Forum Post: What are some things
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 24, 2012, 11:12 p.m. EST by JuanFenito
(847)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
That Bush did that you disagree with that Obama does not also do? I don't like Bush, but Obama seems okay, I just don't know why I like him... can someone help me out here with some talking points?
The Bush Administration would have gone to war with Iran over a month ago. There was some really bogus 'intel' the US used to get the media and the people on board and we all know it didn't hold up. That said, its happening again; right now Israel and their Lobby have the media and Congress on board and have ratcheted up the pressure but the Executive seems to be doing everything it can (short of publicly renouncing support for Israel) to find a diplomatic solution.
OK JuanFenito its me,kjack, and I'm starting a new thread. I've been giving this a lot of thought because I refuse to believe that Barack Obama is in any way shape or form similar to the second Bush; yet -and as you rightfully pointed out- i lacked proof to support this view. Its not that I've since been spending all my time looking for proof as I (sometimes) have better things to do, but I've been allowing this idea to fester. There are two links below which I would like you to give a moment of your time. The first is an article from the Washington Monthly which is new to me, obviously left-leaning and written as if was from Obama 2012 but you're a smart person and thus I'm sure you can extract the facts out of the patronizing bias. Its a lengthy article but if nothing else, just read the first page.
I think that one of the reasons you and many other people cannot find a difference between him and his predecessor is simply because everything we've known to be 'normal' was flipped on its head with its severity unknown and when he took office the things that were so charismatically promised in the campaign didn't come true. The $700+ billion stimulus didn't necessarily reverse unemployment so much as it stopped the free falling job losses. Much of the Health Care Affordability Act hasn't even taken place yet and its also an attempt to achieve long-run savings with Medicare and Medicaid. Dodd-Frank's effectiveness has yet to me enacted in full and thus measured. The auto industry bailout required a nearly 500% increase in funds from Bush Admin. levels before it was sufficient AND 'government intervention' and a few years later they're putting up (record) profits. Finally as much as I am an OWS supporter and thus find the banks activities to have been despicable, he saved the banks which was paramount to any idealized recovery and at essentially no cost to taxpayers. The argument is that 'nobody realizes when things go right' and that many of the crowning achievements haven't been enacted and/or tested. Also should he not achieve re-election and republicans dismantle all his accomplishments, we'll never know how effective these Acts could have been.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/the_incomplete_greatness_of_ba035754.php?page=1
The second link is a 4 minute excerpt from Ireland's president Michael Higgins arguing with a tea bagger about the current political climate and the President's agenda.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=001_1330139827
Hello Kjack, thank you for replying and giving the issue your thought and consideration. Too many people cannot tolerate objectivity or rational debate these days and instead resort to name calling during debates. I have had this tab open in my browser since you wrote it and have been unable to respond due to circumstances.
I read the first link you provided, but due to the amount of bandwidth I have I cannot view the video in the second link. I still do not feel that Obama deserves and more of our credit than Bush. Bush did good things as well. He expanded medicaid by $900 billion, created No Child Left Behind, and expanded AIDS research enormously.
Not that these things excuse the other disasterous policies he enacted. His presidency remains an embarrassment to the nation. But my point is that while Obama has done similarly loudable things, he hasn't corrected any of the mistakes made by the previous administration and in many cases has expanded on them. Instead of ending the illegal wars and bringing the troops home as promised, he started two new illegal wars and finally four years later brought some of the troops home. Instead of ending the wiretapping program Bush started, he expanded it. (That is impeachable IMO). The list goes on. Many of these issues are just an attempt to make us at each other's throats over relatively small issues while the 1% makes off with stolen money from the treasury. Isn't that probably one of the biggest issues we face today?
The whole point of this is that nothing has really changed since the Bush years. Yes, Obama has done a few good things, which his "yes puppets" will hold up above all when people question him. But the same people will ignore the similar good things Bush did. Can't we get past all of this and realize that the 1% has taken off with billions of dollars from the taxpayers? Corporate welfare, bailouts and subsidies. These are things virtually every American is against. Why can't we unite against these things and stop bickering about Bush did this, Obama did that.
