Support NeoGAF

[Measley]

FDR created the social blanket and led the country through WWII, Lincoln "freed the slaves" through a Civil War. I'm sorry but putting Obama (or any modern president) in that category isn't accurate.

You don't think that the U.S. in January 2009 wasn't in a dire situation? The economy was collapsing, we were in two military quagmires, there was a huge hole in NYC, American manufacturing was on the verge of disappearing, Americans were pessimistic about their future, and Osama Bin Ladin was still on the loose.

Fast forward to right now. The global markets are stable, the U.S. economy (and manufacturing) are coming back, the military quagmires we're in are ending, Americans are feeling optimistic about their future, and Bin Ladin is dead.

Not only that, but the U.S. health care system has been reformed, forming the basis for what eventually will be a UHC in the U.S.

Let's just say Obama wins a second term and nothing happens from then until 2016, Obama's legacy is still better than nearly every president since FDR. You just can't argue against that.

I think it's safe to say Clinton and Reagan are perhaps the best examples of good to great modern presidents, depending on your views. It makes more sense to compare Obama and any modern president to them, and when you do so he doesn't particularly stack up well (although you could argue Obama's legislative record is more impressive than both of theirs). If he manages to get re-elected things can certainly change; imagine how different Clinton's legacy would be if he was not re-elected for instance.

Clinton's legacy was stopped by Republicans. Obama did what Bill and Hillary couldn't do, and pass Health care reform. Clinton's legacy was further tarnished by the Lewinsky scandal. I can't consider a president who was impeached for perjury to be considered a great president. He was good, but his personal faults will forever tar his presidency.

Reagan is in somewhat the same boat as Clinton. He was a good president, but several things mar his presidency in really big ways, like the Iran-Contra scandal. He's enjoying a resurgence in popularity because the last Republican president was an outright disaster. However, that resurgence only exists because conservatives ignore just about every fact about his administration, and how he governed the country.

FDR and Lincoln were great leaders who changed the path of the country. I don't see how anyone could argue Obama is a good leader, or a leader at all to be perfectly honest; he seems more like a steward holding office until someone else assumes the presidency.

You honestly don't believe that we aren't on a different/better path than we were in January 2009?

 

[Manmademan]

Massive surpluses?!!? How come this is the first time I have heard about this?

I thought the deficit went up while Clinton was in office.

well, this one is tricky. The deficit is pretty much always going up, but Clinton managed to balance the budget (not the overall deficit) into a surplus. In theory, the deficit would have declined significantly in a decade or two had Bush Jr. not decided to waste that budget surplus on tax cuts and wars.

in practice, politicians would have found some way to waste it regardless.

Clinton also presided over welfare reform, but I'm not certain how much of that was actually his idea.

 

[speculawyer]

What is Clinton's legacy anyways? Massive surplus combined with blowjobs?

 

[Manmademan]

Let's just say Obama wins a second term and nothing happens from then until 2016, Obama's legacy is still better than nearly every president since FDR. You just can't argue against that.

Exactly. and that's not even touching on the financial reform bills that were put into place that while not exactly flashy, are still important.

The groundwork and narrative have also been laid for a serious correction in the wealth disparity that's built up- if Obama is able to tackle that during his second term successfully, who knows how history will view him? I'm not saying he's washington or Lincoln material- but hey, even Teddy Roosevelt made it onto Mt. Rushmore.

 

[Zabka]

well, this one is tricky. The deficit is pretty much always going up, but Clinton managed to balance the budget (not the overall deficit) into a surplus. In theory, the deficit would have declined significantly in a decade or two had Bush Jr. not decided to waste that budget surplus on tax cuts and wars.

in practice, politicians would have found some way to waste it regardless.

Clinton also presided over welfare reform, but I'm not certain how much of that was actually his idea.

A balanced budget means no deficit. I think you're thinking of the Federal Debt.

 

[AlteredBeast]

well, this one is tricky. The deficit is pretty much always going up, but Clinton managed to balance the budget (not the overall deficit) into a surplus. In theory, the deficit would have declined significantly in a decade or two had Bush Jr. not decided to waste that budget surplus on tax cuts and wars.

in practice, politicians would have found some way to waste it regardless.

