Politics

[phork]

I love these "your president" was the worst ever posts. Facts aside and everything. Lolz.

 

[woolybug25]

This past weekend I had this very discussion with a group of people. My contention was that history will treat Obama very kindly... that in 20 years people will look back on him how many did Reagan and start naming tons of stuff after him, etc.

The reason why is that liberals whitewash stuff that they would crucify anyone with an (R) next to their name for doing. On top of that, he'll probably be bookended by Bush and HillDog which will make him look amazing by comparison.

Ding. Ding. Ding.

I have had this same conversation on many occasions. The fact is that he did a ton of stuff (for good or bad, depending on the color of your glasses). So it cracks me up when people blindly say that he "didn't do anything", then bitch about all of the things he did like Obamacare, bank bailout, repealing "don't ask don't tell", extending rights to lgbt, etc. It's counterintuitive, if he didn't do anything, then why is there so much to bitch about?

 

[Andy in Sactown]

Stop. Mods merge please. We have threads for this [whatever] political narrative.

The nice aspect of NDNation, Andy, is that you can view all comments to new statements very easily in their general sections. IE has only New Threads. Merge topics at the risk of losing views and comments.

You're politicizing. Which is fine in the appropriate threads; that was the point. IE is not your soap box. "Merge topics at the risk of losing views." That's politicizing. I'm not making a statement that such posts should not be allowed. Merely that there is a designated place for them. And your posting a new thread is attempting to broaden your political views across more threads, despite there being a pre-existing place to do so.

 

[BGIF]

Just what we need, another political thread. Mods, cleanup in aisle 3. Please move to one of the already existing political threads.

Stop. Mods merge please. We have threads for this [whatever] political narrative.

HEAR! HEAR!

 

[IrishJayhawk]

This past weekend I had this very discussion with a group of people. My contention was that history will treat Obama very kindly... that in 20 years people will look back on him how many did Reagan and start naming tons of stuff after him, etc.

The reason why is that liberals whitewash stuff that they would crucify anyone with an (R) next to their name for doing. On top of that, he'll probably be bookended by Bush and HillDog which will make him look amazing by comparison.

I think history will treat him well because of where we were compared to where we are, not because of spin.

We were in an absolute free fall when he took office. Losing 800,000 jobs a month and the worst economy since the depression. We're now at "full employment" with a rate that is a full percentage lower than Romney promised (yes, I know about workforce participation...that was always going to happen with baby boomers retiring). We've also added jobs for 70 straight months despite government shrinking slightly. And people neglect to note that, while growth has slowed, the US economy has generally outpaced the rest of the world.

We're very polarized, which is the continuation of a decades old trend. I'm not sure any president can "fix" that.

 

[kmoose]

We're very polarized, which is the continuation of a decades old trend. I'm not sure any president can "fix" that.

Reagan did. Hence, the "Reagan Democrats". But I don't know if times have changed so much that even Reagan would be unable to accomplish that feat, today.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Reagan did. Hence, the "Reagan Democrats". But I don't know if times have changed so much that even Reagan would be unable to accomplish that feat, today.

IMO, Reagan would be considered a RINO by many tea party folks.

 

[BobbyMac]

I think history will treat him well because of where we were compared to where we are, not because of spin.

We were in an absolute free fall when he took office. Losing 800,000 jobs a month and the worst economy since the depression. We're now at "full employment" with a rate that is a full percentage lower than Romney promised (yes, I know about workforce participation...that was always going to happen with baby boomers retiring). We've also added jobs for 70 straight months despite government shrinking slightly. And people neglect to note that, while growth has slowed, the US economy has generally outpaced the rest of the world.

We're very polarized, which is the continuation of a decades old trend. I'm not sure any president can "fix" that.

Are you saying he caused the bolded to happen or is he going to get credit for them like Reagan got credit for the fall of Communism and Clinton got for the Roaring 90's?

Do you believe these numbers are correct? Are you 35 or younger?

Reagan did. Hence, the "Reagan Democrats". But I don't know if times have changed so much that even Reagan would be unable to accomplish that feat, today.