Cheers
oh so much content to comment on. after watching OWS featured on the news and the occupiers having my respect, sadly this blog doesn't seem to be forum for open-minded and/or reasonable discourse that i thought it was going to be; as you can see i only have 48 points (not sure how you got all the way to 577).
In terms of the accomplishments you listed for the Bush Administration, after a simple search, I cant find anything for expanding Medicaid but I do know about the unfunded Medicare expansion Part D if that's what you mean though its not $900 billion so I would need to see a link or something. I think No Child Left Behind was well intended but in practice it has been pretty bad. Its critics call it No School Left Standing and at least since Bush's re-election, its been terribly underfunded. Education needs to be reformed completely because its not working. I saw a segment of an Aljazeera doc about the decline of the American superpower and a really clear point they made was that while we do have fantastic institutions of higher education, its grade school that often cant educate its own pupils well enough to get into college! Also theres the part about how with tighter budgets and less funding, more international students are being admitted because they pay much more and do so the same day in cash. Also I agree on the AIDS research.
After I wrote my last post I realized I kind of just highlighted President Obama's achievements. I think what I wanted to make the point to his credit was not that -and i cant believe I'm going to say this because its contrary to the capitalist propaganda we've been fed since grade school and Republicans would/do crucify him on this- his decision intervene in the free-market and in the way it was done, was very bold yet the only correct response. GM ended up replacing its CEO and trimming down so many unproductive lines in order for it to get additional bailout funding. Also the UAW 'somehow' fell in line and stopped asking for so much. I read in a Bloomberg Businessweek last fall that insinuated that Bank of America had to acquire Merrill Lynch in order to receive additional bailout funds. Anyway I argue it wasn't just free money that the government handed out, there were some very significant strings attached and I seriously question whether a Republican administration would be able to do better or even just the same.
But you're right, the 1% didn't lose a thing, they haven't lost a dime. As far as your closing sentence about 'bickering' goes, its just an unfortunate combination of the hysteria of recession, the tea party, the citizens united decision, the President being half black (yes I'm going there), him having an Arabic name, the media and very short-term thinking. While these factors should be easy to look beyond, it isn't for the Reagan Democrat and I fear that since 2010, their numbers have really exploded.
In full disclosure: I am 100% a product of public schools from Lansing, MI proper.
Yes Obama does seem to be standing up against the drums of war, and he should be given credit for that. There are powerful forces both in and out of government that push for policies that benefit them...but are much to the detriment of the rest of us. Those forces not only determine whether we are at war or peace in large part, but they also cause us to spend tax-payers money wastefully in a bunch of non-productive ways.
I always found it hypocritical that investing money in our never-ending wars and defense spending is not wasting money, but improving society in a myriad of ways is wasting money. You can give credit to the spin doctors for that. I'm sure Chomsky would agree.
How is escalating the war in Afghanistan, extending the Iraq war for three years, starting new operations in the Congo and starting a war in Libya standing up against the drums of war? Has defense spending gone down? I mean, I want to like Obama and everything, but I don't understand your argument here. I do agree that the money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan was wasted.
You're argument is misleading if you don't attempt to address the complexities of politics. You exploited the meaning of 'extending' when referring to Iraq when it should have been 'continued.' The war was by no means coming to an end in January 2009 so he wasn't extending the war as much as he was continuing it. In Libya, 'starting a war' only if you mean using legal channels by going to UN Security Council to receive international support and NATO coordination. 'Starting a war' as you use it doesn't address the facts that it was a multilateral action, the US played a minor role in direct combat operations, the 'war' cost the US about $1 billion, (one one-thousandth of the cost of the Iraq war), and that no American lives were lost.
I know its all campaign rhetoric but listening to Gingrich, Romney or Santorum's foreign policy would be 'starting a war.'
bombs are area of effect attack attacks
they destroy every human in an area
NATO uses bomb
the US supports NATO
Trust me, I don't listen to G R or S's foreign policy.
