Worst US President of the last 50 years (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, re Katrina: you were there, I wasn't. I can only go by what I read and saw on TV. But it strikes me that every time Bush gets criticized over Katrina, some conservative will rush in and point out the incompetence of the mayor and the governor. I don't give a crap about the mayor and the governor and how corrupt or incompetent they were. I care about what the Presidrnt and his people did or did not do. Bush hired a complete idiot with no experience as head of FEMA, and this was on purpose because Bush did not believe in FEMA. Bush then refused to get involved for several critical days because that was his management style. For these things I blame him.

By contrast, Obama's reaction to Hurricane Sandy, his immediate take charge attitude, the high level of competence of the people he installed at FEMA: all of these demonstrate what a true leader should be, as Chris Christie attested to.

The story about Brown came out of Baton Rouge where he was supping in fine dining style while all he11 was breaking loose. The FEMA process was terrible, but eventually they helped a lot of people even outside NO. There is no excuse for Bush's hiring of Brown, but like I said if you want a comparison look at who Obama had managing the MMS before the BP spill.

About the mayor, and the governor - and the parish president, and the councilmen, and the IT director and the housing manager, which you fail to mention, and the list which goes on - all of whom are in jail or disgraced - no I guess you don't care because you quite probably have never lived under complete, unmitigated governmental failure only to realize that the people running the show weren't just waiting for a crisis to show their stuff but instead absolute criminals who used it as an opportunity to steal. These people are in jail now. In. Jail. Get it? How many of your local politicians have been put in jail since 2005? We've probably got a score all told just in NO (probably 2-3 score in surrounding parishes). How about you, how much actual, criminal governmental behavior have you had in your town, city, district or county? I'd love to hear your perspective about it because then imagine if you had such people running things in a real crisis.

What you actually won't hear conservatives talk about - or liberals - or you - is the absolute deplorable state the levees were in, in which the federal government under-built and under designed for decades. This is the kind of thing that gets private sector engineers put in jail for. Guess what? The feds have immunity. Oh well. And the hearings on the Hill led by the Democrats? Not a word mentioned about the state of the levees themselves, which were 100% federal.

As for Obama and Sandy, hey I agree, no problem there, but I would totally defer to someone from the Shore or Staten Island or Queens I tell you that much. I will also add there is a far bigger gulf inb terms of competence between Gov. Christie and Gov. Blanco than there is between Pres. Obama and Pres. Bush.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Saints, re Katrina: you were there, I wasn't. I can only go by what I read and saw on TV. But it strikes me that every time Bush gets criticized over Katrina, some conservative will rush in and point out the incompetence of the mayor and the governor. I don't give a crap about the mayor and the governor and how corrupt or incompetent they were. I care about what the Presidrnt and his people did or did not do. Bush hired a complete idiot with no experience as head of FEMA, and this was on purpose because Bush did not believe in FEMA. Bush then refused to get involved for several critical days because that was his management style. For these things I blame him.

By contrast, Obama's reaction to Hurricane Sandy, his immediate take charge attitude, the high level of competence of the people he installed at FEMA: all of these demonstrate what a true leader should be, as Chris Christie attested to.

The story about Brown came out of Baton Rouge where he was supping in fine dining style while all he11 was breaking loose. The FEMA process was terrible, but eventually they helped a lot of people even outside NO. There is no excuse for Bush's hiring of Brown, but like I said if you want a comparison look at who Obama had managing the MMS before the BP spill.

About the mayor, and the governor - and the parish president, and the councilmen, and the IT director and the housing manager, which you fail to mention, and the list which goes on - all of whom are in jail or disgraced - no I guess you don't care because you quite probably have never lived under complete, unmitigated governmental failure only to realize that the people running the show weren't just waiting for a crisis to show their stuff but instead absolute criminals who used it as an opportunity to steal. These people are in jail now. In. Jail. Get it? How many of your local politicians have been put in jail since 2005? We've probably got a score all told. How about you, how much actual, criminal governmental behavior have you had in your town, city, district or county? I'd love to hear your perspective about it because then imagine if you had such people running things in a real crisis.

What you actually won't hear conservatives talk about - or liberals - or you - is the absolute deplorable state the levees were in, in which the federal government under-built and under designed for decades. This is the kind of thing that gets private sector engineers put in jail for. Guess what? The feds have immunity. Oh well. And the hearings on the Hill led by the Democrats? Not a word mentioned about the state of the levees themselves, which were 100% federal.

Are levee repairs free?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, re Katrina: you were there, I wasn't. I can only go by what I read and saw on TV. But it strikes me that every time Bush gets criticized over Katrina, some conservative will rush in and point out the incompetence of the mayor and the governor. I don't give a crap about the mayor and the governor and how corrupt or incompetent they were. I care about what the Presidrnt and his people did or did not do. Bush hired a complete idiot with no experience as head of FEMA, and this was on purpose because Bush did not believe in FEMA. Bush then refused to get involved for several critical days because that was his management style. For these things I blame him.

By contrast, Obama's reaction to Hurricane Sandy, his immediate take charge attitude, the high level of competence of the people he installed at FEMA: all of these demonstrate what a true leader should be, as Chris Christie attested to.

The story about Brown came out of Baton Rouge where he was supping in fine dining style while all he11 was breaking loose. The FEMA process was terrible, but eventually they helped a lot of people even outside NO. There is no excuse for Bush's hiring of Brown, but like I said if you want a comparison look at who Obama had managing the MMS before the BP spill.

About the mayor, and the governor - and the parish president, and the councilmen, and the IT director and the housing manager, which you fail to mention, and the list which goes on - all of whom are in jail or disgraced - no I guess you don't care because you quite probably have never lived under complete, unmitigated governmental failure only to realize that the people running the show weren't just waiting for a crisis to show their stuff but instead absolute criminals who used it as an opportunity to steal. These people are in jail now. In. Jail. Get it? How many of your local politicians have been put in jail since 2005? We've probably got a score all told. How about you, how much actual, criminal governmental behavior have you had in your town, city, district or county? I'd love to hear your perspective about it because then imagine if you had such people running things in a real crisis.

What you actually won't hear conservatives talk about - or liberals - or you - is the absolute deplorable state the levees were in, in which the federal government under-built and under designed for decades. This is the kind of thing that gets private sector engineers put in jail for. Guess what? The feds have immunity. Oh well. And the hearings on the Hill led by the Democrats? Not a word mentioned about the state of the levees themselves, which were 100% federal.

Are levee repairs free?

Do you mean have the feds been paying for rebuilding the levees? Yes, and I am very thankful to our Democratic and Republican Congressmen and the feds who have paid the bill. However I will point out we had Betsy in 1965 and we were told the levees would be fixed then too. We won't know until we know. But after Katrina we discovered a whole lot negligence.