I have to agree. But that's what makes Trump so interesting to me... he's a salesman and an actor. He's got as good of a chance as anyone once he's in office. He's actually far enough to the left that he should appeal to those in the street protesting against him and the persona the media has attached to him. When all is said and done, he and Clinton aren't that far apart on the spectrum but in an era of the "First Take" mentality, everything must be argued, the differences must to be magnified and dissected while the similarities which far outnumber the differences are passed over because... that sh!t don't get no clicks.

IMO, Reagan would be considered a RINO by many tea party folks.

By ALL if they believe in their own platform.

 

[Legacy]

You're politicizing. Which is fine in the appropriate threads; that was the point. IE is not your soap box. "Merge topics at the risk of losing views." That's politicizing. I'm not making a statement that such posts should not be allowed. Merely that there is a designated place for them. And your posting a new thread is attempting to broaden your political views across more threads, despite there being a pre-existing place to do so.

You have a different view of "politicizing". Your prerogative. I've only started New Threads when they may be of interest to the community. I see no reason why the Presidential Horse Race, Political Correctness, Politics and other such threads should not be merged, too. That's worth considering, Mods.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Are you saying he caused the bolded to happen or is he going to get credit for them like Reagan got credit for the fall of Communism and Clinton got for the Roaring 90's?

Do you believe these numbers are correct? Are you 35 or younger?



I have to agree. But that's what makes Trump so interesting to me... he's a salesman and an actor. He's got as good of a chance as anyone once he's in office. He's actually far enough to the left that he should appeal to those in the street protesting against him and the persona the media has attached to him. When all is said and done, he and Clinton aren't that far apart on the spectrum but in an era of the "First Take" mentality, everything must be argued, the differences must to be magnified and dissected while the similarities which far outnumber the differences are passed over because... that sh!t don't get no clicks.



By ALL if they believe in their own platform.

Some of it was certainly cyclical. But I think he'll get some credit. And most studies indicate that the stimulus played a role in turning the economy around.

Yes, I believe those numbers are correct. They're calculated in the same way they always have been.

No, I'm not 35 or younger.

 

[yankeehater]

And we wonder why schools have no money for their students. Good grief!

Teacher Gets $60k After Co-Workers Won't Call Her 'They' | The Daily Caller

 

[Graybeard52]

I'll toss my hat in the ring quick. I was never a big fan of Reagan although he was a likable, some would say unifying leader.

However. Deficit spending/borrowing and the increase in the national debt really kicked off while he was in office. Take away deficit spending, which contributes to GDP and what would GDP growth really be over the last 35 years? Plus, a lot of lefties that decry Reagan ignore the fact that democrats were in control of Congress for most of his two terms which means that any budget proposals he made had to go through them.

The same goes for Clinton. He knew once the GOP took over Congress in '94 that he would have to shift to the center to get re-elected, which he did. People like to say that Clinton "balanced the budget" but that didn't happen until after he started working with the right. Clinton's legacy also includes riding the coat tails of the last big economic boom in this country, the dot com boom. That and the original onset of the housing bubble in the mid-90s. He also signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley into law, which effectively negated Glass-Steagall, which was passed during the Great Depression to separate commercial and investment banks.

Manufacturing jobs boomed here after WWII, partly because a lot of other countries' economic infrastructures were in rebuild mode. Manufacturing jobs peaked in the late 70s/early 80s, flat lined through the 90s and began falling off the cliff after the 2001 recession. Instead of making a decent living and saving for things, people now resort to easy credit/cheap mortgages. Part of that was due to trade agreements, including China joining the WTO back in the late 90s. If I remember right. Now, US brands are manufactured overseas and foreign brands are manufactured. Even Japanese brands are outsourced to China now. American workers get laid off for H1B visa replacements and sometimes train them before they leave. It's all backassward.

