Obama’s opponents might say, “Well, there’s still 2 years to go…”
I don’t think he’ll be nuking anyone. There is still time to get us into a quagmire in the Middle East though. Or avoid a quagmire yet allow ISIS to have permanent bases from which to attack the West.
It’s insane how skewed the popular perception of Obama’s presidency is versus the actual results. Insane.
For instance, see this list. Highlights:
[ol]
[li]Better economic recovery than the Reagan administration[/li][li]The longest period of private sector job creation in American history[/li][li]The federal deficit has shrunk drastically since 2009[/li][li]Lowest government spending since Eisenhower (1.4% vs 8.1% under GWB)[/li][/ol]
He accomplished all this while facing the most extreme congressional partisan backlash in American history (McConell’s “one term president” quote, the multiple threats of defaulting, etc).
The country was in a tailspin in the final months of the GWB administration and Obama has managed to settle everything down and make everything decent again – that’s fucking huge.
Meanwhile, his administration has overseen:
[ol]
[li]Passage of the rudiments of a decent healthcare system in America. It will take a decade before it’s anything good, but he laid the foundation.[/li][li]Decriminalization of marijuana in several US states.[/li][li]Widespread support of LGBT issues, including ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, adding gender/sexuality/etc into the federal hate crimes law, and ending DOMA.[/li][/ol]
Etc.
He’s had a quiet presidency, sure, but he basically calmed everything the fuck down after GWB, reaffirmed America’s position globally and abroad, ended (as best he could) the many military gaffes of GWB, and oversaw some of the largest civic rights changes since LBJ – in fact, some day, he’ll be considered the LBJ of sexual/gender rights.
And I’m not even a huge fan of his. Just can’t believe how short everyone’s memories are, in how bad things got under GWB and all the shit Obama has gone through to do anything at all.
Really? The “IRS-gate” is widely considered a GOP invention. What’s left? Benghazi? Secret Serivce agents with hookers? How do these compare with Iran-Contra, the Valerie Plame outing, the deliberate lies that led to the Iraq Adventure?
This is a key point. Eisenhower is considered an outstanding President; leading some people to ask
“Why? Nothing much happened during Ike’s Administration.”
for which the answer is
“Precisely!”
Only if he’s very lucky. I think GWB will end up below Buchanan and Andrew Johnson.
I agree with much of this.
He accomplished those things BECAUSE he faced the most extreme partisan backlash in American history. He wanted more spending, more taxes, more big government. Instead, he got the four items on your list. ANd he’s been pissed about it the whole time.
The more spending, i.e. stimulus, worked but not as well as it could have because Republicans tried every trick in the book to sabotage it. If the jobs bill had been passed, the recovery would have been much faster. The more taxes is a figment of your imagination, letting the Bush tax cuts expire was not a tax increase, merely the end of a temporary and unnecessary tax cut. The more big government is also just a GOP talking point with no substance in fact.
You seem to imply that spending would NOT lead to economic recovery, and that taxes would NOT lead to lower deficits.
Do you have a cite for these avant-garde economic “ideas”?
This is rather the point: conservatives managed to basically burn everything to ground in the Bush years, avoid all responsibility, and somehow Obama/democrats gets all the blame. Moreover, conservatives try to take credit for everything positive Obama ever did. And somehow the American people have, overall, fallen for the conservative version of “history.”
Bush was essentially everything conservatives blame Obama for – runaway spending, huge deficits, horrible unemployment (when Obama took office unemployment was ~10%) – while Obama is everything they’ve fooled themselves into thinking Reagan used to be. Humans are so fucking tribal, we’ll never fully evolve out of that.
Anyway, fifty years from now, conservatives will try to take credit for LBGQ civil rights and decriminalization of recreational drugs, as well as whatever form national health care is in. And Obama will be seen as a middling, do-nothing president.
(Oh yea, what about saving the American auto industry? Both sides hated it at the time – the left wanted to see them fail, the right hated the “socialization” of it all as well as the massive amounts of spending – and here we are now, all the loans have been paid off (with interest!) and the American auto industry is doing great. Why does he get no credit for that?)
Well, I give him credit, at least. See post 8.
You can’t give the President credit for things he opposed. He opposed lower spending, so you can’t give him credit for lower spending. You also can’t give him credit for the lower deficit resulting from that lower spending.