I will rephrase my original post then. Obama extended the time he said troops would leave Iraq, (which was 16 months originally), and if he likes making promises he's unsure he can keep, he's a liar. Plain and simple. Also, Iraq and Afghanistan were completely miltilateral actions. Not that this excuses them, but you still don't point out where Bush did something bad that Obama hasn't. Okay, so it wasn't a war in Libya. Obama merely dropped bombs on another country. Would it be a war if China had done that to us? I think you know.
bush started a war by lying..without those lies ,, there would have never been a war in iraq, there would not be this mind set that whatever leader over there we dont like.. we go and assasinate.. there would be not patriot act , there would be no nda.. none of this would be if bush had not used lies .. thats the difference
Obama cultivated the idea that we need to kill overseas dictators we don't like... Ghaddafi anyone? What's the difference?
Was that disaster worth dropping American bombs? Was Iraq? No. What's the difference?
The difference is that in the former case we basically took him out all on our own with no clue what we were doing and zero regard for international law. In Ghaddafi's case, we didn't unilaterally depose him (which is unacceptable in at least 95% of cases) so much as we joined in a multilateral military and humanitarian effort initiated at the behest of the majority of the Libyan people (which is basically our duty).
Where does the constitution give us the duty to depose dictators we don't like? Iraq and Afghanistan were completely multilateral engagements, you are wrong there. So we can afford to bomb other countries we don't like but not kill the dictators?
If I remember correctly Iraq was "multilateral" in the sense that we bullied Britain and Australia into committing troops to Iraq based on what amounted to a lie, and then everyone else sent a few hundred troops here and there. I have no problem with going into Afghanistan; after 9/11 we had a right to do that one but we're now hitting the point where we have nothing more to accomplish and we might as well leave.
When it comes to Libya, the Libyan people (as in almost all the Libyan people) were asking for international assistance in their fight against Gaddhafi and we pretty much had a full-scale war that might have devolved into mass murder had Gaddhafi won. We also had a massive, truly international coalition in Libya with the US in a purely supporting role that made a difference without costing a single American life.
As far as I'm concerned, the engagement in Libya is how this sort of thing should be handled; wait for people to request your involvement (or until you're hitting genocide or near-genocide conditions), go in with the approval and backing of as many other nations as you can find (who are independently willing to go to war), and do only what you must.
How did we bully them?
Look, it really doesn't matter. I Don't think we should have been bombing other countries then and I don't think we should be bombing them now.
Basically British firms got ridiculous amounts of money in defense contracts out of this, we tried to bribe Turkey to get them involved, and most of the Eastern European countries involved in this were either working to get into NATO or more generally trying to get into our good books. Hell, Georgia was there specifically because we called in an old favor. When you have to do things like that to find allies then something is seriously wrong.
When we bomb other countries that are not threatening us something is wrong.
What's wrong is that we don't just go finish the job and kick the living fawk out of anyone who truly deserves so much as a cap gun fired in their general direction, otherwise, stay home.
Why don't you go beat a dead horse? Forget the Constitution, it's been dead for a long time and means nothing.
I do beat dead horses, and I want my neighbors to pay for the bat. What's wrong with that? Go PTFE coat yourself.
I am PTFE coated and now I want MY neighbors, and you too rich imperial capitalist bastard, to pay for me being nickle plated.
Let me know when you become a real man and can also club baby seals and kick the fawk out of puppies. We'll invite you up to our private club in DC. All expenses paid, of course.
Nickel plating? How much is this going to cost the taxpayers? (Okay, more importantly, are you female?)
It better be real PTFE, no one should settle for cheapo-pants UHMW as a lousy substitute.
about eleventeen millionty, small price to pay to make me happy
of course I'm female, very very dark and my hairline resembles that of George on Seinfeld.
Believe me, my size 19 ass is ENTITLED.
hand me that barn scoop full of twinkies, skinny white boy
I am out of twinkies, sorry. Pretzel?