In the end, the die was cast after WWII, which launched global international monetary and trade agreements. Originally, the US dollar was still at least loosely linked to the gold standard but that ended after the Nixon Shock and every other country followed suit. Ever since then, the majority of economic "growth" can be attributed to borrowing and spending. I remember when banks would advertise higher savings rates to get you to bank with them. Now, they advertise low interest rates to get you to borrow from them.

There is no simple fix for what is wrong in this country but it will never be fixed by borrowing money that it will never be able to pay back to boost GDP and create the illusion of prosperity, which has basically been the game plan for over thirty years. It will never be fixed as long as *productive* middle class jobs are shipped away. The economy is already something like 70% service jobs, which basically don't produce anything, it's just "money" changing hands. Agricultural production is a pathetically small share of GDP, yet we turn food into fuel then import food from other countries. WTF?

Until monetary/fiscal/trade policies are really addressed, you might as well write in Popeye the Sailor for president. That won't happen soon though because I almost guarantee it would start WWIII.

Have at it. I could ramble on but it's late and I'm tired.

 

[Rizzophil]

This past weekend I had this very discussion with a group of people. My contention was that history will treat Obama very kindly... that in 20 years people will look back on him how many did Reagan and start naming tons of stuff after him, etc.

The reason why is that liberals whitewash stuff that they would crucify anyone with an (R) next to their name for doing. On top of that, he'll probably be bookended by Bush and HillDog which will make him look amazing by comparison.

With all due respect, that's your opinion.

In my opinion he will be considered the worst president of my lifetime. He had the opportunity to get us out of the downward spiral that our country is in and did nothing. He doubled the national debt. We are right in front of the most predicable debt crisis we have ever had and be kicked the can down the road.

He has blatant disregard for the law. The whole world is in turmoil and while we try and stay out of it, aggressive countries are making the world very unsettled.

He was dead wrong about radical Islam and he won't even use the term.

I just respectfully disagree Lax

 

[ACamp1900]

With all due respect, that's your opinion.

In my opinion he will be considered the worst president of my lifetime. He had the opportunity to get us out of the downward spiral that our country is in and did nothing. He doubled the national debt. We are right in front of the most predicable debt crisis we have ever had and be kicked the can down the road.

He has blatant disregard for the law. The whole world is in turmoil and while we try and stay out of it, aggressive countries are making the world very unsettled.

He was dead wrong about radical Islam and he won't even use the term.

I just respectfully disagree Lax

There is all of this, and then there is leadership 101 which he fails miserably at... Lead by example and don't purposely tear apart those you seek to lead. To me, that is by far his greatest legacy,...this guy would have had the employees at a Hot Dog On a Stick hating each other if he were managing it.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Ding. Ding. Ding.

I have had this same conversation on many occasions. The fact is that he did a ton of stuff (for good or bad, depending on the color of your glasses). So it cracks me up when people blindly say that he "didn't do anything", then bitch about all of the things he did like Obamacare, bank bailout, repealing "don't ask don't tell", extending rights to lgbt, etc. It's counterintuitive, if he didn't do anything, then why is there so much to bitch about?

Foreign Policy wise, I think his reputation will be made or broken by how successfully the next Presidents follow his lead on returning to the role of an off-shore balancer in the Middle East and specifically improving our relationship with Iran.

Domestically it will be a wash. It's always difficult to parse what is the fault of Congress or the President when it comes to the debt. But yeah he will be the LGBT President, no question about it.

 

[pkt77242]

With all due respect, that's your opinion.

In my opinion he will be considered the worst president of my lifetime. He had the opportunity to get us out of the downward spiral that our country is in and did nothing. He doubled the national debt. We are right in front of the most predicable debt crisis we have ever had and be kicked the can down the road.

He has blatant disregard for the law. The whole world is in turmoil and while we try and stay out of it, aggressive countries are making the world very unsettled.

He was dead wrong about radical Islam and he won't even use the term.

I just respectfully disagree Lax

A couple of things
1. As to the national debt and him kicking it down the road, well it takes both sides to make a deal. Do you hold the Republicans just as responsible for being against tax increases?

2. About the world being in turmoil and us trying to stay out, how exactly do you propose that we do it? If we are going to be the world police, how do we pay for it?