As for his economic record, the reason he doesn’t get credit for that from the populace is because instead of giving optimistic “Morning in America” speeches, he grouses, like some of you do, that things could be so much better if only his agenda hadn’t been blocked. Yeah, and Bill Clinton would have created 100 million jobs if the Republicans hadn’t been in control of Congress for six of his eight years.
The deficit is a function of spending and taxes. Obama wanted higher spending and the higher taxes to pay for it. We do not know what the deficit would look like in the counterfactual world Obama preferred. All we know is what it looks like in the world he actually governs.
You’re also wrong to assume that things like budgets are what determines our deficits. It is affected by many things, including medical inflation, overall economic productivity and the effect on taxes, our decisions to launch or not launch wars that inevitably get paid for, etc. etc.
Maybe Obama does or does not deserve credit for some or all of that. But it is ignorant to assert that since Obama asked for higher spending he cannot claim credit for lower deficits.
He certainly wanted higher spending, but he said specifically that he would not raise taxes, claimed that his Obamacare tax wasn’t a tax, and extended the Bush era tax cuts. And he has never called for tax increases sufficient to pay for his spending. After the stimulus had passed, he called for another $450 billion in spending and, far from raising taxes, wanted to push off onto Congress the responsibility for finding spending to cut in order to avoid increasing the deficit. Fortunately, it didn’t pass, but Obama doesn’t want higher taxes.
Regards,
Shodan
So which is it? Did he call for higher taxes, but just not high enough to offset all spending increases? Or did not not call for higher taxes?
The first claim is true, but irrelevant. The second is false. Not sure which one you’re going with.
Sure we can. He wanted more spending, a lot more spending than his revenue increases paid for. He’s asked Republicans for $200 billion more every year. That’s $800 billion added to our deficits if he got his way, in only four years. By contrast, his rollback of part of the Bush tax cuts was worth only $600 billion over ten. The deficit would certainly be higher if he’d gotten what he wanted.
Heck, the President himself hasn’t taken credit for much of this except in passing. It’s a dumb political strategy, but at least he’s telling us what he really feels: that things are bad because he’s been stymied.
Ok, you’re halfway there by conceding that you cannot just look at the additional spending that Obama budgets called for. The second half is to admit that tax revenue is not just a function of tax rates, and that things like infrastructure spending can be a net gain to federal revenue.
Obviously you dispute the economics, but then your argument is really just a partisan economic view in disguise as an observation about budget facts.
Ah yes, the liberal version of supply side, we spend money to save money.
It’s not a lie, but liberals have never shown any particular skill in investing taxpayer money wisely, so it’s safe to assume that their spending requests are 90% consumption at minimum. Perhaps if you weren’t so hostile to electing professional investors to office…
You don’t have to believe the multiplier is huge to believe it must be taken into account.
The same is true of tax cuts, but in practice it’s been not very large, and thus we aren’t missing much by leaving it out.
Sure, if we were talking only about an infrastructure program, maybe that would be a solid investment. But the President’s budgets include higher spending than Congress has approved in a lot more areas than that. And there’s no evidence that more money produces better results with most of these agencies. Nor has there been any effort on the administration’s part to insure that money is spent wisely, which you would think would be a prerequisite for requesting so much more funding.
Let’s see, CDC diversity programs or an ebola vaccine? Hmmmmmm…
At this point, I’d give Obama a C: squarely in the list of mildly competent, mediocre presidents. He has a few domestic achievements (most notably, Obamacare), but nothing of the historical significance of the New Deal or Great Society, nor the general prosperity of Eisenhower or Clinton’s tenure. He’s has some foreign policy accomplishments, most notably killing bin Laden, but there’s not many other bona fide successes he can point to; while he wound down the wars in Iraq and (at least in current policy) Afghanistan, those can’t really be said to be great successes for him. He’s personally popular, but he doesn’t have the ideological coattails of Reagan. On the other hand, he hasn’t had any huge scandals during his administration so far, he handily won re-election, and the economy is far better than it was when he first took office.
I consider Obama to be a president who was dealt a terrible hand by past events and is playing it only adequately. He’s been a competent caretaker, preventing further domestic and foreign crises but running in place rather than on ahead. Of course, things can change even in the last two years of a two-term president’s tenure; before the financial meltdown, Bush might have merited a D rather than a solid F. Still, my main point against is Obama is that he hasn’t accomplished anything particularly ambitious, large, or even hugely successful; it’s just been a series of minor victories. The last two years of a president’s term is usually not the place for that to change, especially for the better.