Clinton also presided over welfare reform, but I'm not certain how much of that was actually his idea.

I was being cheeky, since a lot of budget tricks went into "balancing the budget"

Truly balancing would have resulted in zero net gain in deficit or a reduction.

 

[Manmademan]

A balanced budget means no deficit. I think you're thinking of the Federal Debt.

no, I'm not. a balanced budget means no deficit for that year (and projected future years). That is, expenditures going out for that fiscal year were less than tax revenue coming in.

The Federal Debt was already in the trillions by then, and would have taken decades to eliminate.

I was being cheeky, since a lot of budget tricks went into "balancing the budget"

Truly balancing would have resulted in zero net gain in deficit or a reduction.

this is true, and there's a lot of debate that those budget tricks and projections were overly optimistic.

 

[AlteredBeast]

no, I'm not. a balanced budget means no deficit for that year (and projected future years). That is, expenditures going out for that fiscal year were less than tax revenue coming in.

The Federal Debt was already in the trillions by then, and would have taken decades to eliminate.

A balanced budget factors in paying down interest on the debt, resulting in no increase of debt.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Massive surpluses?!!? How come this is the first time I have heard about this?

I thought the deficit went up while Clinton was in office.

Spending still went up, but the late 90's boom (fueled by the dotcom bubble) led to incredibly robust employment which swelled the amount of revenues brought in.

That's why Bush Jr. was able to effectively argue that taxes needed to be cut to help stimulate the economy (as the recession hit after the dotcom bust).


Politifact link on this topic

 

[Manmademan]

So if you think about it, it's entirely possible that Obama will be remembered as one of the greats, in a decade or two.

I think it's incredibly likely, especially combined with his personal narrative. A lot of what makes a president "great" is how he makes americans feel about themselves, and a successful president who's origins reflect the "american dream" so closely will mean a lot in terms of how he's viewed by future generations.

 

[thatbox]

Done:


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ax-bill-over-broad-gop-opposition.php?ref=fpb

This was my last major concern that the legislature could muck with the economy this year; the debt ceiling issue might come up near the election, but I doubt it. Gas prices, on the other hand.

It still looks like UE is coming down from 99 weeks, though, and I'm not all that happy with the sources of the "offsets" that are being tossed around.

 

[empty vessel]

Everybody needs to stop thinking that government surpluses are good. They aren't, and in fact they can be quite harmful to an economy. A country that uses its government to create by fiat (i.e., out of thin air) the money its economy relies upon (such as ours) must "run deficits"* under normal economic conditions (i.e., an economy without full employment). If it doesn't, the economy will be starved and contract.

* "Running a deficit" = creating money. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[GhaleonEB]

It still looks like UE is coming down from 99 weeks, though, and I'm not all that happy with the sources of the "offsets" that are being tossed around.

I'm not happy with those either. But it's a compromise between good policy and bad policy, and I'd rather this pass than not. It's much better than I had expected even a week ago.

 

[Measley]

So if you think about it, it's entirely possible that Obama will be remembered as one of the greats, in a decade or two.

Not in the same way as Reagan. Conservatives are currently propping up Reagan as a right-wing messiah even though Reagan did everything that conservatives hate about Obama and then some.

In the long run, a lot of our fiscal instability will be traced back to Reganomics, and that period of rapid deregulation. That, along with things like the Iran-Contra affair, and making the U.S. more dependent on foreign energy will rightfully tarnish his presidency.

Despite that, he'll still be remembered as one of the better presidents of the late 20th century, simply because conservative America has nothing else to cling to.

 

[planar1280]

Obama is more of a Reagan democrat than a Clinton democrat. This shows how far right the GOP has gone in their policies.

 

[Tim-E]

It's impossible to judge how Obama will be remembered now. We have decades of perspective to look at other presidents. I think he's going to be remembered as a good to great president, but I think it's too early to be writing the history books just yet.

 

[Manmademan]

Not in the same way as Reagan. Conservatives are currently propping up Reagan as a right-wing messiah even though Reagan did everything that conservatives hate about Obama and then some.

In the long run, a lot of our fiscal instability will be traced back to Reganomics, and that period of rapid deregulation. That, along with things like the Iran-Contra affair, and making the U.S. more dependent on foreign energy will rightfully tarnish his presidency.

