so much for draining the swamp

[Dill]

(11-12-2016, 11:15 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The recession was largely timing, and a lot of seeds were sown under Clinton, to the extent POTUS is really responsible for a recession or can actively prevent them.  But the mediocre recovery is all Obama.  Now we are stuck with absurdly low interest rates, massive debt and the next recession could be even worse with less monetary ability to combat it.  Truthfully, Obama has not been very different from Bush, and has had many of the same policies, particularly on the economic side (Bush's on steroids).

As for the wars, sure, but not sure it would have been very different if the roles were reversed.  Certainly Slick Willy would have done similar and has said as much.

Obamacare is a mess.  Bush gave the store to Big Pharma?!?  What was Obamacare then - the insurance companies practically wrote it.  It is shitting the bed because you simply didn't need to go that route just for pre-existing conditions.  When you admit that it was a stepping stone, you implicitly admit you passed crappy legislation to force something else (again with the steamrolling).

Again, I think the Dems have fallen as far from where they were as Repubs under Bush did (who didn't have the same high starting point).  That is, if you want to be honest which you don't appear willing to be.

Sorry, Obama/Pelosi/Reid CREATED that obstruction when they steamrolled the minority party and the Repubs most certainly did not start out that way from Day 1.  They didn't think they'd ever have to work with Repubs again.  Obama when he was elected was going to be the great unifier and reach across the aisle - he never did that.


I don't disagree Bush was terrible.  My point is Obama isn't much different.  To think one is good and the other terrible just wreaks of delusion.

Some seeds sown under Clinton, and before, sure.  But granting the recession was not "all Bush," why would you claim a mediocre recovery was "all Obama"? What do you think Romney would have done differently or better?

Clinton was pretty clear that inspections should have run their course before any invasion. And were he still president in 2003, he would not have had Cheney and Rumsfeld cooking his intel. Why would you ever think Obama would have invaded, were “roles reversed”? There was never any credible evidence of WMDs and much dissension within the intel community.  No reason to believe any president would have invaded, other than the one who had staffed his cabinet with neo cons.

I haven't “admitted” Obamacare is supposed to be a stepping stone, only that Trump might make it so. That one party destroys another’s legislation does not mean it is bad legislation, as the post-Civil War history of civil rights shows.

As for the charge Obama never reached across the aisle and “steamrolled” Obamacare—he was the first president to ask three members of the opposing party to join his cabinet, including the all-important Secretary of Defense, and was constantly criticized by his own party during his first months in office for reaching out to Republicans who continually rebuffed him, who planned to obstruct even before he was sworn in. http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/08/if-obama-was-for-it-we-had-to-be-against-it.html

Do you remember Bush’s popularity standing at 50+ when Obama was elected? Or McCain getting the popular vote in 2008? Or thousands protesting in the streets for days after Obama won? How about a NEVER OBAMA movement forming after his nomination, all manner of prominent Democrats vowing to vote Republican? If not, then what are your "honest" criteria for determining the Democrats have fallen as far as the Republicans in 2008?