Differences between Obama's Policies and Methods and those of Bush, Jr

[lawrocket 3]

I'm struggling to find any difference here.

The economic policies cause a bubble that collapsed. Obama uses the same people who oversaw that,

Bush presides over massive deficits. Obama shows that Bush was engaged in child's play.

Bush performs end-run around War Powers Act. Obama simply ignores it altogether.

I'm am SERIOUSLY struggling to find any difference between the two. Can anybody hear tell me any key differences in policies and methodology? I can think of one: Bush: Don't fuck with the USA; Obama: "We're sorry. We've been bad."

Other than that they both do the same thing only with varying intensity.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

same thing only with varying intensity.

that variance is a pretty big deal - Bush was trying to bankrupt us within a couple decades. Obama wants to do it now


other than that? yeah, same guy. one with beady eyes, the other with big ears

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[sfzombie 3]

this is yet another example that proves my theory that all politicians are bad for the country. first of all, you can't be one without being a lawyer first and this is inherently bad. second, the terms left and right are meaningless, it's a circle. when you go far enough left, you're going to encounter the right.

http://kitswv.com

[Amazon 7]

Quote

this is yet another example that proves my theory that all politicians are bad for the country. first of all, you can't be one without being a lawyer first and this is inherently bad. second, the terms left and right are meaningless, it's a circle. when you go far enough left, you're going to encounter the right.

Yeah, the military could run the country much better especially if they have the preachers and priests in there for the big win too.

[idrankwhat 0]

There are definitely some similarities. I've just come to the conclusion that the lobbyist plutocracy is simply too powerful. I agree with a fair amount of candidate Obama's philosophies and I think he still would like to implement a number of them.

Building a new economy based on green energy is a good example and one that I do not think Bush (43) would actively pursue.

Actually trying to tackle the health care problem is one where I think the two differ (although the aforementioned plutocracy got in the way of that one).

Consumer financial protections? Bush wouldn't touch it.

Mending fences with our allies. That saves us money in the long run.

Practicing tough love with Israel. Obama seems to mean what he says instead of saying "now you cut that out" while winking at Israel's leadership. (lobbyists will probably win that one too).

Actually fighting the the war on terrorism where it is/was instead of making shit up in order to start an elective war. Probably too late to get the result we could have had though.

Fighting wars on budget for a change.

Admitting that there was an obvious reason for the sunset clause on the Bush tax cuts.

Doing slightly better at enforcing environmental laws. At least it's not being directly run by the petroleum industry any more.

I don't think he's grown the size of the federal government as much as his predecessor but I could be wrong.

That's the short list (don't have time for more at the moment).

But you're right. #44's policies rhyme waaayy too much with #43 for my taste. I think his policies are a step in the right direction but it's not a very big step.

[Misternatural 0]

Long time no write sir. But here is my take on the situation here in the US; It's not the president, it's the presidency. Imagine a person moving up in politics has a belief system in place when exiting from the private to the public sector beginning their career as a low ranking politician. Most start out as populists with a want for some type of change or policy management for the common good. likely the result of values influenced by their peers, their education, their faith, their parents. We all start out with a value influenced idealist agenda of some sort. The individual then moves up the political ladder and with each rung a higher level of power, money and influence. Finally for a rare few they reach the pinnacle, the presidency. Now imagine the power of influence at that level, the pressure, the responsibility to appease those who helped you up the ladder. Imagine having to deal with lobbyists so powerful they can destroy your political future instantly with it your income, and your reputation. Imagine the pressure of dealing with the entire pentagon, the legion of multinational corporations. Suddenly after the White House threshold is crossed the once formidable and vast voter/taxpayer population you once were held accountable takes a back seat, WAY back until campaign time of course, and even elections can be played with via for example the judiciary as we know. So, who is the president beholden to? Currently the military industrial complex as once described by Eisenhower, multinational oil companies and their political allies including OPEC, also "bank holding companies" like Goldman Sachs. Lets not forget the state of Israel who is a chief campaign supporter. The result is that the presidency, and the congress for that matter is just a conduit for funding provided by that ultimate cash cow the US tax payer. And election day is just a ruse to appease the voters every two to four years. Cynical? maybe, but notice how the revolving door of high ranking corporate personnel and political leadership go hand in hand eg. Paulson, Cheney. Now compare the resulting policies of funneling money and directing foreign military involvement etc.