Despite that, he'll still be remembered as one of the better presidents of the late 20th century, simply because conservative America has nothing else to cling to.

To be fair, Reagan is dead- and there's some kind of unwritten rule that speaking ill of the dead is bad form. Someone notable dies, and all you hear about them is the good they did, and not so much about the mistakes and bad things. Hell, JFK is generally considered top tier only BECAUSE he was shot to death in office. His actual accomplishments were really, really suspect.

Since Michael Jackson died, all you really hear is about MJ "the legend" and not "MJ, the guy with the creepy child fixation" like you did when he was still alive.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think history will be very kind to Obama.

You can easily make the argument that he leads from behind, but the Republican Party has completely self-destructed since his election. Every time he's confronted the GOP head-on, he's made fools out of them. The only thing he really bungled was healthcare reform, which turned out okay and will probably become somewhat popular as time goes on, and the debt ceiling debacle, which dragged down his approval ratings but the Republican Congress' moreso.

But yes, if the economy turns around and he leaves office with 4% unemployment, you better believe people will have fond memories of the Obama years.

ed: I've discussed my theory about Obama being Democrat Reagan before. His turnaround in public opinion seems to be following a similar trajectory as Reagan.

 

[Mortrialus]

I remember seeing a number of recent polls where Reagan topped the list as greatest president. These weren't right-wing polls either. The guy had one of the most corrupt, criminal administrations in recent history, and that doesn't even count for how incredibly conservative the man was, which you'd think would make him polarizing. I don't know how the guy managed to become as revered as he is.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Kasich has a 40-46 approval/disapproval rate.

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2012/02/14/kasich-approval-rating-improves-to-40.html

That's somewhat outside the MOE of the latest PPP Ohio survey's findings RE: Kasich's approvals.

That and even within the Q poll:

While Republicans give Gov. Kasich a 71 - 19 percent approval rating, disapproval is a mirror image 70 - 17 percent among Democrats and 49 - 35 percent among independent voters. Men split 46 - 45 percent while women disapprove 47 - 35 percent.

(Compare to 9-80 D, 38-47 I, 58-25 R, 38-52 M, 25-55 W in the PPP poll.)

Though I do like that they find 53% of Ohioans want the state speed limit raised to 70 mph.

 

[Tim-E]

The fact that people consider Reagan to be some economic savior is baffling to me. There is nothing to indicate that low taxes for the wealthy correlates with low unemployment, yet people still buy into this garbage.

 

[Crisco]

This whole contraception issue really was a political masterstroke by Obama. It might even end with Santorum winning the nomination due to fired up Evangelicals. He played the GOP like a fucking fiddle on this one. Maybe he really his getting better at this after 3 years.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Eh, Clinton promised 8 million jobs by the end of his first term in office, and he basically achieved that, and I'm pretty sure that was before the dotcom really exploded.

Also, I'm sure with Bush Sr's tax increase in conjuction with Clinton's economic policies right after he entered office facilitated with the job growth.......or maybe not, I dunno. Maybe it was all cyclical.

 

[Measley]

I remember seeing a number of recent polls were Reagan topped the list as greatest president. These weren't right-wing polls either. The guy had one of the most corrupt, criminal administrations in recent history, and that doesn't even count for how incredibly conservative the man was, which you'd think would make him polarizing. I don't know how the guy managed to become as revered as he is.

Because he had a lot of charisma. He's like the grandfather you don't agree with politically, but you still love and respect him because he had some great one-liners.

Charisma can overcome a lot of negatives when you hold public office.

This is why I think Obama is going to be in the top 5 of presidents. He also has a great deal of charisma, but he doesn't have the negatives that bog down Clinton and Reagan.

 

[Manmademan]

I remember seeing a number of recent polls were Reagan topped the list as greatest president. These weren't right-wing polls either. The guy had one of the most corrupt, criminal administrations in recent history, and that doesn't even count for how incredibly conservative the man was, which you'd think would make him polarizing. I don't know how the guy managed to become as revered as he is.

the right wing noise machine is very effective at creating narratives, and not just among conservatives. Repeat something often enough and eventually the independents and mainstream media will pick it up.

I want to shoot someone in the face everytime I hear "job creators" now.

That being said, I have a theory that the deification of Reagan is basically a strategy to distract from the fact that there hasn't been a republican president anyone could stand for over 20 years now. Have you ever noticed when bringing up "Obama will be a one term president!" the comparison is always to carter as a failure, and NEVER H.W. Bush? it's like that presidency never happened.

 

[maximum360]

smh Phoenix. smh.

Haterz: Master Class

 

[Rocket Scientist]

The U.S. unemployment rate, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is 9.0% in mid-February, up from 8.6% for January. The mid-month reading normally reflects what the U.S. government reports for the entire month, and is up from 8.3% in mid-January.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152753/Unemployment-Increases-Mid-February.aspx

What does this mean exactly in regards to official numbers? The wording is confusing, to me anyway, is it their number, the governments number, is the jump real?

 

[PhoenixDark]

This whole contraception issue really was a political masterstroke by Obama. It might even end with Santorum winning the nomination due to fired up Evangelicals. He played the GOP like a fucking fiddle on this one. Maybe he really his getting better at this after 3 years.

This 11th dimensional chess meme needs do die. Obama overruled Biden and some other aides on this issue, and republicans freaked out. There was no "master stroke" here, republicans decided to pull the outrage card and it backfired. I'd imagine the WH knew their decision would start a fight, but they certainly didn't anticipate the doomsday reactions from bishops and republicans.

I have no idea why people continue perpetuating the idea that every opportunity Obama stumbles upon is a brilliant, calculated decision to box opponents in.

 

[mckmas8808]

The fact that people consider Reagan to be some economic savior is baffling to me. There is nothing to indicate that low taxes for the wealthy correlates with low unemployment, yet people still buy into this garbage.

Yeah but when you have 500,000 net jobs being created per month the year of your second election, people will look at any President as the economic savior.

 

[Manmademan]

This 11th dimensional chess meme needs do die. Obama overruled Biden and some other aides on this issue, and republicans freaked out. There was no "master stroke" here, republicans decided to pull the outrage card and it backfired. I'd imagine the WH knew their decision would start a fight, but they certainly didn't anticipate the doomsday reactions from bishops and republicans.

I have no idea why people continue perpetuating the idea that every opportunity Obama stumbles upon is a brilliant, calculated decision to box opponents in.

Or is that just what Obama WANTS you to think

 

[TestOfTide]

I'd be shocked if by 2020 Obama isn't considered one of the greatest presidents in American history. Right along with Lincoln, Washington, and Roosevelt.

You talk about greatest presidents and don't mention the guy who was willing to let go of one of his party's biggest electoral advantages just to get important legislation through.

I assume you're talking about LBJ?

Obviously. Lincoln just ran on stopping the growth of slavery, not the actual abolition of it. And when the Confederacy inevitably waged war, making it about ending slavery served only to help him politically. Similarly Roosevelt was just appealing to the populist movement which would help a Republican such as himself get southern votes.

 

[Mortrialus]

Or is that just what Obama WANTS you to think

And besides, he's actually playing 12th dimensional chess.

 

[Pie Lord]

You talk about greatest presidents and don't mention the guy who was willing to let go of one of his party's biggest electoral advantages just to get important legislation through.

I assume you're talking about LBJ?

 

[Miletius]

Plus the alternative seems to be to believe that he just stumbles into opportunities by happy accident. The truth is it's probably somewhere in between -- but he does seem to be learning that giving an inch means they will ask for a mile so it's best to anticipate that you are going to be fought.

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152753/Unemployment-Increases-Mid-February.aspx

What does this mean exactly in regards to official numbers? The wording is confusing, to me anyway, is it their number, the governments number, is the jump real?

Gallup's economic data generally isn't taken seriously. There have been really odd swings before, both ways (good Gallup data, bad employment news, and vice-versa).

Initial unemployment claims are under 350k which indicates job creation, so I'm not giving this too much thought. Their day-to-day polls are also volatile as hell (only pollster to show both McCain and Obama leading by double digits in 2008, I believe).

 

[Byakuya769]

What is Clinton's legacy anyways? Massive surplus combined with blowjobs?

Evicerating welfare?

 

[eBay Huckster]

Gallup's economic data generally isn't taken seriously. There have been really odd swings before, both ways (good Gallup data, bad employment news, and vice-versa).

Initial unemployment claims are under 350k which indicates job creation, so I'm not giving this too much thought. Their day-to-day polls are also volatile as hell (only pollster to show both McCain and Obama leading by double digits in 2008, I believe).

I'd expect the U3 rate to not change by more than .1% either way if trends for the past 30 years have been any indication (though I'm specifically looking at 1983-84, 1992-93, and 2000-01 as "recovery" periods).

 

[adamsappel]

You talk about greatest presidents and don't mention the guy who was willing to let go of one of his party's biggest electoral advantages just to get important legislation through.

I would consider LBJ one of the greats, if not for Vietnam. He did a lot of very important things, and transformed the country for the better, but I can't forgive him that.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Clinton has to be seen as one of the greatest 'free trade' presidents of all-time. NAFTA (also, the mexican bailouts) plus the unprecedented strengthening of ties with China. According to him, during his run he signed 200 trade agreements.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

The fact that Obama is the first colored president and hasn't fucked up AND led us during the Great Recession is reason enough to have him be remembered favorably.

*drudge siren* *drudge siren*

California average gas prices just hit $4.00 today.

Get the Fox "Obama failed gas/economy/oil/security policy" canons ready to launch.

Lobbyists, to your pipeline bills!

GOP, to your "lower taxes on oil companies" talking points.



...NO WAIT IT'S FRIDAY, DELAY DELAY DELAY!

Save it for Monday!

Lol gas has been going DOWN here in Wisconsin. Yay 3.29 a gallon!

 

[Tim-E]

LBJ was pretty incredible mostly, but it's hard to overlook Vietnam.

 

[Mortrialus]

The fact that Obama is the first colored president and hasn't fucked up AND led us during the Great Recession is reason enough to have him be remembered favorably.



Lol gas has been going DOWN here in Wisconsin. Yay 3.29 a gallon!

I've been meaning to ask this for a while, but who is your avatar and why does he look exactly like my late grandpa? Every time I look at it, I keep thinking I should know who that is, but I can't because all I can think about is my grandpa.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Gallup's economic data generally isn't taken seriously.

I see. Hope the real numbers are better.

 

[ToxicAdam]

LBJ was pretty incredible mostly, but it's hard to overlook Vietnam.

LBJ had unprecedented numbers in the House/Senate. Never forget that.

 

[eBay Huckster]

LBJ was pretty incredible mostly, but it's hard to overlook Vietnam.

LBJ also had majorities of 258-176, 295-140, and 248-187 in the House & 66-34, 68-32 and 64-36 in the Senate.

 

[Manmademan]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/top-gop-senator-says-if-romney-loses-michigan-we-need-a-new-candidate/

A prominent Republican senator just told me that if Romney can’t win in Michigan, the Republican Party needs to go back to the drawing board and convince somebody new to get into the race.

“If Romney cannot win Michigan, we need a new candidate,” said the senator, who has not endorsed anyone and requested anonymity.

The senator believes Romney will ultimately win in Michigan but says he will publicly call for the party to find a new candidate if he does not.

“We’d get killed,” the senator said if Romney manages to win the nomination after he failed to win the state in which he grew up.

“He’d be too damaged,” he said. “If he can’t even win in Michigan, where his family is from, where he grew up.”

What about Rick Santorum?

“He’d lose 35 states,” the senator said, predicting the same fate for Newt Gingrich.

It would have to be somebody else, the senator said. Who?

“Jeb Bush,” the former Florida governor.

I can't even see Jeb Bush *wanting* to jump in the ring as a brokered candidate.

 

[The Librarian]

It still looks like UE is coming down from 99 weeks, though, and I'm not all that happy with the sources of the "offsets" that are being tossed around.

You mean unemployment insurance? There are some good reforms in there – work sharing, self-employment assistance, and reemployment assistance.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I see. Hope the real numbers are better.

To add to his comment, not only is Gallup's data not seasonally adjusted, they use an entirely different methodology. They are a poor predictor of BLS data. Other economic indicators such as the regional Fed surveys, manufacturing surveys and weekly unemployment insurance claims are much better predictors, and those all show improvement from January.

 

[PantherLotus]

This 11th dimensional chess meme needs do die. Obama overruled Biden and some other aides on this issue, and republicans freaked out. There was no "master stroke" here, republicans decided to pull the outrage card and it backfired. I'd imagine the WH knew their decision would start a fight, but they certainly didn't anticipate the doomsday reactions from bishops and republicans.

I have no idea why people continue perpetuating the idea that every opportunity Obama stumbles upon is a brilliant, calculated decision to box opponents in.

Right. The problem is that it just kinda keeps working. You and everyone else should read the two first-term presidential summaries that were on TNR and The Atlantic over the past week.

There still seems to be some debate whether Obama is naively optimistic (or incompetent), a classic centrist, or a brilliant tactician that causes every single one of his opponents to implode.

I'm going with some combination of all three, personally. I think he was a bit naive about GOP tactics based on a Clinton staff that attempted to triangulate, I think he's a classic centrist that doesn't necessarily fight for liberal causes (whether stuff like delayed gay rights were political foresight or personal objection, we'll never truly know), aaaaand I believe he's a particularly calculating political mastermind.

It just so happens that all three of those pale in comparison to the utter lunacy of the circus-act right over the past couple years, so none of them really matter since President Obama is one of the luckiest people alive -- after essentially bungling the initial stimulus, the economy (and unemployment) is apparently rebounding at the perfect moment before the election; after seeing one of the worst congressional overturns of the past three generations in 2010 (the other two? 1994 and 1982), the newcomers were beholden to their psychotic tea-party benefactors and completely over-stepped sanity; and finally, despite more or less walking away from holding wall street accountable for the 2008 collapse, Obama's presumed opponent in the 2012 election is the SINGLE candidate on the planet that couldn't more resemble a Wall Street job-cutting fat cat.

It's the political equivalent of early 2000s Tom Brady: a simultaneous two-time winner of the genetic lottery (looks and size), lucky enough to learn behind an underrated great in Drew Bledsoe, lucky enough to be on a team with an incredible offensive line and a genius head coach, aaaaand lucky enough to be talented enough to rise to the occasion as his opponents implode around him. Obama couldn't ask for a better comp.

As for the question of historicity, it doesn't matter whether President Obama is one of the greatest ever (FDR, Lincoln, Washington). He's America's first black president. It just so happens that he also steered us (mostly) out of the second great depression, by luck or by skill, passed the most important legislation since Civil Rights, more or less ended the War in Iraq on chin-up terms, called the MDK on America's single greatest enemy, and perhaps most importantly, restored America's stature in the eyes of the world (rightly or wrongly).

Obama is already every bit as important as LBJ and Kennedy, and is nearing Teddy and Wilson in terms of momentous decision-making and course-changing. His importance is already unquestioned. It's the lasting effect that we'll have to wait and see -- will his worldview have changed the path of American politics over the next three decades? will his decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been prudent (and/or lucky)? Will his casual dismissal of China from the world stage ("We welcome China's growth!) work for the next President? Will Dodd-Frank have been enough to prevent a bubble over the next 30 years? Was the AHCA enough to slow America's (and its businesses') greatest costs? Will his decisions to transform our military into a more intelligence-based, more automation-based have been wise? And how does all of that work as the baby boom enters their 70s and strains our economy further?

I just...you can't really question Obama's importance if you have any understanding of world politics at all, much less fully understanding the damage to the economy, the military, our educational system, and our future that GWB (and his administration) inflicted upon this nation. Obama saved this nation from much of those, and the rest of his term(s) will decide not whether he's one of the greatest, but whether he's Mount Rushmore material.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

To add to his comment, not only is Gallup's data not seasonally adjusted, they use an entirely different methodology. They are a poor predictor of BLS data. Other economic indicators such as the regional Fed surveys, manufacturing surveys and weekly unemployment insurance claims are much better predictors, and those all show improvement from January.

That's good news! The jump was so high I thought it must have been a real indication no matter what their tracking methodology or margin of error is. Looking forward to good numbers for the month.