 

[RCon]

Are levee repairs free?

According to most liberals, all federal spending is free.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Are levee repairs free?

According to most liberals, all federal spending is free.

According to conservatives, all federal spending is excessive ... right up until the #### hits the fan. After the #### hits the fan conservatives wonder why the feds didn't do more to prevent it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Are levee repairs free?

According to most liberals, all federal spending is free.

According to conservatives, all federal spending is excessive ... right up until the #### hits the fan. After the #### hits the fan conservatives wonder why the feds didn't do more to prevent it.

Actually as I said you don't hear it from conservatives, or anyone in DC, because of just that reason. The feds took over the Mississippi River system well before the TVA, in the 1870's-1890's or so, it was the first big federal program. Basically it's like the Hoover Dam breaking wide open.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Are levee repairs free?

According to most liberals, all federal spending is free.

According to conservatives, all federal spending is excessive ... right up until the #### hits the fan. After the #### hits the fan conservatives wonder why the feds didn't do more to prevent it.

Actually as I said you don't hear it from conservatives, or anyone in DC, because of just that reason. The feds took over the Mississippi River system well before the TVA, in the 1870's-1890's or so, it was the first big federal program. Basically it's like the Hoover Dam breaking wide open.

Conservatives don't ##### about federal spending being excessive?

 

[Ilov80s]

I think it takes maybe 10-20 years to really get a feel for how well a president did- maybe longer.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Are levee repairs free?

According to most liberals, all federal spending is free.

According to conservatives, all federal spending is excessive ... right up until the #### hits the fan. After the #### hits the fan conservatives wonder why the feds didn't do more to prevent it.

Actually as I said you don't hear it from conservatives, or anyone in DC, because of just that reason. The feds took over the Mississippi River system well before the TVA, in the 1870's-1890's or so, it was the first big federal program. Basically it's like the Hoover Dam breaking wide open.

Conservatives don't ##### about federal spending being excessive?

I just meant that conservatives do not like to raise the point about the failed levees. - What you're saying, yes, that's the opposite point - yes, conservatives ##### about the cost of building (not rebuilding) the levees. And there is Jindal talking about the cost of volcano monitoring. I will do you one worse, there is a local rep in MS (where the storm actually hit, around Waveland) who actually voted against some kind of federal funding for Sandy and made some crack about it. Absolutely unbelievable. He's GOP in an extremely conservative district (think McDaniel) but he has a good chance of being thrown out for that.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Are levee repairs free?

According to most liberals, all federal spending is free.

According to conservatives, all federal spending is excessive ... right up until the #### hits the fan. After the #### hits the fan conservatives wonder why the feds didn't do more to prevent it.

Actually as I said you don't hear it from conservatives, or anyone in DC, because of just that reason. The feds took over the Mississippi River system well before the TVA, in the 1870's-1890's or so, it was the first big federal program. Basically it's like the Hoover Dam breaking wide open.

It was more of a joke/general statement.

For a specific example you know well, though, see the BP spill. Before it happened, conservatives loved to complain about Interior administrative spending, and delays in drilling auctions and permits, and environmental restrictions, and whatever else they could think of. Then a rig explodes, and all of a sudden the GOP is asking why MMS didn't have more on-site inspections and safety criteria and environmental safeguards in place to possibly prevent this disaster.

See, the problem is that if you want all that stuff you have to have it in place before the bad things happen, because ... here's the rub ... you don't know in what industry or region the next bad thing will occur.

This is basically the GOP after every bad thing that happens.

 

[Politician Spock]

When they run the poll in 2018 or so, you want to know who the worst president since WWII is going to be? It will be the sitting president.

Actually Clinton did just fine popularity-wise. Guess what, he worked with Newt Gingrich and a GOP Congress. Take away the bj from the unpaid pizza delivery girl and who knows how he would rank.

Clinton without a doubt worked well with those accross the ailse despite how much they disagreed with each other. After 8 years of the divisiveness Bush caused, a key part of Obama's campaign was how he could restore the environment in DC that Bush destroyed. Didn't happen. He's as bad as Bush, if not worse. His constant finger pointing and deflecting blame will be hard for a lot of people to forget. "I inherited this mess" should be put on his tombstone.

As bad as Bush? WTF are you talking about?

HTF are you not seeing it?

 

[tommyGunZ]

What?!!?! The IRS and VA don't have the most up-to-date and sophisticated technology!??!?!? /GOP

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Are levee repairs free?

According to most liberals, all federal spending is free.

According to conservatives, all federal spending is excessive ... right up until the #### hits the fan. After the #### hits the fan conservatives wonder why the feds didn't do more to prevent it.

Actually as I said you don't hear it from conservatives, or anyone in DC, because of just that reason. The feds took over the Mississippi River system well before the TVA, in the 1870's-1890's or so, it was the first big federal program. Basically it's like the Hoover Dam breaking wide open.

It was more of a joke/general statement.

For a specific example you know well, though, see the BP spill. Before it happened, conservatives loved to complain about Interior administrative spending, and delays in drilling auctions and permits, and environmental restrictions, and whatever else they could think of. Then a rig explodes, and all of a sudden the GOP is asking why MMS didn't have more on-site inspections and safety criteria and environmental safeguards in place to possibly prevent this disaster.

See, the problem is that if you want all that stuff you have to have it in place before the bad things happen, because ... here's the rub ... you don't know in what industry or region the next bad thing will occur.

This is basically the GOP after every bad thing that happens.

Ok right. And I think the MMS mismanagement went back years, like the VA mismanagement, and so did the levees situation. But the levees are looking great now, we have massive pumps and walls at the outlets whereas before we still had stations in the city center where the city's edge was in the 1890's (seriously). But we felt pretty damned good in 05 too. Tim raised this issue, I blame him.

On a serious note, I think Obama (maybe rightly in many instances like the VA, MMS, FEMA) said that he was going to restore faith in government, that he was going to show what good government could do. I don't know, we are trillions in debt and I see more homeless people than ever. The MMS safety director was just an insider hack. The VA was cooking the books. I would like to think if we spend that much money things get fixed and done right and here we have had as a president a guy that we would all think would at least get that side of things right, that's what he ran on, competency. I think he has missed a major opportunity here.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What?!!?! The IRS and VA don't have the most up-to-date and sophisticated technology!??!?!? /GOP

Gunz, in the absolute best light I can imagine, Obama is a forward thinking, progressive, super educated, thoughtful, insightful guy from a unique background who totally believes in government and the good it can do. On the other hand he never so much as ran a snoball stand before he came into office. Everything catches him by surprise, everything. No one gets canned, nothing gets changed, it's just a massive spending machine with no accountability. He is supposed to be the guy that shows us how good government can be. It has been quite the opposite tale. Tim made a good point about FEMA, yes by all accounts it looks better run. Great job. What else? We can already say MMS, IRS, VA and ICE are about the same or worse. He had a prize program that was based on a website; Day 1 the thing was an absolute clunker, took a month to get going, but who in their right mind would have thought that website was ready to go? Any other examples? Look at the NBC/WSJ poll results, more people thought Bush Jr. was competent than Obama, think about that.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Are levee repairs free?