The result is that the constitution is becoming nothing more than a panacea, a nicety for tourists to look at and marvel over its egalitarian fundamentals. Too bad it is becoming a cliche' and the representative government a bullshit global agenda facility to procure resources in the name of freedom.... Washington is ripe with corporate shills and people need to wake up and see that the general population is in danger of becoming nothing more than livestock animals on a tax and debt farm. in addition to a soldier and low wage worker incubator for the elite.

Corporate power, influence, and control, ergo each president of late like the last.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't think he's grown the size of the federal government as much as his predecessor but I could be wrong.

that extra trillion in spending per year represents a pretty fucking big increase.

I see a trend in this thread to say that it's impossible for him to live up to his promises, that the office captures him.

Nonsense. Certainly the reality of the 3 tier government and the GOP ownership of the Senate prevents him from doing anything. But there are cases like DADT where he could snap a finger and end it. Guantanomo Bay is another.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

that extra trillion in spending per year represents a pretty fucking big increase.

According to the OMB in January of 2009 that extra trillion (actually $1.2 Trillion) was to be inherited by President #44, regardless of who he/she was. It was the result of a collapsing casino economy, unfinanced wars and the largest growth in our Federal Government since FDR. Along with a tax policy which reduced revenues without producing jobs. It was a really lousy inheritance, for all of us.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/big-government-gets-bigger/?page=1

Quote

....But there are cases like DADT where he could snap a finger and end it. Guantanomo Bay is another.

True. But in the latter it's one of those problems that he probably would not have initiated however is having trouble wiping off of his shoe. When you have a Congress which is afraid to help tackle that problem (NIMBY) then what is he supposed to do? And while many of those incarcerated in Gitmo may not have been a national security threat 8-9 years ago, they may very well be now. If I were wrongly detained for a decade I might just want some payback. Obama could use the bully pulpit on that one issue but risk losing support in other aspects of his agenda. It's a balancing act which cost him another campaign promise.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

According to the OMB in January of 2009 that extra trillion (actually $1.2 Trillion) was to be inherited by President #44, regardless of who he/she was.

Deficit for the 07 budget (last by the Rep majority Congress) was 151B (2005 $). The 08 deficit (first year of the Dem majority) was 422B (2005 $). Once Obama was elected, the deficit exploded to 1289B (2005$).

So, yeah, pull the other leg.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

So, yeah, pull the other leg.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/obamas-state-of-the-union-address/

Despite the Republican scoffing, Obama’s claims are backed up by the historical record — mostly.

* Budget surplus in 2000: The Congressional Budget Office reported on Nov. 14, 2000, in its Monthly Budget Review: "Fiscal year 2000 ended with a total budget surplus of $237 billion."
* Deficit when Obama took office: By the time Obama took office, that black ink had turned to gushers of red. "CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion," CBO said in its "Budget and Economic Outlook." That was released Jan. 8, 2009, days before Obama’s inauguration. Update Feb 5: The $1.2 trillion projection would have been $966 billion had CBO been accounting for mortgage losses then the way they were eventually treated in the official deficit figures. See clarification below.

So the president actually understated matters regarding annual surpluses and deficits for years past, but he may have strained the facts when he spoke of what was being predicted for future years at the time he assumed office. He said he inherited a projected 10-year deficit of $8 trillion. But at the time, CBO projected only a $3.1 trillion deficit over 10 years (Table 4, page 15).

In fairness, that CBO figure assumed that all of President Bush’s tax cuts would be allowed to expire on schedule. And in reality, Obama and congressional Democrats supported extending many of the cuts, while Republicans supported extending all of them. Extending all of the Bush tax cuts would add another $2.9 trillion to that (Table 7, page 22), for a total of $6 trillion — still short of Obama’s claim.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

I'm struggling to find any difference here.

The economic policies cause a bubble that collapsed. Obama uses the same people who oversaw that,

Bush presides over massive deficits. Obama shows that Bush was engaged in child's play.

Bush performs end-run around War Powers Act. Obama simply ignores it altogether.

I'm am SERIOUSLY struggling to find any difference between the two. Can anybody hear tell me any key differences in policies and methodology? I can think of one: Bush: Don't fuck with the USA; Obama: "We're sorry. We've been bad."

Other than that they both do the same thing only with varying intensity.

I've been coming to similar conclusions about politicians and political parties in general. People join one or the other of the "teams" and then get all worked up bitching about the other side, but when you step back, is there really that much difference? Or are we just fighting over whether we should have ketchup or mustard on what is really the same shit sandwich.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

* Deficit when Obama took office: By the time Obama took office, that black ink had turned to gushers of red. "CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion," CBO said in its "Budget and Economic Outlook." That was released Jan. 8, 2009, days before Obama’s inauguration.

at that point in time, TARP was booked as a major cost. Doesn't account for 2010 or 2011, either.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

I'm struggling to find any difference here.

