I was thinking earlier today about the Obama legacy and where it currently stands in comparison to the Bush legacy. It is no secret that most establishment liberals hold a tremendous amount of admiration for Barack Obama, regularly singing the praises of his policy decisions, while at the same time bemoaning Bush's legacy for the damage it's left behind. Conversely, most establishment Republicans abhor Obama; the rhetoric from the right is routinely aggrandized to portray Obama as the single largest threat to this country, whilst reminiscing about the Bush years and the amazing policies Bush left behind (tax cuts, foreign policy, etc.). I know this board has a number of people who are strongly aligned to both sides of the above argument, and I guess my question is why....Objectively, both Obama and Bush have been remarkably similar on so many key issues, one has to wonder how such a dichotomy of perspectives persists on two people who have so much in common: Economic Policy Comparison: Obama vs. Bush on Tax Cutting: Reproductive Rights: Obama vs. Bush on the Environment: Bush vs. Obama Gun Rights: Obama vs. Bush on Illegal Immigration: I didnt include obvious areas that have been discussed here in the past, including foreign policy issues such as the expansion of the drone program, heightened secrecy/reduced transparency, deference to Israel and a failed middle east peace effort, or the brazen manner in which Obama has enforced retroactive immunity for Bush-era illegalities, as well as provide full immunity for wall street while employing some of its most pernicious characters to high posts. There are a handful of important distinctions of note, the largest that comes to mind being Obama's support of gay marriage which he deserves credit for....
The bankers & corporations still run the show. Only the face of leadership has changed. Apparently it's enough to dupe the masses. Rhetoric is rhetoric. Inaction is action.
The differences between Obama and Bush? One was a better public speaker than the other. One never thought twice about laying the blame at anyone else but his own feet.
Yes, when it comes to 'intangibles' (non-policy issues), Obama and Bush couldnt be more different. Bush had what was considered 'relate-ability' with the average American, but lacked charisma and strong public speaking skills (though he was adequate). He was regularly portrayed as unintelligent, and routinely vocalized strong positions related to his policies, such as his wartime addresses, tax cut speeches, gun rights speeches, and the like. Conversely, Obama is often seen as unrelatable, but possesses tremendous charisma and public speaking abilities. He often hobnobs with the media and elites, and is portrayed as thoughtful, nuanced, and measured vs. the recklessness of Bush. When it comes to articulating his policies, he's very calculated- on key policies and bills he champions, he stays silent, with the White House releasing a brief statement that means little to nothing. When he makes public speeches on issues, he often starts them strong on the liberal side, but slowly attenuates his tone and eventually cautions by arguing the conservative position. He then finishes it off by saying that sensible legislation has to negotiate both views, and concludes without actually outlining anything. I'm also shocked sometimes at the blatant PR moves he makes and the way in which most people perceive those moves to be honest actions/statements and not political pandering- going out to eat at local restaurants, talking about local issues (trayvon martin, sports predictions, etc.), cracking jokes (correspondents dinner, other venues), and the way in which he 'deploys' Michelle Obama selectively- Target trips, public appearances, going on talk shows, etc. Perhaps that accounts for the differences in their approval ratings:
One started the second dumbest war in American history and has basically been babysat by his dad's friends throughout his entire academic and professional life, the other got **** on by a semi-literate half-term governor for starting job training and tutoring programs.
This is not even remotely true; not sure why anybody would believe this unless you think things like the census and unemployment insurance is "expansionary" - If Obama did have a trillion dollar expansionary fiscal policy we'd be much better off right now.
It clarifies my understanding of your understanding, which is obviously very limited because you're pointing me to some nonsensical Forbes article about the nonexistent attacks of the invisible bond vigilantes, heh, instead of remotely addressing the issue at hand. It's comical in its own right, and it's inapplicablity to the current situation makes it all the better. The true black heart of the Big Lie though is right here: First off, this is sequentially true of every president more or less for the last 100 years. The current president is always the one who is "adding" the most to the national debt, becuase it is constantly growing. Secondly, the reason why debt has grown in the last few years is not becausee spending increased, it's because we're kind of the middle of a giant ****ing depression which has robbed us of trillions of revenue. Only a complete idiot or a liar would call that an expansionary fiscal policy.
I'm not really sure what you want- you've yet to put together a coherent refutation of the claim that Obama's fiscal policy has been expansionary- this is a description appropriate to his administration by a multitude of economic experts, more often than not as a tool of description and not denigration. Let's try this one more time: What Is an Expansionary Fiscal Policy Tool?
Why would I bother when Stiglitz, Yglesias, Krugman, DeLong, the CBO, and anybody else with half a brain already has? Do some reading. It's not hard. You might learn something.
This is literally getting bizarre. You seem to be pissed off, and I really cant figure out why. Let's recap the past few posts: -Original article said that both Obama and Bush have adopted expansionary fiscal policies, to which you responded negatively, claiming it to not be "even remotely true." -I responded with additional links that actually explained what an expansionary fiscal policy is. It appeared that you either construed a census (?) to be an example of an expansionary fiscal policy, or took said statement as an undeserved attack against the Obama administration driven by right-wing fanatics hell bent on denigrating Obama. It is most likely the latter motivation that contributed to dismissing the Forbes article as 'nonsensical' without so much as attempting to articulate a reason why. -You then proceeded to attack a tangential point about the debt. This had absolutely nothing to do with your first complaint. Your first attack made no sense, so now the idea is to shift goal posts. -Your latest post in this series cites "Stiglitz, Yglesias, Krugman, DeLong"- not a single one of them would contend with the fact that Obama's fiscal policy has been expansionary. In fact, they have all regularly written about the need for expansionary fiscal policies and defended them. The initial claim which drew your ire was that Obama and Bush have similar fiscal approaches in that both had expansionary fiscal policies. I cant tell whether you think thats a good thing or not, because you first dismissed the entire notion and now are defending it (?) This is what makes you final claim of "Do some reading" all the more comical; your insistence on serving as a vanguard for Obama in this forum, even when it makes no sense to do so (such as when he's not being attacked to begin with), only undermines your credibility.
They don't have remotely similar "fiscal approaches"...nor are the situations in remotely similar....nor do you remotely have any idea what you are talking about....so I stopped reading. btw... serious question. Rock, repels bears. Y U No want buy?
If you just choose to ignore all their differences, this will always be the case. Hitler and Jesus both liked water and breathing, so they must have been similar too.
First, I wanted to ask you if this thread was a joke, but after reading your replies to Sam, it's clear that you meant it. Why did I think it was a joke? Your comparison of Bush's tax policy to Obama's tax policy. You don't seriously believe they are essentially the same, do you? Please tell me that I misread something. Thanks in advance.
As a point of clarification, the assessment of Obama's tax policy compared against Bush's is not my own, but rather part of a larger report produced by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. This same point has been parroted by many other liberal outlets, including the American Spectator, The Daily Beast, dailykos, and others. Up to this point, Obama has extended the Bush tax cuts and instituted additional ones through various pieces of legislation. A true point of departure would be if Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire on the top 1%, but until that point, yes it is fair to say that Obama's been the bigger tax cutter and has not engendered the type of common sense tax policies many liberals were hoping for, particularly those who railed against the Bush tax cuts.