On one hand you are worried about debt (and I assume spending is part of that), and on the other hand you seem to be pushing for us to be more active in the shit fires around the world, but that costs money, lots of it. How do you reconcile that?

 

[pkt77242]

There is all of this, and then there is leadership 101 which he fails miserably at... Lead by example and don't purposely tear apart those you seek to lead. To me, that is by far his greatest legacy,...this guy would have had the employees at a Hot Dog On a Stick hating each other if he were managing it.

Truth is, I am not sure that half of the country was going to like him (and yes I think he could have handled several things differently, and better). I am not sure that he had any real chance to unite the country and I don't think that we will see a President unite us going forward as the country has become to polarized and politics has become a zero sum game (unfortunately).

ETA: Do you also hold the Republican leadership responsible for their actions on tearing us apart?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I think history will treat him well because of where we were compared to where we are, not because of spin.

We were in an absolute free fall when he took office. Losing 800,000 jobs a month and the worst economy since the depression. We're now at "full employment" with a rate that is a full percentage lower than Romney promised (yes, I know about workforce participation...that was always going to happen with baby boomers retiring). We've also added jobs for 70 straight months despite government shrinking slightly. And people neglect to note that, while growth has slowed, the US economy has generally outpaced the rest of the world.

We're very polarized, which is the continuation of a decades old trend. I'm not sure any president can "fix" that.

The worst of the recession was over by the time Obama took office. He got in, rammed the $800 billion stimulus down our throats, and unemployment rose. Remember all those "shovel ready" and "green" jobs? Yeah...

5% unemployment might be the biggest lie in America. Yes, baby boomers are retiring but you left out the number of unemployed in the 18-55 age group.

The CBO estimates our GDP will be 2.67% for 2016. If that holds true, Obama will be the ONLY president in history who didn't bring one quarter of 3% GDP growth or more.

Then there's the debt. And Obamacare. And everything else.

So while Obama is on the road praising himself for this "recovery", Hillary and Bernie are out there exclaiming, "we need to change everything!" So which one is it, blue voters? Is everything great and Obama delivered or Obama failed economically and we need to change everything?

 

[woolybug25]

The worst of the recession was over by the time Obama took office. He got in, rammed the $800 billion stimulus down our throats, and unemployment rose. Remember all those "shovel ready" and "green" jobs? Yeah...

5% unemployment might be the biggest lie in America. Yes, baby boomers are retiring but you left out the number of unemployed in the 18-55 age group.

The CBO estimates our GDP will be 2.67% for 2016. If that holds true, Obama will be the ONLY president in history who didn't bring one quarter of 3% GDP growth or more.

Then there's the debt. And Obamacare. And everything else.

So while Obama is on the road praising himself for this "recovery", Hillary and Bernie are out there exclaiming, "we need to change everything!" So which one is it, blue voters? Is everything great and Obama delivered or Obama failed economically and we need to change everything?

False. The Great Recession ended June 2009 and after a bunch of Obama's policy was inacted. You can argue that his policies weren't the reason, but it's simply not true that the recession ended before he took office.

5 Years After the Great Recession, Our Economy Still Far from Recovered

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

False. The Great Recession ended June 2009 and after a bunch of Obama's policy was inacted. You can argue that his policies weren't the reason, but it's simply not true that the recession ended before he took office.

5 Years After the Great Recession, Our Economy Still Far from Recovered

I said the worst of the recession was over before Obama took office. What exactly did Obama do between January 2009 and June 2009? Wave a magic wand? Stimulus? Unemployment went up...again.

 

[woolybug25]

I said the worst of the recession was over before Obama took office. What exactly did Obama do between January 2009 and June 2009? Wave a magic wand? Stimulus? Unemployment went up...again.

Banged you mom?

 

[pkt77242]

The worst of the recession was over by the time Obama took office. He got in, rammed the $800 billion stimulus down our throats, and unemployment rose. Remember all those "shovel ready" and "green" jobs? Yeah...