According to most liberals, all federal spending is free.

According to conservatives, all federal spending is excessive ... right up until the #### hits the fan. After the #### hits the fan conservatives wonder why the feds didn't do more to prevent it.

Actually as I said you don't hear it from conservatives, or anyone in DC, because of just that reason. The feds took over the Mississippi River system well before the TVA, in the 1870's-1890's or so, it was the first big federal program. Basically it's like the Hoover Dam breaking wide open.

It was more of a joke/general statement.

For a specific example you know well, though, see the BP spill. Before it happened, conservatives loved to complain about Interior administrative spending, and delays in drilling auctions and permits, and environmental restrictions, and whatever else they could think of. Then a rig explodes, and all of a sudden the GOP is asking why MMS didn't have more on-site inspections and safety criteria and environmental safeguards in place to possibly prevent this disaster.

See, the problem is that if you want all that stuff you have to have it in place before the bad things happen, because ... here's the rub ... you don't know in what industry or region the next bad thing will occur.

This is basically the GOP after every bad thing that happens.

Ok right. And I think the MMS mismanagement went back years, like the VA mismanagement, and so did the levees situation. But the levees are looking great now, we have massive pumps and walls at the outlets whereas before we still had stations in the city center where the city's edge was in the 1890's (seriously). But we felt pretty damned good in 05 too. Tim raised this issue, I blame him.

On a serious note, I think Obama (maybe rightly in many instances like the VA, MMS, FEMA) said that he was going to restore faith in government, that he was going to show what good government could do. I don't know, we are trillions in debt and I see more homeless people than ever. The MMS safety director was just an insider hack. The VA was cooking the books. I would like to think if we spend that much money things get fixed and done right and here we have had as a president a guy that we would all think would at least get that side of things right, that's what he ran on, competency. I think he has missed a major opportunity here.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that we're spending "that much money to get things fixed and done right." Federal administrative spending has dropped since Obama took office (with the exception of a spike after ARRA in 2009). There's been wage and hiring freezes in place for years. And did you forget about the sequester?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Saints talking in circles.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints talking in circles.

Are levee repairs free?

According to most liberals, all federal spending is free.

According to conservatives, all federal spending is excessive ... right up until the #### hits the fan. After the #### hits the fan conservatives wonder why the feds didn't do more to prevent it.

Actually as I said you don't hear it from conservatives, or anyone in DC, because of just that reason. The feds took over the Mississippi River system well before the TVA, in the 1870's-1890's or so, it was the first big federal program. Basically it's like the Hoover Dam breaking wide open.

It was more of a joke/general statement.

For a specific example you know well, though, see the BP spill. Before it happened, conservatives loved to complain about Interior administrative spending, and delays in drilling auctions and permits, and environmental restrictions, and whatever else they could think of. Then a rig explodes, and all of a sudden the GOP is asking why MMS didn't have more on-site inspections and safety criteria and environmental safeguards in place to possibly prevent this disaster.

See, the problem is that if you want all that stuff you have to have it in place before the bad things happen, because ... here's the rub ... you don't know in what industry or region the next bad thing will occur.

This is basically the GOP after every bad thing that happens.

Ok right. And I think the MMS mismanagement went back years, like the VA mismanagement, and so did the levees situation. But the levees are looking great now, we have massive pumps and walls at the outlets whereas before we still had stations in the city center where the city's edge was in the 1890's (seriously). But we felt pretty damned good in 05 too. Tim raised this issue, I blame him.

On a serious note, I think Obama (maybe rightly in many instances like the VA, MMS, FEMA) said that he was going to restore faith in government, that he was going to show what good government could do. I don't know, we are trillions in debt and I see more homeless people than ever. The MMS safety director was just an insider hack. The VA was cooking the books. I would like to think if we spend that much money things get fixed and done right and here we have had as a president a guy that we would all think would at least get that side of things right, that's what he ran on, competency. I think he has missed a major opportunity here.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that we're spending "that much money to get things fixed and done right." Federal administrative spending has dropped since Obama took office (with the exception of a spike after ARRA in 2009). There's been wage and hiring freezes in place for years. And did you forget about the sequester?

Like everything here just speculating based on my take on things. My expectation is that we have a balanced budget, and things like VA, IRS, MMS, HC.gov rollout and other mistakes don't happen when government is run by someone who is a progressive. - But if that's all wrong then why do you think the poll numbers are where they, especially the one saying that fewer people think Obama has been competent than Bush?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Saints talking in circles.

Are levee repairs free?

According to most liberals, all federal spending is free.

According to conservatives, all federal spending is excessive ... right up until the #### hits the fan. After the #### hits the fan conservatives wonder why the feds didn't do more to prevent it.

Actually as I said you don't hear it from conservatives, or anyone in DC, because of just that reason. The feds took over the Mississippi River system well before the TVA, in the 1870's-1890's or so, it was the first big federal program. Basically it's like the Hoover Dam breaking wide open.

It was more of a joke/general statement.

For a specific example you know well, though, see the BP spill. Before it happened, conservatives loved to complain about Interior administrative spending, and delays in drilling auctions and permits, and environmental restrictions, and whatever else they could think of. Then a rig explodes, and all of a sudden the GOP is asking why MMS didn't have more on-site inspections and safety criteria and environmental safeguards in place to possibly prevent this disaster.

See, the problem is that if you want all that stuff you have to have it in place before the bad things happen, because ... here's the rub ... you don't know in what industry or region the next bad thing will occur.

This is basically the GOP after every bad thing that happens.

Ok right. And I think the MMS mismanagement went back years, like the VA mismanagement, and so did the levees situation. But the levees are looking great now, we have massive pumps and walls at the outlets whereas before we still had stations in the city center where the city's edge was in the 1890's (seriously). But we felt pretty damned good in 05 too. Tim raised this issue, I blame him.

