Every time I hear this argument, I imagine epidemics running wild, tainted food killing millions, lye sold as a cold remedy, corporations doing whatever the hell they want with no regulation or restraint. I don’t want to live in that world.
The world I suggested is one in which government does what it’s supposed to do. When the government puts resources and eyeballs on obesity and the size of soft drinks and the content of school lunches, that’s resources and attention taken away from the issues you just mentioned.
If you don’t want epidemics to run wild, maybe the CDC should be focusing 100% of its efforts on preventing pandemics. When you have 50 different top priorities, it really means you have no priorities.
Obama’s been the best President since LBJ while Bush the Lesser was the worst President since Hoover if not Andrew Johnson. There simply is no contest here.
Right. Without excusing their failings, the other presidents besides George W. Bush who are ofen looked up on as having been catastrophically terrible have also generally had some positive, if not redeeming, points in their favor: Carter had his human rights and post-presidential charitable works; Nixon had some genuinely impressive foreign policy successes; Johnson had has landmark civil rights work despite his foreign policy; Harding died two years into his term and wrote an awesome series of dirty letters (“Wouldn’t you like to get sopping wet out on Superior— not the lake”); and so on. With the exception of increasing AIDS funding to Africa, Bush has absolutely nothing going for him. He screwed up everything he touched, whether in foreign policy, defense, the economy, Katrina, Iraq, or even just the integrity of his administration. Uniquely among two-term presidents, he was spectacularly and uniformly incompetent.
well there shouldn’t be.
Both decades out of the spotlight and death have amazing rehabilitative properties.
I think Obama is a decent president but his presidency is focused on cleaning up the mess of his predecessor. He had to clean up the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and at the same time save the economy. He does most of what he says he’s gonna do: He made Obamacare, he cut military spending, he got the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, he somewhat closed Guantanamo and he somewhat saved the economy.
His foreign policy is smart as well he focuses on using indirect methods like drone strikes and uses proxies instead of ground troops, so that he still solves the conflict but minimizes spending and manpower. The 2008 economic crisis was considered to be worse than the great depression but he manages to recover it to pre-recession levels in 5 years.
If the situation was different he would’ve been perceived as a good president. He had a few mistakes like the NSA scandal and Obamacare not going smoothly but i believe that he had done all that he could so that he doesn’t leave a mess when he leaves.
Yet he is leaving a mess. And there’s no particular evidence that he’s been focused on cleaning up any messes other than the big recession Bush left, and where he again constantly takes his eye off the ball. How many times has Obama “repivoted” to jobs?
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, an intelligent policy involves more than just pulling out, as the situation in Iraq has shown. If Al Qaeda regains its foothold in Afghanistan, then Obama will have left both places worse off than he inherited them, and both places posing a greater threat to the US than when he inherited them.
I’m also kind of curious about why liberals seem to make a distinction between bombing and troops on the ground. A bomb is just as violent as a tank. And this President has bombed more Muslim countries than Bush did. So even on the basic issue of being a warmonger, Obama has Bush beat on at least one measure.
I mostly agree, but Medicare Part D (at least according to thisanalysis) is responsible for a lot of the deceleration in Medicare spending since 2011.
No he’s not – the country is much stronger, much safer, and in much better condition economically than in 2008.
The job news for the last year or two has been pretty good. Plenty of room for improvement, but right now, the economy (and jobs) are looking up.
Completely bogus. Putting in more troops will make the situation worse and America weaker and less safe. That’s the lesson we should have learned – getting heavily involved works for no one and hurts pretty much everyone, especially us.
The main difference is that without troops on the ground, we don’t lose American lives.
That much is true.
I agree, but that doesn’t mean the President has been focused on it. He hasn’t been and has only given lip service to job creation when he senses that he needs to. Otherwise they wouldn’t need to keep announcing a “pivot to jobs”.
You could have a point, except that pulling troops out made things precipitously worse. The idea wasn’t to get troops out and to hell with the consequences, it was to have a smarter foreign policy than the previous President. Results matter.
So warmongering isn’t really the issue, is it? I’ve argued as much in the past. Strange that Democrats are so nationalist these days. “Bomb whoever you want, just don’t put troops on the ground and don’t cut SS. Then you’ll be a great President.”
Without congress, there’s very little the President can actually do on jobs. And this congress has no interest in taking action that would actually create jobs.
I see no reason to believe that the situation would be any better in Iraq had we stayed, and it would be far worse for us, because far more Americans would be dead.
Far fewer dead Americans is a much, much better result.
I’m not necessarily for various bombing campaigns, I just find them far less objectionable than things that get Americans killed.
You were just saying how much of a dove Obama is…
Ladies and gentlemen, Michael Jackson!
I’m still trying to find a good source for the exact numbers, but in the meantime, it looks like that graph was simply showing that Medicare Part D growth has been slowing down. In other words, the growth of Medicare + Part D has been slower than expected, not that Medicare + Part D is actually cheaper than Medicare without Part D. It’s not lowering Medicare spending.
In any case, I would assert that Medicare Part D was a huge, corrupt give-away to the pharmaceutical industry and not something to list as a notable accomplishment of Bush’s. For example, one of the significant contributors to the bill, Billy Tauzin (R-LA), left Congress two years later to become president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). That’s not the action of someone who’s genuinely interested in solving the problem of rising health care costs (both to individuals and to the government) in the country.
I know I am coming to this thread late, but isn’t that true of all presidents, regardless of party?
I always envision the electorate in thirds. One third WILL vote for a given candidate, one third WILL NOT, and it’s the last third that’s up for grabs
(assumes a US, two party election, but for all intents and purposes that’s what we have)
I screwed up and don’t know how to fix it. This was supposed to be a response to adaher’s comment that most Obama supporters don’t know he’s unpopular.
This came up at lunch last Friday. I was with three pretty liberal folks, all of whom support Obama. The discussion turned to a debate about WHY (not IF) he is so unpopular.
Of course – the polling shows he’s pretty unpopular right now. I don’t think anyone has denied this.
Yep hands down FDR was the worst, followed closely by Wilson who pushed the federal reserve on this country Obombya comes in at 3rd.
What an interesting opinion. Care to justify it with anything?