How dumb does he think we are? (Page 3)

Kido - 2010-01-26 4:22 PM I actually enjoy this thread...  Must be the cynical and negative mood I'm already in.  I feel at home here.

Pector55 - 2010-01-26 11:40 AM

There is something called "spin."  Basically, China cannot continue to buy U.S. bonds at the same rate so unless the U.S. fires up the printing presses, congress and the president will be forced to slow down on the spending.  However, being politicians, they will spin it that they WANT to control spending, not that they are being forced to by the fact that other countries simply cannot and will not continue to dump money into bonds back by a falling dollar.

Carter - disaster
Reagan - spent like nobody's business
Bush Sr. - continued spending
Clinton - finally slowed spending in conjunction with Republican congress
Bush Jr. - fire up the spending again
Obama - field day in spending

Solution:  Make sure we have balance between branches so we can have some checks and balances, even if each party wants to cry about gridlock, we are far better when neither has full control.

eberulf - 2010-01-26 3:57 PM Unfortunately, I agree with you. It's as if the Republicans got their chance and decided to take over as the Party of Tax and Spend. The Democrats were so jealous that they became the Party of Tax More and Spend More. The Republicans might be called fiscally conservative in a relative sense, but I said that Bush's biggest failure was the domestic budget. He had his party in Congress and could not control them. They lost their moral authority on fiscal responsibility under his leadership. IMO, Obama and his Congress lost any moral fiscal authority when their so-called stimulus bills contained so much money for pet Democratic programs that had little or nothing to do with stimulating the economy. BTW, I am amazed that Bill Clinton still gets credit for balancing the budget. The Republicans had to shut down the government in order to get fiscally responsible spending bills passed, and were pilloried in the press. Still, I think it was more to block Clinton than to do something themselves. Gridlock was more responsible than any party policy.

drewb8 - 2010-01-26 3:43 PM Here they track the status of "significant" campaign promises Obama made:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/obamas-promises/?hpid=topnews[/QUOTE]

They seem to be very selective of the promises they are tracking....  That's all I have to say about it...

ashort33 - 2010-01-26 3:31 PM

Well obviously they can't include every single one he made but which major ones do you think they're missing?

AcesFull - 2010-01-26 2:20 PM

I think The Onion nailed it a year ago, with their headline, which read something like, "World's Worst Job Given to Black Man."  Let's be realistic.  Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, two wars that were sucking the country's resources, shocking unemployment, failing banks, and the list goes on.   

No matter who is brought in to coach the Lions next year, I don't expect them to go to the Super Bowl, or even have a winning season.  Heck, if they win four games and only mostly suck, that would be a great improvement.  I think its premature to call this Presidency a failure. 

The biggest failure of the Dems in the past year is that they did not use their overwhelming majority to simply run roughshod over the GOP and move forward with sweeping legislation to dramatically overhaul the economy and healthcare.  Now they will suffer the consequences of their lack of action by getting trounced in 2010.  Bush did a much better job at ramming his agenda down the country's throat, and I've been sorely disappointed in the Dems inability to do the same, with a far larger majority. 

 

JeffIrvin - 2010-01-26 6:54 PM
...

The last year has been anything but uninteresting that is for sure.  When Obama was elected I held out a hope that he would govern from the middle and bring a fractured country back together.  But he accomplished the exact opposite and in my memory I cannot remember seeing a Pres so polarizing. 

...

gearboy - 2010-01-26 6:28 PM

Do you have retrograde amnesia then?  I mean seriously, you can't remember a president so polarizing?  I don't just mean that as a dig on Bush II; most of the presidents I remember to be rather polarizing.  I've seen posts on Facebook from a guy I went to HS with who STILL b!tches about Carter! Maybe you don't remember how the right wings were frothing at the mouth about Clinton, maintaining special prosecutors for most of his presidency - heck, one of the reasons the Dem's didn't really want Hillary to be nominated was because of how polarizing she is in her own right, and the baggage of Bill.

If anything, I think the polarization occurs because we have, as a population, taken the low road of seeing shouting, ranting, and raving as a reasonable substitute for discourse.  There is a reason Jerry Springer is still on the air, along with the rest of that crowd of daytime wackos, or that talk radio is so filled with bile.  Because we generally give them ratings, and feed the monster. 

zed707 - 2010-01-26 2:13 PM

Yes, well said. What amuses me is that most of the Obama-haters were not wailing when Bush Jr. was spending like a drunken sailor.

RiverRat50 - 2010-01-26 7:49 PM

What bemuses me is that when Bush was spending like a drunken sailor...the Bush haters ranted and railed...and yet now all is peace and quiet by the same when Obama spends vastly more...

Hmmm

If you spend more than a drunken sailor...what does one call it?

rkreuser - 2010-01-26 7:17 PM The facts are:

* Obama promised from an ideological platform to get elected
* Obama inhereted (or had a hand in, you pick) a unique situation in American history - economic crisis and two wars.
* Obama had a majority in Congress and carte blanche to move the country
* Obama has learned that ideology and passing legislation are different animals
* Obama tried to work the two-party thing and due to Pelosi/Reid and the elephant crew was stymied
* Obama is now in a stall momentum-wise for fiscal and health care reasons
* Obama spent a lot of money. So did every other politician. Politicians get elected by spending money on stuff that people want; it's not overt payola, but it's payola. Will be forever.
* Obama is a breath of fresh air for the rest of the world's governments and politicians. America is on higher ground than we've been on for the past 20+ years, morally.