On a serious note, I think Obama (maybe rightly in many instances like the VA, MMS, FEMA) said that he was going to restore faith in government, that he was going to show what good government could do. I don't know, we are trillions in debt and I see more homeless people than ever. The MMS safety director was just an insider hack. The VA was cooking the books. I would like to think if we spend that much money things get fixed and done right and here we have had as a president a guy that we would all think would at least get that side of things right, that's what he ran on, competency. I think he has missed a major opportunity here.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that we're spending "that much money to get things fixed and done right." Federal administrative spending has dropped since Obama took office (with the exception of a spike after ARRA in 2009). There's been wage and hiring freezes in place for years. And did you forget about the sequester?

Like everything here just speculating based on my take on things. My expectation is that we have a balanced budget, and things like VA, IRS, MMS, HC.gov rollout and other mistakes don't happen when government is run by someone who is a progressive. - But if that's all wrong then why do you think the poll numbers are where they, especially the one saying that fewer people think Obama has been competent than Bush?

So basically your expectation is that we spend a lot less and yet somehow get more. Government is like anything else. You get what you pay for.

I don't know what poll numbers you mean. If you're talking about the "worst president poll," many people have already explained that one. The current president is always gonna dominate responses. Recency + breathless media coverage + feigned outrage from political opponents feed the negativity, especially in a second term and especially in the early stages of something like the ACA. Ten years from now the perspective on Obama will be very different from the current polling. I don't know if he'll be well-regarded like Clinton came to be, but there's no chance he'll lead polls of the worst presidents.

 

[fourd]

Obama isn't doing anything different than FDR did. Seriously - we need to get over ourselves this current generation. We aren't that special or important. Our polity has been so much worse in the past and we don't even understand how.

Our Secretary of State has not started a cable news network to attack his/her President while sitting in office. But that's happened before.

The Chairman of the GOP has not come out and stated that the sitting President is mentally ill and should be institutionalized for his own good (and not just hyperbole but really meaning it). But that's happened before.

The President has not said that he doesn't like the Supreme Court standing in the way of his policies so he is going to increase the amount of Justices until he gets what he wants.

The Vice President has not murdered the Secretary of the Treasury.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has not tried to take over the reigns of the White House.

And on and on and on and on. This Obama stuff is ridiculous. So he has signed Executive Orders. You know who else did? Every single President, some more than others. How about President's who had to end run Congress somehow because Congress didn't work with them? Hmmm, I can name about 40 guys who did that prior to Obama. Some more than others. Many more than Obama. For as much as I love him and support him, Abraham Lincoln did stuff through and without Congress that would make people's heads explode today.

But all we hear constantly is how bad it is now. Go back and look at any political threads from 2003 when this board went active - oh my god, everything is so bad its the worst its ever been. And on and on it goes. We are so self centered and myopic in this generation that we can't see the past and learn the lessons of history. God do we suck sometimes.

Everyone has an opinion plus internet access plus recency bias = this is the worst time ever.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints talking in circles.

...According to conservatives, all federal spending is excessive ... right up until the #### hits the fan. After the #### hits the fan conservatives wonder why the feds didn't do more to prevent it.

Actually as I said you don't hear it from conservatives, or anyone in DC, because of just that reason. The feds took over the Mississippi River system well before the TVA, in the 1870's-1890's or so, it was the first big federal program. Basically it's like the Hoover Dam breaking wide open.

It was more of a joke/general statement.

For a specific example you know well, though, see the BP spill. Before it happened, conservatives loved to complain about Interior administrative spending, and delays in drilling auctions and permits, and environmental restrictions, and whatever else they could think of. Then a rig explodes, and all of a sudden the GOP is asking why MMS didn't have more on-site inspections and safety criteria and environmental safeguards in place to possibly prevent this disaster.

See, the problem is that if you want all that stuff you have to have it in place before the bad things happen, because ... here's the rub ... you don't know in what industry or region the next bad thing will occur.

This is basically the GOP after every bad thing that happens.

Ok right. And I think the MMS mismanagement went back years, like the VA mismanagement, and so did the levees situation. But the levees are looking great now, we have massive pumps and walls at the outlets whereas before we still had stations in the city center where the city's edge was in the 1890's (seriously). But we felt pretty damned good in 05 too. Tim raised this issue, I blame him.

On a serious note, I think Obama (maybe rightly in many instances like the VA, MMS, FEMA) said that he was going to restore faith in government, that he was going to show what good government could do. I don't know, we are trillions in debt and I see more homeless people than ever. The MMS safety director was just an insider hack. The VA was cooking the books. I would like to think if we spend that much money things get fixed and done right and here we have had as a president a guy that we would all think would at least get that side of things right, that's what he ran on, competency. I think he has missed a major opportunity here.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that we're spending "that much money to get things fixed and done right." Federal administrative spending has dropped since Obama took office (with the exception of a spike after ARRA in 2009). There's been wage and hiring freezes in place for years. And did you forget about the sequester?

Like everything here just speculating based on my take on things. My expectation is that we have a balanced budget, and things like VA, IRS, MMS, HC.gov rollout and other mistakes don't happen when government is run by someone who is a progressive. - But if that's all wrong then why do you think the poll numbers are where they, especially the one saying that fewer people think Obama has been competent than Bush?

So basically your expectation is that we spend a lot less and yet somehow get more. Government is like anything else. You get what you pay for.

I don't know what poll numbers you mean. If you're talking about the "worst president poll," many people have already explained that one. The current president is always gonna dominate responses. Recency + breathless media coverage + feigned outrage from political opponents feed the negativity, especially in a second term and especially in the early stages of something like the ACA. Ten years from now the perspective on Obama will be very different from the current polling. I don't know if he'll be well-regarded like Clinton came to be, but there's no chance he'll lead polls of the worst presidents.

This poll, NBC:

When to comes to President Obama, one other set of numbers stand out to us: 50% say his administration is competent managing the federal government, and an equal 50% don’t think it has been competent. To put that finding into perspective, when the same question was asked about George W. Bush -- after Hurricane Katrina and the increased violence in Iraq -- 53% said his administration was competent vs. 46% who said it wasn’t. So Bush fared BETTER on this question than Obama. That has to sting for the folks in the West Wing.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/obamas-presidency-ropes-again-n134441

Not that your answer is any different - though it explicitly references whether Obama is competent. "Recency + breathless media coverage + feigned outrage from political opponents feed the negativity" leaves absolutely no room for any failures, mistakes or incompetence.

Fewer people think he is competent than when the poll was taken under Bush? The recency argument is a wash there.

 

[lod01]

When they run the poll in 2018 or so, you want to know who the worst president since WWII is going to be? It will be the sitting president.

Actually Clinton did just fine popularity-wise. Guess what, he worked with Newt Gingrich and a GOP Congress. Take away the bj from the unpaid pizza delivery girl and who knows how he would rank.

Clinton without a doubt worked well with those accross the ailse despite how much they disagreed with each other. After 8 years of the divisiveness Bush caused, a key part of Obama's campaign was how he could restore the environment in DC that Bush destroyed. Didn't happen. He's as bad as Bush, if not worse. His constant finger pointing and deflecting blame will be hard for a lot of people to forget. "I inherited this mess" should be put on his tombstone.

As bad as Bush? WTF are you talking about?

HTF are you not seeing it?

Well, Ican answer that one. I look at my financial statements. 8 Bush years = ZERO growth. 6 Obama years = over 100% growth. Pretty much case closed at that point.

 

[Politician Spock]

When they run the poll in 2018 or so, you want to know who the worst president since WWII is going to be? It will be the sitting president.

Actually Clinton did just fine popularity-wise. Guess what, he worked with Newt Gingrich and a GOP Congress. Take away the bj from the unpaid pizza delivery girl and who knows how he would rank.

Clinton without a doubt worked well with those accross the ailse despite how much they disagreed with each other. After 8 years of the divisiveness Bush caused, a key part of Obama's campaign was how he could restore the environment in DC that Bush destroyed. Didn't happen. He's as bad as Bush, if not worse. His constant finger pointing and deflecting blame will be hard for a lot of people to forget. "I inherited this mess" should be put on his tombstone.

As bad as Bush? WTF are you talking about?

HTF are you not seeing it?

Well, Ican answer that one. I look at my financial statements. 8 Bush years = ZERO growth. 6 Obama years = over 100% growth. Pretty much case closed at that point.

WTF does this have to do with the bad relationship between Bush and congress and Obama and congress?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Obama isn't doing anything different than FDR did. Seriously - we need to get over ourselves this current generation. We aren't that special or important. Our polity has been so much worse in the past and we don't even understand how.

Our Secretary of State has not started a cable news network to attack his/her President while sitting in office. But that's happened before.

The Chairman of the GOP has not come out and stated that the sitting President is mentally ill and should be institutionalized for his own good (and not just hyperbole but really meaning it). But that's happened before.

The President has not said that he doesn't like the Supreme Court standing in the way of his policies so he is going to increase the amount of Justices until he gets what he wants.

The Vice President has not murdered the Secretary of the Treasury.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has not tried to take over the reigns of the White House.

And on and on and on and on. This Obama stuff is ridiculous. So he has signed Executive Orders. You know who else did? Every single President, some more than others. How about President's who had to end run Congress somehow because Congress didn't work with them? Hmmm, I can name about 40 guys who did that prior to Obama. Some more than others. Many more than Obama. For as much as I love him and support him, Abraham Lincoln did stuff through and without Congress that would make people's heads explode today.

But all we hear constantly is how bad it is now. Go back and look at any political threads from 2003 when this board went active - oh my god, everything is so bad its the worst its ever been. And on and on it goes. We are so self centered and myopic in this generation that we can't see the past and learn the lessons of history. God do we suck sometimes.

Everyone has an opinion plus internet access plus recency bias = this is the worst time ever.

Isn't there a quote in some 30 year old Christmas movie remake that goes something like-

Americans think the past was great, the future is bright, that it is only the present that sucks

?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Well, Ican answer that one. I look at my financial statements. 8 Bush years = ZERO growth. 6 Obama years = over 100% growth. Pretty much case closed at that point.

Well...you answered A question.

 

[timschochet]

Out of sight, out of mind

 

[TobiasFunke]

Saints talking in circles.

...According to conservatives, all federal spending is excessive ... right up until the #### hits the fan. After the #### hits the fan conservatives wonder why the feds didn't do more to prevent it.

Actually as I said you don't hear it from conservatives, or anyone in DC, because of just that reason. The feds took over the Mississippi River system well before the TVA, in the 1870's-1890's or so, it was the first big federal program. Basically it's like the Hoover Dam breaking wide open.

It was more of a joke/general statement.

For a specific example you know well, though, see the BP spill. Before it happened, conservatives loved to complain about Interior administrative spending, and delays in drilling auctions and permits, and environmental restrictions, and whatever else they could think of. Then a rig explodes, and all of a sudden the GOP is asking why MMS didn't have more on-site inspections and safety criteria and environmental safeguards in place to possibly prevent this disaster.

See, the problem is that if you want all that stuff you have to have it in place before the bad things happen, because ... here's the rub ... you don't know in what industry or region the next bad thing will occur.

This is basically the GOP after every bad thing that happens.

Ok right. And I think the MMS mismanagement went back years, like the VA mismanagement, and so did the levees situation. But the levees are looking great now, we have massive pumps and walls at the outlets whereas before we still had stations in the city center where the city's edge was in the 1890's (seriously). But we felt pretty damned good in 05 too. Tim raised this issue, I blame him.

On a serious note, I think Obama (maybe rightly in many instances like the VA, MMS, FEMA) said that he was going to restore faith in government, that he was going to show what good government could do. I don't know, we are trillions in debt and I see more homeless people than ever. The MMS safety director was just an insider hack. The VA was cooking the books. I would like to think if we spend that much money things get fixed and done right and here we have had as a president a guy that we would all think would at least get that side of things right, that's what he ran on, competency. I think he has missed a major opportunity here.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that we're spending "that much money to get things fixed and done right." Federal administrative spending has dropped since Obama took office (with the exception of a spike after ARRA in 2009). There's been wage and hiring freezes in place for years. And did you forget about the sequester?

Like everything here just speculating based on my take on things. My expectation is that we have a balanced budget, and things like VA, IRS, MMS, HC.gov rollout and other mistakes don't happen when government is run by someone who is a progressive. - But if that's all wrong then why do you think the poll numbers are where they, especially the one saying that fewer people think Obama has been competent than Bush?

So basically your expectation is that we spend a lot less and yet somehow get more. Government is like anything else. You get what you pay for.

I don't know what poll numbers you mean. If you're talking about the "worst president poll," many people have already explained that one. The current president is always gonna dominate responses. Recency + breathless media coverage + feigned outrage from political opponents feed the negativity, especially in a second term and especially in the early stages of something like the ACA. Ten years from now the perspective on Obama will be very different from the current polling. I don't know if he'll be well-regarded like Clinton came to be, but there's no chance he'll lead polls of the worst presidents.

This poll, NBC:

When to comes to President Obama, one other set of numbers stand out to us: 50% say his administration is competent managing the federal government, and an equal 50% don’t think it has been competent. To put that finding into perspective, when the same question was asked about George W. Bush -- after Hurricane Katrina and the increased violence in Iraq -- 53% said his administration was competent vs. 46% who said it wasn’t. So Bush fared BETTER on this question than Obama. That has to sting for the folks in the West Wing.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/obamas-presidency-ropes-again-n134441

Not that your answer is any different - though it explicitly references whether Obama is competent. "Recency + breathless media coverage + feigned outrage from political opponents feed the negativity" leaves absolutely no room for any failures, mistakes or incompetence.

