Obama, savior of the common man?

**-Lazarus-** · 04-30-13, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

Your first answer directly contradicts your assertions that the full impact of decisions can be felt during a President's term. If the housing bubble began under Clinton, and the deregulation that made it worse started 20-30 years ago, then yeah that's evidence that the full impact of decisions aren't felt until years down the line.

As for Bush looking better because of how his successor is doing....yeah he may gain a few points there, but that in no way means he was actually a GOOD President. At best you can say he wasn't "as bad" as the next. It's like arguing the difference between a broken arm and a broken leg, neither of them are good options though you may prefer one over the other.

I just can't get a read on your argument here Laz. In one breath you say that the full impact of decisions are felt before a President leaves office, then blame Clinton for a bubble that burst during the end of Bush's tenure 7 years after Clinton left office. How can you have it both ways?

~Morningfrost

I'm saying that a President's LEADERSHIP or lack thereof on issues has an immediate effect. For example, Bush should have pushed hard to put a stop to the housing bubble before it was a crisis. Yes, he inherited a crappy situation there, but in 2000 it was salvageable. He did nothing to stop it in his first term. A strong leader would have put a stop to that shit, period. Ultimately you will find what a President wants he will get for the most part especially on issues like that.

The same thing goes for Obama. He inherited a struggling economy, and then, in complete control of both houses of congress, through his own policies he doubled down, he pressed the accelerator, he kicked the country in the nuts when it was down. He made all the basic mistakes that you don't do in a down economy and then some. Bush didn't do that. Obama did. The legacy effect of a President's policies will always be smaller than the reality of what is happening in the here and now, yet the legacy is where the blame is placed by those who support whoever the current President is.

Perhaps the greatest example of what I'm saying is Ronald Reagan. Reagan took bold, swift policy action which was needed after the problems Created by Jimmy Carter's spending. The result was a new dawn, an era of prosperity that led to United States' dominance in the world and the end of the Cold War. And not one single credible person on the planet would say that Carter's policies led to that. No way in hell.

So is that more clear for you? So no, legacy effects are far smaller than the effect of a President's leadership in affecting positive change in every area of the country. By the way for that matter I give Clinton complete credit for the positive things he did to keep the gravy train rolling after it started to stall under Bush I.

**-Lazarus-** · 04-30-13, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

Not really....your point seems to be that this organization is still a liberal think-tank....when it appears to be that while they might have been liberal 50 years ago, that's not considered liberal "today". That's indicative of a cultural shift in America, where the "center" actually shifted. So how are people who believe those ideas TODAY are "centrist" are idiots?

~Morningfrost

You see this is what libs do best. Continually push to move the center left. Which is why I mentioned Saul Alinsky.

**Warprosper** · 04-30-13, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

I'm saying that a President's LEADERSHIP or lack thereof on issues has an immediate effect. For example, Bush should have pushed hard to put a stop to the housing bubble before it was a crisis. Yes, he inherited a crappy situation there, but in 2000 it was salvageable. He did nothing to stop it in his first term. A strong leader would have put a stop to that shit, period. Ultimately you will find what a President wants he will get for the most part especially on issues like that.

The same thing goes for Obama. He inherited a struggling economy, and then, in complete control of both houses of congress, through his own policies he doubled down, he pressed the accelerator, he kicked the country in the nuts when it was down. He made all the basic mistakes that you don't do in a down economy and then some. Bush didn't do that. Obama did. The legacy effect of a President's policies will always be smaller than the reality of what is happening in the here and now, yet the legacy is where the blame is placed by those who support whoever the current President is.

Perhaps the greatest example of what I'm saying is Ronald Reagan. Reagan took bold, swift policy action which was needed after the problems Created by Jimmy Carter's spending. The result was a new dawn, an era of prosperity that led to United States' dominance in the world and the end of the Cold War. And not one single credible person on the planet would say that Carter's policies led to that. No way in hell.

So is that more clear for you? So no, legacy effects are far smaller than the effect of a President's leadership in affecting positive change in every area of the country. By the way for that matter I give Clinton complete credit for the positive things he did to keep the gravy train rolling after it started to stall under Bush I.