5% unemployment might be the biggest lie in America. Yes, baby boomers are retiring but you left out the number of unemployed in the 18-55 age group.

The CBO estimates our GDP will be 2.67% for 2016. If that holds true, Obama will be the ONLY president in history who didn't bring one quarter of 3% GDP growth or more.

Then there's the debt. And Obamacare. And everything else.

So while Obama is on the road praising himself for this "recovery", Hillary and Bernie are out there exclaiming, "we need to change everything!" So which one is it, blue voters? Is everything great and Obama delivered or Obama failed economically and we need to change everything?

Que? It is not a binary answer, why is that so hard to understand? Obama did some things pretty well, and some things he could have done better (or maybe not done at all) but this idea that it is either great or horrible is plain wrong. I think that some liberal wish that Obama had been more liberal (which is pretty funny because many Conservatives say he was way too liberal). I think that the answer is more nuanced than you are making it out to be.

 

[woolybug25]

I said the worst of the recession was over before Obama took office. What exactly did Obama do between January 2009 and June 2009? Wave a magic wand? Stimulus? Unemployment went up...again.

In all seriousness, he enacted the economic stimulus package in January 2009.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Que? It is not a binary answer, why is that so hard to understand? Obama did some things pretty well, and some things he could have done better (or maybe not done at all) but this idea that it is either great or horrible is plain wrong. I think that some liberal wish that Obama had been more liberal (which is pretty funny because many Conservatives say he was way too liberal). I think that the answer is more nuanced than you are making it out to be.

I understand there are many layers we could get into but it's a little confusing to watch:

Sitting president goes around praising himself for this "recovery." The two Democratic candidates are proposing radical changes economically. Comes off, I think, as mixed messaging. It can't be both.

Put it in football terms: If a team goes 2-10 they need drastic changes. If a new coach walks into a situation where the team was 10-2 last year, not so much.

 

[woolybug25]

I can't believe you neg replied me for the mom joke, you thin-skinned lil shit.

 

[pkt77242]

I said the worst of the recession was over before Obama took office. What exactly did Obama do between January 2009 and June 2009? Wave a magic wand? Stimulus? Unemployment went up...again.

Actually many economists believe that the Stimulus was a positive for the economy (especially unemployment). Also unemployment is a lagging indicator, so not particularly helpful and doesn't really help your point.

Here is the poll from 2012
Poll Results | IGM Forum

and the revisited poll from 2014
Poll Results | IGM Forum

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

In all seriousness, he enacted the economic stimulus package in January 2009.

$800 billion. And what happened? I'm not talented enough to post graphs here, but unemployment was at its peak between June 2009 and March 2010 lol. That's what the Bureau of Labor Statistics tells me. Weird huh?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I can't believe you neg replied me for the mom joke, you thin-skinned lil shit.

It was that bad of a joke and you dodged the question, which you later answered.

 

[pkt77242]

I understand there are many layers we could get into but it's a little confusing to watch:

Sitting president goes around praising himself for this "recovery." The two Democratic candidates are proposing radical changes economically. Comes off, I think, as mixed messaging. It can't be both.

Put it in football terms: If a team goes 2-10 they need drastic changes. If a new coach walks into a situation where the team was 10-2 last year, not so much.

Has anyone but a sitting President (or sitting vice president) in the last 30-50 years ran on a platform that didn't include change?

Also as usual you are making it a binary (great or horrible) when the truth is that it fall somewhere in between. More like 7-5 (or 8-4 if we are being optimistic). Somethings are better, and some things not so much, but that could be said about almost every presidency.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Actually many economists believe that the Stimulus was a positive for the economy (especially unemployment). Also unemployment is a lagging indicator, so not particularly helpful and doesn't really help your point.

Here is the poll from 2012
Poll Results | IGM Forum

and the revisited poll from 2014
Poll Results | IGM Forum

Many economists also believe it was a big waste of money and did nothing more than temporarily aid state governments. If a stimulus is supposed to get people back to work and unemployment as you say is a lagging indicator, there's probably little use in continuing the conversation haha