The economic policies cause a bubble that collapsed. Obama uses the same people who oversaw that,

Bush presides over massive deficits. Obama shows that Bush was engaged in child's play.

Bush performs end-run around War Powers Act. Obama simply ignores it altogether.

I'm am SERIOUSLY struggling to find any difference between the two. Can anybody hear tell me any key differences in policies and methodology? I can think of one: Bush: Don't fuck with the USA; Obama: "We're sorry. We've been bad."

Other than that they both do the same thing only with varying intensity.

They are the same. They are both "insiders". The new way we will soon start gauging our politicians is are they insiders or outsiders.

Insiders have political interests that they need to protect, even if they are bad for the country. If a problem provides an advantage to one of his lobbyists is causing huge problems for the rest of the country, rather than get rid of the problem, he will come up with a half baked scheme that they think will fix it while keeping the advantage for his lobbyist, but usually winds up fucking up the country even more.

The outsider will just remove the problem.

Democrats and republicans both have special interests groups that they have to pander too. The problem is to fix the country cuts have to come from both sides. Democrats say republicans want to push grandma from a cliff. Republicans say democrats want to surrender our country and give away everything. Mean while nothing is getting fixed because no one wants to bend and give up that special interest money.

Outsiders just want to fix the problem.

Enter the Tea party.

Done with my rant.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Outsiders just want to fix the problem.

Enter the Tea party.

The entry of the clowns doesn't usually fix anything.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

* Deficit when Obama took office: By the time Obama took office, that black ink had turned to gushers of red. "CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion," CBO said in its "Budget and Economic Outlook." That was released Jan. 8, 2009, days before Obama’s inauguration.

at that point in time, TARP was booked as a major cost. Doesn't account for 2010 or 2011, either.

The earlier link that I posted addresses that, or a least a significant portion of it. President #44 inherited the largest growth of the Federal Govt. since FDR from #43, and it was done while fighting two wars, part of which was off the books, and without asking the public to sacrifice anything. To the contrary, we were given a tax cuts during massive growth and going to war. And those tax cuts had a sunset for a reason. When they were passed the legislators knew that they were unsustainable but they were kicking the can down the road for their own personal gain. We can't (honestly) cut revenue, grow the government and let the financial industry go on a major, economy crushing binge and then blame it the next guy. Obama has his own problems but I think that we need to be honest about how we got to the situation we're in. I think arguing about how to best get us out is completely legitimate. But the tendency to ignore the mistakes of the past decade, and the immensity of their impact, starts the discussion off on the wrong foot.

[idrankwhat 0]

Oh yea, I don't think that Bush would have championed the notion of removing the subsidies to the petroleum industry.
Forgot that one.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Insiders have political interests that they need to protect, even if they are bad for the country. If a problem provides an advantage to one of his lobbyists is causing huge problems for the rest of the country, rather than get rid of the problem, he will come up with a half baked scheme that they think will fix it while keeping the advantage for his lobbyist, but usually winds up fucking up the country even more.

I agree.

Quote

The outsider will just remove the problem.

An outsider can't do it alone. An untainted outsider also has a hard time getting elected while money is considered "free speech". As I pointed out earlier Obama had some outsider ideas regarding health care but he caved when he realized that he had to bargain with the health care industry lobbyists to get even a portion of what he wanted. How does an outsider get his point across when the media that is the vector for those talking points is owned by the same interests which prefer the status quo?

Quote

Democrats and republicans both have special interests groups that they have to pander too. The problem is to fix the country cuts have to come from both sides. Democrats say republicans want to push grandma from a cliff. Republicans say democrats want to surrender our country and give away everything. Mean while nothing is getting fixed because no one wants to bend and give up that special interest money.

Outsiders just want to fix the problem.

Enter the Tea party.

Done with my rant.

The problem with the tea party caucus is that many of them want to cut off the patient's head to get rid of the brain tumor. If they want to destroy the US in order to rebuild it then that's one thing. Think of it this way, if a Tea Partier were in charge of Bush's second term and Obama's first then our country would be in financial ruin. Maybe we'd grow out of it stronger (or maybe not) but we'd be in significantly worse shape at this moment in history.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

Outsiders just want to fix the problem.

Enter the Tea party.