Yeah, make it a double scoop and maybe they'll conjure my bi-yearly poop.
i see you forgot saddam hussein the first one. cultivated by bush. with lies.. that cost about 2 trillion dollars to kill.. now its easy and cheap
See what happened there? I said Obama cultivated the idea that Bush planted and you said, "Bush did it first!" As though that makes Obama better. I most definitely did not say Bush was better, I said how is Obama better? Is it okay for the us to kill dictators we don't like if it's cheap?
Hussein was put in power in the 1950's by the US CIA. He was an oil client, just like Somosa that we had running in Nicaragua.
Hussein didn't have a problem until he wanted to sell Iraq oil for Gold and not US Dollars.
Husseins Government most interesting was "National Socialism", or NAZISM, of all types of Government why might the CIA have setup Nazism in the Iraq?
Senator Prescott BUSH from the 1920's who started WWII, and post war these Bush boy's setup Iraq, back in the McCarthy days, then little GW Bush was CIA director and took lots of interest, When he became president he bombed Iraq into the stone age, and then when his son became president, the BUSH family killed the survivors.
The BUSH family has been killing Arab's for oil/blood money for almost 100 years, today the OREO-OBAMA has taken the reins from BUSH as a black-face had to be put in the position to send boys of color in the USA to die in OIL WARS abroad.
Usama Bin Laden, his daddy financed the little twisted BUSH shrubs baseball team in Texas the only private sector job the little Bush ( 2nd pres bush ) ever had.
For every dollar that "Al-Queda" ( The CIA Base in Persian - Ran by OBL on the behalf of the CIA when Raygun was president ) spent on 911, the USA spent a billion dollars in response. The actual amount of money the USA empire has squandered post 911 is over $10 Trillion dollars, OBL ( Usama Bin Laden ) only spent $10,000 to have a few kids hijack the planes and drive them into the twin towers.
Truth.
Well from an US foreign policy perspective Libya would be more of a conflict. Touche, I did find out Iraq had more international support than I previously thought (and I already knew about Afghanistan) and i'm with you on the 'not that this excuses them.'
I'm going to have to get back to you on this one. I know where he stands the issues and I yet at the same time he extended the Bush tax cuts even with a Democratic held House and Senate. He's definitely wised up in 2011, especially in the second half after the debt crisis failure. Though 2011 and '12 he's facing a Congress that is out of touch with its constituency/reality and will obstruct any piece of legislation he puts through, even a tax cut (a fully funded payroll tax cut extension in late 2011). Yet even Speaker B. can't really get the House in order because he is facing the same obstructionist forces of tea-party republicans. So there are mitigating factors but i know you're not interested in that so again i'll have to think on you're initial question.
Alright, I appreciate you giving my post thought instead of firing off angry and reactionary posts, based on predetermined conclusions like others have.
I'm not sure what indicates to you that Obama has wised up, though. He's an actor, just like Bush was. They are representatives of corporations hired to bring money home. I think this is psychology working on both of us, I have honestly no earthly idea why I want to like Obama. He has done nothing different from Bush. Is it some sort of double standard that makes my apply different judgements to different people based on the same actions? People on here would be Cheering madly for No Child Left behind if a Democrat had instituted it. People on here would be Booing the Libyan bombing if a Republican had done it. Is this what we have become? Completely unprincipled robots?
Sorry, rant over. Cheers
Yes it was interesting how he started a new war in Libya after winning the Nobel Peace Prize. And after being the anti-war candidate.
Look, I am not a big defender of Obama. Like so many other people, he has been a big diasappointment to me. I was referring to the Israeli/Iranian conflict in particular. Israel seems to have a real stranglehold on our foreign policy, and he has seemed to resisted their war mongering so far. I do agree with you though that defense spending and war profiteering is a real problem in this country. We should have listened to Eisenhower and his warning on the military-industrial complex for sure.
Very funny...asking for talking points........
Obama promised two big things that were major factors in winning my vote:
It's four years later. I feel ripped off.
“I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank.”
"You can take that to the bank".... Yeah, the federal reserve... lol
[Removed]
Never did care for Bush and I dislike shoe shine more. He is the worst POS since Carter