patrick.net

This is another one of those threads where nobody's opinion will change. There are those who think anything Bush did was absolutely perfect in every way and that somehow his Presidency was the darling of conservatism. The exact same for those who are Obama supporters who have the very same opinions.

None of it matters. The older I get the more its clear to me that whoever is president doesn't matter- whether they are republican or democrat. They might act a certain way on the campaign trail to make conservatives or liberals feel all good about themselves but once they're in office reality sets in. No president can be purely conservative or liberal. Politics isn't about any of that crap. Yet voters focus on nothing but their precious ideology and assume that whoever is in office is there to uphold that ideology.

Its all about money. Plain and simple. Big oil, big pharma, big insurance, conservative/liberal gazillionaires, fake astroturf organizations, lobbys for everything from junk food to tires, light bulbs and probably lobbys for lobbys are all out there looking to spend some money so that they can maybe influence the outcome in elections. Like for example all of those super feel-good ads out there regarding fracking and oh-how-good it really is and how that is of course perfectly safe and more importantly- creates jobs.... or farting unicorns and other nice fluffy things. So in the end it doesn't matter who the president is. There has been and will continue to be money in Washington and its that money that gets the job done and steps in front of everything.

Now, as far as Obama and his presidency, I genuinely feel he is perhaps one of the more sensible, articulate presidents we've had. Furthermore his understanding of international cooperation and its effectiveness at solving problems has shown to work well. There has been a lot of talk about Obama being perceived as "weak" probably because as Americans we've gotten used to the notion that if there's trouble somewhere, well the logical choice is to immediately put boots on the ground. Yet Obama has chosen international diplomacy as an effective means and while it hasn't been a perfect result, the results have worked more times than not. Not putting boots on the ground every time does not make a president weak. It means the president is making some smart decisions and combining global resources to solve complex problems more effectively.

Lastly, for taking over an economy that was in such miserable shape as it was, where there was a sense that the damage done to it would take decades to repair, the economy has in fact recovered immensely in a far shorter amount of time. There will still likely be legacy problems in the economy: The middle class has been declining for decades and with that comes a more or less permanent situation where the highly romanticized and short time period where Americans had secure jobs, long careers, assured retirement, and access to affordable healthcare was indeed a short time- from the 50's through the 70's, a short 20+ year run. And yet we yearn for those years but they ain't coming back. Ever. And as such there is a sense in the US that the economy is still in the toilet. If you're either in the working or lower middle class it still is for sure. But the economy overall- as far as business, moneymaking, stock futures and so on is in fact doing really well. Its just that there is now a major disconnect between swinging business on wall street and lackluster economics on main street. The problems that the majority of the country has economically can be fixed. The issue at hand is simply the fact that the tax collection situation is totally the opposite of how it should be. Simply put- the math doesn't add up- literally- which means the current situation means that the taxes collected do not accurately represent the actual total national income and as such municipalities, cities, schools, and so on are broke or always on the brink of financial collapse. Yet this simple mathematical problem is so heavily politicized that nobody talks about the math. Tax has become a dirty word and nobody considers that its a means for government income which then comes back to them in the form of schools, roads, and services. The questions that need to be asked to people is basically what kind of country do you want to live in? Do you like having nice roads free of potholes? Do you like the idea of free national parks? If so then that requires money and if the system was more balanced that could mean an overall higher quality of life for all versus as it is now, with schools holding bake sales and car washes to buy books.

Anyway.... rant over.

edvard2 says

This is another one of those threads where nobody's opinion will change.

I completely disagree with your take on Obama, that being said, I don't give rats ass about ideology, I DO give a rats ass about spending and only spending, I don't give a fuck about rhetoric because of the reason you point out.

But that too doesn't matter because once they get in office they spend, even Reagan. What we need is another Coolidge.

indigenous says

But that too doesn't matter because once they get in office they spend, even Reagan. What we need is another Coolidge.