Fewer people think he is competent than when the poll was taken under Bush? The recency argument is a wash there.

53% vs 50% isn't really a significant difference. And Bush had the advantage of working with a federal government that was adequately funded since the Tea Party nutjobs hadn't descended on the ballot box and the Hill yet. Makes it easier to manage and avoid administrative problems.

But yes, that is negative polling data. There's been a lot of bad admin news for Obama in the last year. Not exactly surprising. That's why the poll number are where they are. There are a lot of people out there like you who want more for less and can't understand why it doesn't work that way.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I appreciate the response. As for "There are a lot of people out there like you who want more for less", it seems to me the federal government gets plenty, and if that's how people feel then its the job of people in government to take less and provide more. It would be good to see us start with a balanced budget and move from there, but hey I know I'm crazy. House the homeless, don't back up veterans' appointments `til they die, buy enough servers, don't put political hacks in as agency directors, properly design and build the levees as promised, etc., just do what you do well and get it in within budget. That's competence.

 

[Insein]

I think it takes maybe 10-20 years to really get a feel for how well a president did- maybe longer.

A lot like a draft. You need about 3-4 years to see how good it really was.

 

[fourd]

Obama isn't doing anything different than FDR did. Seriously - we need to get over ourselves this current generation. We aren't that special or important. Our polity has been so much worse in the past and we don't even understand how.

Our Secretary of State has not started a cable news network to attack his/her President while sitting in office. But that's happened before.

The Chairman of the GOP has not come out and stated that the sitting President is mentally ill and should be institutionalized for his own good (and not just hyperbole but really meaning it). But that's happened before.

The President has not said that he doesn't like the Supreme Court standing in the way of his policies so he is going to increase the amount of Justices until he gets what he wants.

The Vice President has not murdered the Secretary of the Treasury.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has not tried to take over the reigns of the White House.

And on and on and on and on. This Obama stuff is ridiculous. So he has signed Executive Orders. You know who else did? Every single President, some more than others. How about President's who had to end run Congress somehow because Congress didn't work with them? Hmmm, I can name about 40 guys who did that prior to Obama. Some more than others. Many more than Obama. For as much as I love him and support him, Abraham Lincoln did stuff through and without Congress that would make people's heads explode today.

But all we hear constantly is how bad it is now. Go back and look at any political threads from 2003 when this board went active - oh my god, everything is so bad its the worst its ever been. And on and on it goes. We are so self centered and myopic in this generation that we can't see the past and learn the lessons of history. God do we suck sometimes.

Everyone has an opinion plus internet access plus recency bias = this is the worst time ever.

Isn't there a quote in some 30 year old Christmas movie remake that goes something like-

Americans think the past was great, the future is bright, that it is only the present that sucks

?

Can't recall that but I do remember a book I had to read in college - The Good Old Days, They Were Terrible. Very enlightening at the time.

 

[jon_mx]

It really is hard for me to any of the blame for the lack of bipartisanship on Obama. From the beginning of his Presidency, it seems like we have seen the same pattern over and over:

OBAMA: This is what I want.

GOP: No.

OBAMA: Well, how about this then?

GOP: No.

OBAMA: OK, I'll give you this, if you give me this in return.

GOP: No.

OBAMA: Well, tell me what I need to do to make a deal.

GOP: we don't want any deal. We don't want to work with you at all.

OBAMA: Fine then I'll do it all on my own.

GOP: The imperial President! Refuses to compromise!

Honestly I can't think of a single major domestic issue which hadn't followed some variation of that pattern.

Well, then name a situation that went differently. I can't think of one.

How about Obama's "I won" mantra at the beginning of his administration, literally three days after inauguration? When he had the votes, there was no effort to include the GOP. Only after he lost in 2010 did he suddenly want to compromise.

How about his "grand bargain" where he constantly complained about the GOP's refusal to compromise, but never once made an actual proposal of his own? How could the GOP compromise on a non-existent proposal (they might well not have, but there wasn't any there there, to quote a phrase)?

Obama's standard operating procedure is to complain to the media about the GOP's refusals to compromise before there's any attempt on either side.

Yeah, Tim seems to forgot Obama's comments like how the GOP can come but they have to ride in the back. Obama has shown vast amount of arrogance and shares full responsibility for any of the gridlock. If Obama was any deeper inside Tim, he would be coming out the back of his head.

 

[jon_mx]

Seriously, what happened to the somewhat level-headed Tim who at least pretended to weigh both sides before jumping over to the far-leftist position. Now he is just in 100% left-wing nut job land. I am worried his mind has been taken over by Lawrance O'Donnell or something.

 

[timschochet]

Seriously, what happened to the somewhat level-headed Tim who at least pretended to weigh both sides before jumping over to the far-leftist position. Now he is just in 100% left-wing nut job land. I am worried his mind has been taken over by Lawrance O'Donnell or something.

What have I written here that is "100% left wing"? Or anything close to it? Pardon me for believing that Presidents should be evaluated not for their political positions, but for their effectiveness in office. I'm sure that you, as a conservative, rank the most conservative Presidents as the best, and the most liberal as the worst, but that's not the way I do it.

I used to regard Obama as a mediocre President because he was excellent at foreign affairs, but ineffective at domestic affairs. Now, thanks to reading and learning more, I have come to conclude that Obama's ineffectiveness at domestic affairs is largely due to the intransigence of his political opposition, which is on a level almost unheard of in American politics (the only close equivalent would be FDR). So that makes me move Obama from mediocre to above average. Not sure what is left wing about that, but perhaps you can explain.

 

[Insein]

Seriously, what happened to the somewhat level-headed Tim who at least pretended to weigh both sides before jumping over to the far-leftist position. Now he is just in 100% left-wing nut job land. I am worried his mind has been taken over by Lawrance O'Donnell or something.

What have I written here that is "100% left wing"? Or anything close to it? Pardon me for believing that Presidents should be evaluated not for their political positions, but for their effectiveness in office. I'm sure that you, as a conservative, rank the most conservative Presidents as the best, and the most liberal as the worst, but that's not the way I do it.

I used to regard Obama as a mediocre President because he was excellent at foreign affairs, but ineffective at domestic affairs. Now, thanks to reading and learning more, I have come to conclude that Obama's ineffectiveness at domestic affairs is largely due to the intransigence of his political opposition, which is on a level almost unheard of in American politics (the only close equivalent would be FDR). So that makes me move Obama from mediocre to above average. Not sure what is left wing about that, but perhaps you can explain.