Everything you're saying here is exactly the opposite of what you said 4 pages ago. You need to clarify your discussion so we can all at least pretend we're on the same page.

**PvtPrivate** · 04-30-13, 05:28 PM

Go, on this is outside of knowledge, I'm just the observer in this thread.

**Morningfrost** · 04-30-13, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

You see this is what libs do best. Continually push to move the center left. Which is why I mentioned Saul Alinsky.

Or maybe, just maybe....society as a whole has moved the center, by becoming less conservative....<gasp>

~Morningfrost

**PvtPrivate** · 04-30-13, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

You see this is what libs do best. Continually push to move the center left. Which is why I mentioned Saul Alinsky.

But isn't that the point of any political/social view point? To get others to think more like you??

**AetheLove** · 04-30-13, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

I didn't trash them at all. In fact I cited their study. The only thing I bashed was the fact that some idiots today are depicting the liberal think tank that played a critical role in the creation of Johnson's "Great Society" as "centrist"

What are you talking about?

Somebody moving the center when I wasn't looking.

If I misinterpreted your criticism... my bad.

Æ

**SpecOpsScott** · 04-30-13, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

Or maybe, just maybe....society as a whole has moved the center, by becoming less conservative....<gasp>

~Morningfrost

Funny how some on the left take that shift to be an endorsement of flat out socialism, and some on the right proclaim it to be the end of the world.

**Morningfrost** · 04-30-13, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by SpecOpsScott

Funny how some on the left take that shift to be an endorsement of flat out socialism, and some on the right proclaim it to be the end of the world.

I wouldn't call it funny lol....more like an indicator of the sad state of affairs in American politics.

What the "right" doesn't seem to understand is that people actually want more social programs these days, even if they don't want outright socialism. As an indicator, look no further than the business industry where being socially responsible is a big customer draw. 50 years ago people just didn't care as much, so if a business wasn't socially responsible it didn't really matter. Nowadays, even businesses that have made reputations for being tight-fisted (such as Walmart) also place heavy emphasis on social responsibility.

The same shift has happened in the general population. More people want programs that protect the environment, help the poor, help the elderly, etc. Whereas 50 years ago that was seen as borderline Communism, today it's seen as something desirable.

~Morningfrost

**Alundil** · 04-30-13, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

I wouldn't call it funny lol....more like an indicator of the sad state of affairs in American politics.

What the "right" doesn't seem to understand is that people actually want more social programs these days, even if they don't want outright socialism. As an indicator, look no further than the business industry where being socially responsible is a big customer draw. 50 years ago people just didn't care as much, so if a business wasn't socially responsible it didn't really matter. Nowadays, even businesses that have made reputations for being tight-fisted (such as Walmart) also place heavy emphasis on social responsibility.

The same shift has happened in the general population. More people want programs that protect the environment, help the poor, help the elderly, etc. Whereas 50 years ago that was seen as borderline Communism, today it's seen as something desirable.

~Morningfrost

This is evident in almost all facets of society.

There are no people who truly want to be "islands unto themselves". There are only people who don't want others asking for things that they themselves aren't asking for and since they aren't asking for it they see as inferior any and all who do ask. That is not to say, or endorse, a position of give anyone anything they request.

But it is indicative of the simple fact that a single governmental system with charge over trillions of resources and beholden (allegedly, I know) to millions of disparate people and communities will struggle, eternally, to appear fair, evenhanded, or even equitable to all. There will ever be large pockets of the country and its populace that believe themselves the sole proprietor of "RIGHT" and all else be damned.

This is, in my opinion, the same type of problem with religion and its institutions, writ large. Everyone is wrong but me. Everyone is undeserving but me and people like me. And so it goes. (Also why I think our governmental system is irrevocably broken and in die need of a complete rebuild only in smaller, more manageable chunks of the county, not this large endless cluster-fuck - but topic for another thread).

This forum is rife with examples on both sides of the fence.