I think an argument about spending needs to be more specific. As in what kinds of spending is good or bad? Spending by the government is a fact and all governments have to spend money no matter what. Spending too has become starkly politicized with both parties interpreting spending as a means to fund their own pet projects. Spending and the opinions about it are based in ideology. For example- the Republican stance on social welfare programs and whatnot and their seemingly un-changing message that anyone on such programs is either lazy, undeserving, or otherwise wasting government funds. They do so of course because its really easy to use nameless scapegoats who can't speak out against those claims since the claims are so generic. The do so also because it then gives them the means to go around and spend on their own pet projects which nobody in their constituency cares about because besides- what possibly could be worse than spending money on "lazy people"?

But spending is only half of the story. In order to spend you need income. The income situation in the US is lopsided as I previously mentioned. Does that mean if the problem was corrected the government should spend more? No, But what it does mean is that if a more accurate representation of the country's income was financial reality then the amount spent could more closely match the actual needs of the country and the amount spent wouldn't put such a huge strain on the system.

edvard2 says

closely match the actual needs

According to who? I don't care what kind of spending, earmarks, social, war, any reduction is good.

For a guy who talks about it doesn't matter which party, you speak from a left leaning perspective.

indigenous says

According to who? I don't care what kind of spending, earmarks, social, war, any reduction is good.

For a guy who talks about it doesn't matter which party, you speak from a left leaning perspective.

Surprise surprise I am unapologetically liberal. But what I was getting at was that yes- spending in indeed a problem. But reducing spending is one half of the problem. Some of that spending is waste. Some of it is legit. But spending is also a problem because our tax system ensures a continual deficit in total government income, which leads to financial problems. So its a two-edged problem: Cut spending, correct the income problem. The two go hand in hand.

edvard2 says

correct the income problem

Like borrowing to meet the budget?

indigenous says

Like borrowing to meet the budget?

No... that's not what I was saying. Correct the income problem by correctly taxing the population, not the bass-ackwards way its done today.

edvard2 says

There are those who think anything Bush did was absolutely perfect in every way and that somehow his Presidency was the darling of conservatism. The exact same for those who are Obama supporters who have the very same opinions.

Well no. If you actually read the thread, you will see that every one of us who is debunking the "Bush was better" meme have said we most definitely don't think Obama is perfect. We just think it's ridiculous to say that Bush, who is likely one of, if not THE worst president in history, was a better president than Obama.

Call it Crazy says

What does the picture have to do with it?

Ahhh... I knew you were too stupid to understand it...

Typical...

Translation: You have no answer. LOL.

zzyzzx says

Obligatory:

Bush sits with his thumb up his ass while the nation is under attack:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ro3o-ld0CWw

http://www.youtube.com/embed/KjmjqlOPd6A

He got all of you liberals fooled with his spending...

Sure sounds like a democrat.

bob2356 says

I'm sorry, exactly how does obama's 4 trillion increased debt, increased money supply, and direct government spending differ from bush's 4 trillion increased debt, increased money supply and direct government spending?

. . .

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=D6p

shows our borrowing binge came 100% on Bush's watch

Bush also drove up DOD spending monstrously, while Obama has managed to get it cut:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=D6s

Like Clinton, Obama only enjoyed "control" of Congress for the first two years.

Clinton's Congress made the mistake of raising taxes on everyone; Obama's Congress made the mistake of doing ObamaCare the first two years instead of really putting the balls to the wall wrt jobs.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=D6w

shows we're still ~10M jobs short of peak employment reached in the 1990s.

with mfg:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MANEMP

responsible for most of that.

I was talking about QE. I notice that the borrowing did not slow down under O

Bellingham Bill says

shows we're still ~10M jobs short of peak employment reached in the 1990s.

with mfg:

That is cherry picking numbers as much of manufacturing has been automated as well as off shored. That number is also worse because the population has grown in 4 years.

Not that Bush is anything to brag about but the single greatest killer of the economy is bailing out the banks through continued QE, Bush started it and O has continued it.