¿Que?

 

[timschochet]

Insein, I've gone into much detail in this thread and others as to why I think Obama's been an excellent foreign policy president. Rather than for me to rehash it, if you or anyone else have a specific criticism with Obama's foreign policy, please state it, and I will respond. But be sure to also state what you think should have been done differently.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Seriously, what happened to the somewhat level-headed Tim who at least pretended to weigh both sides before jumping over to the far-leftist position. Now he is just in 100% left-wing nut job land. I am worried his mind has been taken over by Lawrance O'Donnell or something.

What have I written here that is "100% left wing"? Or anything close to it?Pardon me for believing that Presidents should be evaluated not for their political positions, but for their effectiveness in office. I'm sure that you, as a conservative, rank the most conservative Presidents as the best, and the most liberal as the worst, but that's not the way I do it.

fairs. Now, thankI used to regard Obama as a mediocre President because he was excellent at foreign affairs, but ineffective at domestic afs to reading and learning more, I have come to conclude that Obama's ineffectiveness at domestic affairs is largely due to the intransigence of his political opposition, which is on a level almost unheard of in American politics (the only close equivalent would be FDR). So that makes me move Obama from mediocre to above average. Not sure what is left wing about that, but perhaps you can explain.

What have I written here that is "100% left wing"? Or anything close to it?

I have come to conclude that Obama's ineffectiveness at domestic affairs is largely due to the intransigence of his political opposition, which is on a level almost unheard of in American politics

So in one breath you say you are less than 100% left wing, then in the next you say you have zero criticism for Obama on even a single domestic policy, is that right?

 

[HellToupee]

Seriously, what happened to the somewhat level-headed Tim who at least pretended to weigh both sides before jumping over to the far-leftist position. Now he is just in 100% left-wing nut job land. I am worried his mind has been taken over by Lawrance O'Donnell or something.

What have I written here that is "100% left wing"? Or anything close to it?Pardon me for believing that Presidents should be evaluated not for their political positions, but for their effectiveness in office. I'm sure that you, as a conservative, rank the most conservative Presidents as the best, and the most liberal as the worst, but that's not the way I do it.

fairs. Now, thankI used to regard Obama as a mediocre President because he was excellent at foreign affairs, but ineffective at domestic afs to reading and learning more, I have come to conclude that Obama's ineffectiveness at domestic affairs is largely due to the intransigence of his political opposition, which is on a level almost unheard of in American politics (the only close equivalent would be FDR). So that makes me move Obama from mediocre to above average. Not sure what is left wing about that, but perhaps you can explain.

What have I written here that is "100% left wing"? Or anything close to it?

I have come to conclude that Obama's ineffectiveness at domestic affairs is largely due to the intransigence of his political opposition, which is on a level almost unheard of in American politics

So in one breath you say you are less than 100% left wing, then in the next you say you have zero criticism for Obama on even a single domestic policy, is that right?

Even close D friends are disappointed in Obama yet he has zero criticism

 

[timschochet]

Not sure where you got that, Saints. I have plenty of issues with Obama, plenty of complaints. But one major criticism of his Presidency, made here and elsewhere, is that he has polarized the nation and made bipartisanship impossible. THAT criticism I don't share. I believe that it is largely the Republicans and not Obama who is to blame for the lack of compromise.

Essentially the way I see it, since taking office Obama has moved to the center, while the GOP has moved to the far right. As a centrist myself, that makes me like Obama more.

 

[HellToupee]

Essentially the way I see it, since taking office Obama has moved to the center, while the GOP has moved to the far right. As a centrist myself, that makes me like Obama more.

almost every president moves to the center

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Not sure where you got that, Saints. I have plenty of issues with Obama, plenty of complaints. But one major criticism of his Presidency, made here and elsewhere, is that he has polarized the nation and made bipartisanship impossible. THAT criticism I don't share. I believe that it is largely the Republicans and not Obama who is to blame for the lack of compromise.

Essentially the way I see it, since taking office Obama has moved to the center, while the GOP has moved to the far right. As a centrist myself, that makes me like Obama more.

So, again, not a single specified criticism, complaint or issue of/with him personally, not even from the left, or right, or anywhere on the spectrum.

 

[timschochet]

Essentially the way I see it, since taking office Obama has moved to the center, while the GOP has moved to the far right. As a centrist myself, that makes me like Obama more.

almost every president moves to the center

That's true, but when they do, it usually causes the opposition to work with them not against them. Case in point: after the elections of 1994, Clinton gave up his previous stance and worked with Newt Gingrich on welfare reform, one of the great bipartisan achievements of the 90s. But suppose Newt had reneged at the last second? Suppose the GOP had refused to agree to any deal with Bill Clinton at all? That's the way they've treated Obama.

 

[timschochet]

Not sure where you got that, Saints. I have plenty of issues with Obama, plenty of complaints. But one major criticism of his Presidency, made here and elsewhere, is that he has polarized the nation and made bipartisanship impossible. THAT criticism I don't share. I believe that it is largely the Republicans and not Obama who is to blame for the lack of compromise.

Essentially the way I see it, since taking office Obama has moved to the center, while the GOP has moved to the far right. As a centrist myself, that makes me like Obama more.

So, again, not a single specified criticism, complaint or issue of/with him personally, not even from the left, or right, or anywhere on the spectrum.

I've listed plenty before. Do you want me to state them again? Very well, in no particular order: 1. Mismanagement of stimulus spending. Should have been directed differently.

2. Failed to keep promises to pursue nuclear energy.

3. Failed to keep promises to end teacher tenure.

4. Obamacare was a bad idea, pushed through in a partisan manner at the wrong time.

5. Rollout of Obamacare was dreadful and incompetent.

6. Response to Benghazi political, stubborn, and incompetent.

7. Continued Bush's highly dangerous policy of selling weapons to Russia's neighbors.

8. Use of populist "poor vs rich" rhetoric unfortunate.

9. Failed to pursue immigration reform during first 2 years when he could have solved it- keeping it alive as a political issue which helps Democrats rather than solve the problem.

10. Telling families in Central America "your children will be sent back"- shameful.

11. So eager to pull troops out of Iraq that he failed to pressure reforms on the govt there, contributing to the current disaster.

12. Indecision on Keystone.

That's all off the top of my head. There's probably more. Is that enough for you Saints?

 

[jon_mx]

Not sure where you got that, Saints. I have plenty of issues with Obama, plenty of complaints. But one major criticism of his Presidency, made here and elsewhere, is that he has polarized the nation and made bipartisanship impossible. THAT criticism I don't share. I believe that it is largely the Republicans and not Obama who is to blame for the lack of compromise.