Now for opinion or two. 
 
* I believe Obama had the country's best interest at heart.
* I believe Obama severely underestimated presidential politics, and what it takes to get things done in DC.
* I believe he had no intention of rocking the deficit...it was a unique circumstance that put him there.
* I believe Reid/Pelosi are more at fault for Obama for whatever perceived failings in this adminstration. Reid is weak, Pelosi is just genuinely evil on the scale of Cheney.
* I believe Obama was a better alternative than anyone else, at that time. Hillary?  No. The Double A prosepct the right put out there?  No.
* I believe it will take a constitutional amendment to change the election process. It's very much a business right now, spun to look ideological. Congress in charge of campaign finance is farcical. Time for a revisit. 

That all said, this is where Obama has to earn his pay and cred as a politician...anyone can (even though he didn't) cram legislation through with a majority. Now it's gone...he's going to be either the first lame-duck 1st-termer, or he's going to rally and get Congress' head wrapped around issues, not parties. I'm not optimistic due to Pelosi/Reid and the Elephant politics of late, but if there's a guy that can try, it's him.

Flame away.

NXS - 2010-01-26 9:12 PM

From the Wall Street Journal:

The top congressional leaders from both parties gathered at the White House for a working discussion over the shape and size of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. The meeting was designed to promote bipartisanship.

But Obama showed that in an ideological debate, he’s not averse to using a jab.

Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.”

Mr. Obama NEVER tried to be bipartisan and work with Republicans.  Don't fool yourself.

Why is nothing ever his fault?  Its always Reid, Pelosi, Wascally Wepublicans, or something he inherited. 

TeddieMao - 2010-01-26 8:55 PM I voted for Obama and was taken in by Change platform.  For now I am really disappointed but I haven't given up hope, that is until he grows a backbone.  But I know why.  He is a product of Chicago politics.  Stand out in front, say what the people want to hear and take all the credit while the real movers and shakers are the people in the background.  And they aren't necessarily out for the common good.  Obama, while extremely intelligent, had limited political experience to begin with but we thought we would take a chance on a feel good story.  Biden has more experience but he is too much of a loose cannon.  As I ramble on, I imagine the only way for Obama to make good on change is shake up his advisors, dump Rahm, and diversify.  The chances are slim.  Let Obama get comfortable in his new job (1 year is not enough) and see if can finally think for himself.

JeffIrvin - 2010-01-26 7:42 PM
The key word is "so" in the original statement.  And this is also contrasting the popular opinion that he was campaiging as the guy to unite the country.  Taken in that context I cannot remember a Pres being so polarizing.  I should have followed that statement with, "only a year into his first term".   I was born in '75 so no real memories of Carter.  Bush II really cannot be considered polarizing because the "disapprove" number far outweighted the "approve" one when he left office. 

drewb8 - 2010-01-26 4:56 PM

rkreuser - 2010-01-26 8:36 PM

First, "I won" had to be tongue-in-cheek. Jab?  Yes. Good natured?  Yes, IMHO.

Second, re-read my post. I mention that Obama 'severly underestimated' and that Pelosi / Reid were 'more at fault'. Obama is not blamless. I'm just trying to set some context for my opinions.

It's this kind of post that makes the political discouse on COJ, and in this country, fruitless. Not listening to the words, not seeking to understand, but just to judge and mock based on a preconceived persepctive.   

Was hoping for more; guess not. Out.

gearboy - 2010-01-26 9:06 PM

I seem to remember Bush II campaigning with the statement "I'm a uniter, not a divider".  I guess technically true in that we were all united after 9/11 (which occured in his first year - maybe that helped him?) and that the majority was united in their very negative opinions of him at the end.  But in between, he was pretty dang polarizing in his own right.  Again, as was Clinton. 

Frankly, I think Bush would have been an OK peacetime president.  If there had been no 9/11, and the economy had simply kept chugging along, most of his foibles would have been more like minor annoyances.  But taking on the duties of a wartime prez, and expanding the role of the executive office, while trampling on civil liberties in the name of "homeland security" is what really turned things against him.  Similarly, Obama is facing a task of monumental proportions, between the economy, the war, and the desire to pass healthcare reform.  I think any one of those would be a problem (Clinton had only the healthcare issue, and got blocked by that; and of course, the other two issues began under Bush II and really helped sink his popularity).

I believe that as candidates, they all believe they can outsmart "the system".  But most of them end up being ground up within it.  And given the very polarized level of the population and the serious problems he walked into (by his choice, granted), seriously, are we going to be writing off people after the first year?  Like I said above, to paraphrase Larry Wilmore - he is NOT a "magical Negro".

gearboy - 2010-01-26 11:41 AM.....

  I think The Daily Show nailed it last week when they pointed out that he is doomed to be disappointing both sides.  The conservatives can't acknowledge anything positive (if he does something, he is trying to create a fascist/socialist takeover; if he does nothing, he is ineffective and not doing anything).  And the liberals had unrealistically high expectations of him (I especially liked Larry Wilmore's comments as Senior Black Analyst that he is NOT a "magical Negro").

Jackemy - 2010-01-27 9:32 AM
You seem to forget that Bush lead bi-partisan legislation such as "No child left behind", Medicare drug benefit program, and immigration reform. He also signed McCain-Feingold which was also bi-partisan. If I recall the Patriot Act was bi-partisan as well.

So yes Bush was a uniter.

I haven't seen any indication that Obama is anywhere close to Bush when it comes to bringing the opposing party to the table.