair 1%, Wall Street, etc. and etc.) - this may win him some votes, but the harm is huge - progress is impeded, negativity always causes some harm. Under this category of encouraging dissension, I would include the category of not acting to decrease dissension - he does not "counsel" the people as a parent would a child to understand the other side and to accept other people - foreclosing much of the ability to cooperate and make progress together. The effect of this one thing is enormous.
Postponing decision on Keystone Pipeline until after the elections. Acknowledged by both sides as a political maneuver to not offend either side: the environmentalists or the unions. Cost: American jobs and growth
Blaming the other side (of the negotiations) - Building up animosity of his constituency and making the other party wrong, hoping to have independents blame the Republicans. He is not taking responsibility for his side not coming to agreement while blaming the other side for it all. Not a well-reasoned position, unless it is strictly for votes - but it is definitely harmful to the US citizens.
Refusing to cut substantial spending until forced to - Presenting a budget that was so bad that it was voted down 97-0 in the Senate; not presenting any detailed plans (though speaks of ideas; the Congressional Budget Office says they can't score a speech); one cuts expenses when there is an impasse with the other side. Gives away things that are popular, but adds to spending burden and debt, refusing to do what is fiscally responsible while gaining votes from being a nice guy.
Refusing to address Social Security and Medicare unfunded liabilities - While this avoids offending voters (by not touching the "third rail", it is accumulating harm, especially for future generations.
Unbalanced favoring of special interest groups - Progress is impeded and harm is done whenever he unduly favors unions (which are good entities, except when power is abused) over business (Boeing new plant contested because in a right to work state' promoting non-confidential voting; against rights of employees to choose whether to be in a union); responds in a non-balanced way to environmentalists (instead of doing what is right overall for the environment and for the American people)
Pushing through a very flawed health care bill
Yes a good idea with a good motive
But if it is harmful, because of its poor design and damage to the economy, is it ethical?
Good management would assure that it is better designed