Essentially the way I see it, since taking office Obama has moved to the center, while the GOP has moved to the far right. As a centrist myself, that makes me like Obama more.

You hate FoxNews and dismiss any story they have. You love MSNBC and you quote them like they are gospel. You are neither centrist like you are now claiming or libertarian like you previously claimed. You favor a large powerful overspending central government with very few restraints on its power. Your biggest difference with the left-wing is you favor military spending and government ease-dropping. You favor almost all expansion of government. I would characterize you as a big government elitist.

 

[timschochet]

Not sure where you got that, Saints. I have plenty of issues with Obama, plenty of complaints. But one major criticism of his Presidency, made here and elsewhere, is that he has polarized the nation and made bipartisanship impossible. THAT criticism I don't share. I believe that it is largely the Republicans and not Obama who is to blame for the lack of compromise.

Essentially the way I see it, since taking office Obama has moved to the center, while the GOP has moved to the far right. As a centrist myself, that makes me like Obama more.

You hate FoxNews and dismiss any story they have. You love MSNBC and you quote them like they are gospel. You are neither centrist like you are now claiming or libertarian like you previously claimed. You favor a large powerful overspending central government with very few restraints on its power. Your biggest difference with the left-wing is you favor military spending and government ease-dropping. You favor almost all expansion of government. I would characterize you as a big government elitist.

First off, I haven't watched FOx News OR MSNBC in a couple of years. They bore me. MSNBC in particular was sucking up to Obama so much it got shameful. Of the 12 criticisms I just listed against Obama, they defended him against most of them or otherwise failed to mention them. Second, I do not favor a powerful overspending centralized government, but you'll have to be more specific. When we look at spending and the role of government we need to look issue by issue and be mindful of the current practical implications, rather than relying on the way we wish things should be.

Third, I used to be a libertarian, but no longer, though there are still libertarian principles I believe in deeply like free trade and open immigration.

 

[RCon]

You don't favor a powerful, overspending central government in theory, but on every issue, you favor the powerful, overspending, central government "solution".

 

[timschochet]

You don't favor a powerful, overspending central government in theory, but on every issue, you favor the powerful, overspending, central government "solution".

No. I was opposed to Obamacare for this very reason.

 

[RCon]

You don't favor a powerful, overspending central government in theory, but on every issue, you favor the powerful, overspending, central government "solution".

No. I was opposed to Obamacare for this very reason.

Aren't you an advocate for single payer?

 

[jon_mx]

Not sure where you got that, Saints. I have plenty of issues with Obama, plenty of complaints. But one major criticism of his Presidency, made here and elsewhere, is that he has polarized the nation and made bipartisanship impossible. THAT criticism I don't share. I believe that it is largely the Republicans and not Obama who is to blame for the lack of compromise.

Essentially the way I see it, since taking office Obama has moved to the center, while the GOP has moved to the far right. As a centrist myself, that makes me like Obama more.

You hate FoxNews and dismiss any story they have. You love MSNBC and you quote them like they are gospel. You are neither centrist like you are now claiming or libertarian like you previously claimed. You favor a large powerful overspending central government with very few restraints on its power. Your biggest difference with the left-wing is you favor military spending and government ease-dropping. You favor almost all expansion of government. I would characterize you as a big government elitist.

First off, I haven't watched FOx News OR MSNBC in a couple of years. They bore me. MSNBC in particular was sucking up to Obama so much it got shameful. Of the 12 criticisms I just listed against Obama, they defended him against most of them or otherwise failed to mention them.Second, I do not favor a powerful overspending centralized government, but you'll have to be more specific. When we look at spending and the role of government we need to look issue by issue and be mindful of the current practical implications, rather than relying on the way we wish things should be.

Third, I used to be a libertarian, but no longer, though there are still libertarian principles I believe in deeply like free trade and open immigration.

For someone who doesn't watch MSNBC, you seem to possess well informed insight about the channel

timschochet, on 30 Jan 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

squistion, I normally enjoy your posts, but you're talking nonsense. Of course it's a news channel. How do I know? Because whenever there is breaking important political news (like the State of the Union Speech, as the most recent example) MSNBC not only covers it live but offers several hours of commentary. Come on now.

 

[jon_mx]

You don't favor a powerful, overspending central government in theory, but on every issue, you favor the powerful, overspending, central government "solution".

No. I was opposed to Obamacare for this very reason.

Aren't you an advocate for single payer?

Perhaps his problem with Obamacare is that it is not big enough.

 

[timschochet]

You don't favor a powerful, overspending central government in theory, but on every issue, you favor the powerful, overspending, central government "solution".

No. I was opposed to Obamacare for this very reason.

Aren't you an advocate for single payer?

No. I just think it's inevitable, and will probably in the end be more efficient than Obamacare. But do I like it? Not at all.

 

[timschochet]

Not sure where you got that, Saints. I have plenty of issues with Obama, plenty of complaints. But one major criticism of his Presidency, made here and elsewhere, is that he has polarized the nation and made bipartisanship impossible. THAT criticism I don't share. I believe that it is largely the Republicans and not Obama who is to blame for the lack of compromise.

Essentially the way I see it, since taking office Obama has moved to the center, while the GOP has moved to the far right. As a centrist myself, that makes me like Obama more.

You hate FoxNews and dismiss any story they have. You love MSNBC and you quote them like they are gospel. You are neither centrist like you are now claiming or libertarian like you previously claimed. You favor a large powerful overspending central government with very few restraints on its power. Your biggest difference with the left-wing is you favor military spending and government ease-dropping. You favor almost all expansion of government. I would characterize you as a big government elitist.

First off, I haven't watched FOx News OR MSNBC in a couple of years. They bore me. MSNBC in particular was sucking up to Obama so much it got shameful. Of the 12 criticisms I just listed against Obama, they defended him against most of them or otherwise failed to mention them.Second, I do not favor a powerful overspending centralized government, but you'll have to be more specific. When we look at spending and the role of government we need to look issue by issue and be mindful of the current practical implications, rather than relying on the way we wish things should be.

Third, I used to be a libertarian, but no longer, though there are still libertarian principles I believe in deeply like free trade and open immigration.

For someone who doesn't watch MSNBC, you seem to possess well informed insight about the channel

timschochet, on 30 Jan 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

squistion, I normally enjoy your posts, but you're talking nonsense. Of course it's a news channel. How do I know? Because whenever there is breaking important political news (like the State of the Union Speech, as the most recent example) MSNBC not only covers it live but offers several hours of commentary. Come on now.

I was talking about previous years, though.