The entry of the clowns doesn't usually fix anything.

Your reply is both ignorant and naive. Of course I would expect nothing less from someone who can only parrot the left wing talking point of "all tea party members or anyone else on the right is an idiot." When you have an original thought, let me know.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

The problem with the tea party caucus is that many of them want to cut off the patient's head to get rid of the brain tumor. If they want to destroy the US in order to rebuild it then that's one thing. Think of it this way, if a Tea Partier were in charge of Bush's second term and Obama's first then our country would be in financial ruin. Maybe we'd grow out of it stronger (or maybe not) but we'd be in significantly worse shape at this moment in history.

I can only assume you are talking about the Paul Ryan Budget cut. If you only catch the 10 second sound bites that play on just about any news channel, it would seem that what you described is what is going on.

Like I said earlier, each side unwilling to bend in the slightest to their special interests makes them demonize any changes to their pet projects. Paul Ryan's plan cuts pretty much across the board. Everyone with their hand in a pocket is crying about it.

Should it be passed as written? I don't know, but I think it is a good start. Special interests will probably spend a lot of money to shut it down. I would not expect to see anyone say anything good about it.

Either way, as I have said a number of times, we won't be able to bring industry back to America until we balance the budget and get government spending down to bring taxes down so the cost of doing business in America can compete with the BRIC countries.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[idrankwhat 0]

I wasn't talking about the Ryan budget, however that plan has serious problems as it is seriously fiscally irresponsible.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/03/matt-miller/matt-miller-blasts-deficit-debt-implications-paul-/

[SpeedRacer 1]

The Tea Party doesn't know what ii wants to be. It started out as a Libertarian movement, then other people with different ideologies and agendas adopted it. The movement was also joined by conspiracy theorists, and people who were just incoherently angry.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The Tea Party doesn't know what ii wants to be. It started out as a Libertarian movement, then other people with different ideologies and agendas adopted it.

So, the Boston Tea Party themed protests during the 90's on Tax Day *weren't* about taxation? I guess the signs at the various recent protests with "Taxed Enough Already" aren't *really* about taxes, either.

Quote

The movement was also joined by conspiracy theorists, and people who were just incoherently angry.

I don't think the LaRouche folks are considered part of the Tea Party, sorry.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SpeedRacer 1]

When Ron Paul held his Tea Party protests, a bunch of 9/11 conspiracy theorists joined in.

Later on you had the Sarah Palin crowd adopting the tea party.
So it was different factions joining in.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35988.html

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

* Budget surplus in 2000: The Congressional Budget Office reported on Nov. 14, 2000, in its Monthly Budget Review: "Fiscal year 2000 ended with a total budget surplus of $237 billion."

Yep. Too bad that the next year's budget (which Dubya had nothing to do with) tanked because of the collapse of the tech bubble, causing recession from which recovery was accomplished. Problem was that the damned spending kept growing even though there were RECORD revenues. Seriously - revenues were never, ever higher than under Bush. Problem was spending was never higher than under Bush.

Till Obama.

The 2000 figure is favtually correct but fails to account for what happened that year.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

I wasn't talking about the Ryan budget, however that plan has serious problems as it is seriously fiscally irresponsible.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/03/matt-miller/matt-miller-blasts-deficit-debt-implications-paul-/

Did you read the whole article or did you just cut and paste the headlines? From your own source:

Quote

Miller told PolitiFact that his $62 trillion estimate was conservative, stopping the count at 2050 rather than the deficit/surplus tipping point of 2063, and using lower annual debt estimates than CBO did.

Whether or not Miller's figure is right -- and the number is certainly in the trillions of dollars -- it's important to note that he was selective in choosing his time frame.

That’s because between 2063 and 2080, the federal debt under Ryan’s plan is projected to disappear. In fact, by 2083, the debt under Ryan’s plan would actually turn into a surplus -- a surplus equal to one-sixth of the nation’s GDP.

His Argument is truthful because of the selective numbers he uses.

Quote

Under this status-quo scenario, CBO sees the deficit growing consistently as a percentage of GDP, from 7.4 percent of GDP in 2020 to 17.2 percent in 2040, 28 percent in 2060 and 42.8 percent in 2080.

The status quo keeps growing the debt. If you dig further you realize that the reason the Ryan plan grows the debt for a while is because it doesn't throw grandma from a cliff. It keeps the governments promise to those age 55 and older.

As I said before. It's a start. no one else even has a plan. All they do is attack people that do because they have special interests to protect.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything