Obama so far

[Commodore]

Perhaps because Obama clearly isn't one? If anything, he is an "embarrassment" to authoritarian conservatives, much like most other American politicians.

What is a shame is that Obama started out as a moderate who wasn't nearly so authoritarian.

I know right? It's almost like he became extremely bitter that nobody was embracing his policies so he decided to go all dictatorial with everything. He's trying to compensate for his lack of true leadership ability by circumventing the law and seizing as much power as he can to push through his agenda.

And I really did have high hopes for him when he was elected.

 

[RobAnybody]

Meanwhile he's not doing anything to address the crisis in Russia. He's too obsessed with his celebrity status vs being a competent leader. Why is he even on with a B list comedian who isn't even asking real questions? It's a mockery of the office.

I know right? It's almost like he became extremely bitter that nobody was embracing his policies so he decided to go all dictatorial with everything. He's trying to compensate for his lack of true leadership ability by circumventing the law and seizing as much power as he can to push through his agenda.

Yeah! I hear you! He's, like, a weak leader who's also totally a tyrant. He doesn't know how to lead & is always leading from behind & leading us into disaster. He's an ineffective, mom-jean-wearing weakling who's one Executive Order away from becoming a dictator. He should be strong like Putin. Except when he's trampling all over people's rights, of course.

 

[Harv]

My suggestion would be let the party fall flat on its face for an election cycle so they know you can't be taken for granted and let the policies that you think will fail and that a "moderate" would implement a good bit of anyway be attributed to the Republicans. They would truly have no excuses left.

I don't know how people reconcile "the two parties aren't that different" and voting for the candidate they feel is slightly more liberal, if there's really such little difference then let the other side take the fall for it and get curbstomped in the first midterm.

Uh, which party are you talking about? I think your suggestion applies to both parties.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yeah! I hear you! He's, like, a weak leader who's also totally a tyrant. He doesn't know how to lead & is always leading from behind & leading us into disaster. He's an ineffective, mom-jean-wearing weakling who's one Executive Order away from becoming a dictator. He should be strong like Putin. Except when he's trampling all over people's rights, of course.

I think there is quite a difference between being an authoritarian like Obama, Putin, and Merkel, and being a tyrant like Kim Jong-un. Even the executive order permitting torture under GWB wasn't "one" "away from being a dictator".

And what "disasters" has Obama "led us into" "from behind"?

 

[Cutlass]

Agreed. Carter was a dreadful President, while Reagan was at worst a good one. History has already spoken to that extent. CAFE standards are not the least of Carter's misguided thinking, but repealing them was a step in the right direction.

J

Reagan may have been more popular. But he utterly and completely sucked at president. Every American is poorer today because Reagan beat Carter. As for the CAFE standards, if you really want more money to flow out of the US and into OPEC and Russia, then you oppose CAFE. But if you want more money for America, and less for OPEC and Russia (and al qaida) then opposing CAFE makes sense.

 

[Commodore]

Yeah! I hear you! He's, like, a weak leader who's also totally a tyrant. He doesn't know how to lead & is always leading from behind & leading us into disaster. He's an ineffective, mom-jean-wearing weakling who's one Executive Order away from becoming a dictator. He should be strong like Putin. Except when he's trampling all over people's rights, of course.

And this shows you completely missed the point of my comment and have no true understanding of what I mean when I talk about leadership. Leadership is about being able to unify the legislature and the population so there is no significant opposition to your agenda. As much as I dislike Reagan and his policies, he had leadership. Opposing his agenda was tantamount to political suicide whether you were Democrat or Republican because he had everyone convinced his way was the right way.

To a lesser extent, Clinton also had a unifying effect on our government and our nation. That is something Obama just does not have. I didn't disagree with a lot of his initial policies, which is why I had such high hopes for him as a president. I started to lose faith in him though when he compromised on the ACA just to get it pushed through (even though the compromise eliminated the most important parts of the ACA). When that didn't work, he went to the other extreme and decided he just doesn't want to work with Congress anymore on anything. That attitude is only polarizing our politics even further and making our government less effective as a result.

Basically, my biggest problem with Obama is his inability to unify Congress and de-escalate the growing political crisis on the Hill. I also do not want him to be "strong like Putin" as you put it; I want him to be quite the opposite of Putin and act like the leader he is supposed to be, not some shirtless horse-rider that rules by bullying his opposition into submission.

 

[Cutlass]

CAFE standards mandating certain fuel economies be met are a vastly inferior policy to simply taxing new cars based on their fuel economy/emissions. I'd rather we do that, plus replace the annual ad valorem tax on cars with an annual emissions tax on older cars too. (The funds gathered could be redistributed as part of a basic income guarantee, so as not to place too high a burden on the poor who cannot afford new cars.)

I'd agree that taxing the fuel economy of cars would have been a better solution. But one of the flaws was the vehicles excluded from the standards. Which might have happened either way.

 

[Cutlass]

Why is being a fiscal conservative about whether the taxes are high, anyway?

It's not. Reagan was a fiscal conservative because he raised taxes. Had he not raised taxes, he would not have been a fiscal conservative. Like the Republicans in Congress now, which doesn't include any fiscal conservatives at all.

 

[RobAnybody]

And this shows you completely missed the point of my comment and have no true understanding of what I mean when I talk about leadership.

Naw, I think I got it. You think he's a dictator with unprecedented tyranny. Other people think he's a weakling with unprecedented mom-jeans. The juxtaposition of the opposing criticism is funny. He's RULING WITH AN IRON FIST! He's a WEAK PANSY NON-LEADER! Come on, you can see how it's funny, right?

I think there is quite a difference between being an authoritarian like Obama, Putin, and Merkel, and being a tyrant like Kim Jong-un. Even the executive order permitting torture under GWB wasn't "one" "away from being a dictator".

And what "disasters" has Obama "led us into" "from behind"?

Jesus "Christ". You should "rent" a sense "of" "humor". Just to "see" what "it's" like to "have one".

 

[Commodore]

Naw, I think I got it. You think he's a dictator with unprecedented tyranny. Other people think he's a weakling with unprecedented mom-jeans. The juxtaposition of the opposing criticism is funny. He's RULING WITH AN IRON FIST! He's a WEAK PANSY NON-LEADER! Come on, you can see how it's funny, right.

That would be funny if that's what I said about him. But since I said nothing of the sort, your comments are outrageously stupid and show your lack of reading comprehension.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

More stupid than: "so he decided to go all dictatorial with everything"?

 

[Leoreth]

It's not. Reagan was a fiscal conservative because he raised taxes. Had he not raised taxes, he would not have been a fiscal conservative. Like the Republicans in Congress now, which doesn't include any fiscal conservatives at all.

I know you're constantly questioning conservative labels here (including the label "conservative"), but isn't the general accepted definition of fiscal conservatism the attempt to "balance the budget" and reduce debt or slow down the rate of debt increase?

Shouldn't we judge the fiscal conservatism of a president by their ability to meet that standard, as questionable as it is, instead of looking at their methods to accomplish that?

Obviously Reagan was a terrible fiscal conservative by that standard as well.

 

[Commodore]

More stupid than: "so he decided to go all dictatorial with everything"?

That was meant to be a semi-humorous way of stating my point, but I guess humor doesn't come across so well over the internet...

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I know you're constantly questioning conservative labels here (including the label "conservative"), but isn't the general accepted definition of fiscal conservatism the attempt to "balance the budget" and reduce debt or slow down the rate of debt increase?

Shouldn't we judge the fiscal conservatism of a president by their ability to meet that standard, as questionable as it is, instead of looking at their methods to accomplish that?

Obviously Reagan was a terrible fiscal conservative by that standard as well.

His point is though that currently Republicans don't attempt to balance the budget through any means. It's not really about if they raise taxes or not - it's about the fact that they generally favor increasing spending (on things like the military ) while also decreasing revenue with tax cuts (primarily to corporations and the rich).

Even when they talk about cutting the budget, they almost always want to concurrently cut taxes by a larger amount which doesn't balance the budget except in their fantasy world where tax cuts = greater revenue.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That was meant to be a semi-humorous way of stating my point, but I guess humor doesn't come across so well over the internet...

Fair enough.

Quite a few posters were voicing similar sentiments which I mistook for being humour at first.

 

[Leoreth]

Precisely. Exposing their rhetoric about Reagan as mostly, well, rhetoric is part of discrediting the association of current Republican policies and the ideal of what they think fiscal conservatism is.

I like that Cutlass tries to reformulate conservative buzzwords in a way that their implementation matches the intended purpose, I just think that as a first step the nature of their current definitions as mere smokescreens should be exposed.

 

[onejayhawk]

I know you're constantly questioning conservative labels here (including the label "conservative"), but isn't the general accepted definition of fiscal conservatism the attempt to "balance the budget" and reduce debt or slow down the rate of debt increase?

Shouldn't we judge the fiscal conservatism of a president by their ability to meet that standard, as questionable as it is, instead of looking at their methods to accomplish that?

Obviously Reagan was a terrible fiscal conservative by that standard as well.

Certainly not obviously. In fact, I am not sure you can make the case at all. The deficits dropped sharply during his eight years. The question is how much credit he deserves. As a rule, Presidents ride the economy as a passenger. Their input tends to be more a matter of timing than true effect.

Like Obama he started with huge deficits and a serious recession, but with markedly better results. Of course Reagan had a hostile congress while Obama had an unusually friendly one. We saw in the 1990s that opposite parties tended toward fiscal sanity.

J

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Certainly not obviously. In fact, I am not sure you can make the case at all. The deficits dropped sharply during his eight years.

You're kidding right?

Of course Reagan had a hostile congress while Obama had an unusually friendly one.

You're kidding right????

 

[Leoreth]

I can only join hobbs in his incredulity.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's like watching Fox 'News' only this guy isn't getting paid to say these lies.