[RD] The Obama Legacy

[Kennigit]

i wonder if hillary clinton ever released any documentation that would show all her income for the year (other than equity holdings not sold off) for like, around the past 35 years, so we could know if she was a billionaire

never happened

 

[Bootstoots]

A solid recovery that would continue indefinitely if not for the coming Trump recession, so that's good.

The recovery turned from a mostly upper-class phenomenon to a broad-based real recovery through Obama's second term, with an unprecedentedly steady run of positive job creation since mid-2010, which he deserves credit for. I wouldn't use the word "indefinitely" though. The economy is an inherently unstable and poorly understood system, with recessions recurring quasi-periodically, and it's not at all unlikely that the next recession would happen with or without Trump within the next four years. That said, Trump and the congressional GOP will definitely push the system back toward bubble behavior by dismantling regulations, including much of Dodd-Frank, so that he'll deserve much of the blame when the crisis comes.

I think the following situation is fairly likely in the alternate universe where Clinton got elected this year but nothing else is different:

The Dems still fail to win the Senate and House in 2016, then suffer bad midterm losses in 2018, particularly in the Senate. Then, the recession of 2019-20 starts at a very inconvenient time for Clinton's reelection prospects. The result is that Cruz (or someone equally loathsome) clobbers her in the presidential election, they lose even more House and Senate seats, and on the state level, the Reps have absolute control of about 40 states during the critical post-Census 2021-2 term, allowing them even more gerrymandering power than they had this decade.

At least the way things are working in our current universe, the Dems will probably be able to limit their Senate losses and win some House seats in 2018. By 2020, Trump will likely be widely seen as incompetent, with approval ratings in the 30s, and some of the nastier effects of Republican policies will have become obvious. As long as the Dems learn how to become effective politicians in the next four years, they would be well-positioned for a 2020 wave election and the gerrymandering privileges that carries.

As for Obama's legacy, he'll be sandwiched between two incompetent presidents. The contrast will cause people to have a positive impression of his presidency, in retrospect.

 

[metalhead]

It's already causing it. His average job approval is 54 approve to 42 disapprove, and is on a steep upward trend over the past couple of months.

The most distressing thing about the GOP primary season to me was the notion that we want to target policies to GDP growth. You know what tepid GDP growth does? Keeps asset bubbles from forming. You know what greater equality and better balance between supply- and demand-sides does? Keeps asset bubbles from forming. There are always going to be global economic factors out of our control that can drag us down, and there are certainly plenty of ways that other policy can contribute to busting a market sector and causing a recession. Obviously there is no way to recession-proof our economy, but you can definitely reduce the chances of one happening, and reduce the severity of ones that still come along, by choosing slow-and-steady, broad-based, 2% growth, instead of distorting markets by prioritizing growth numbers over other, more useful indicators of economic performance.

From this perspective, the economy over the last 6 years has been extremely healthy. Job growth has been broad-based, GDP growth has been slow and steady, and employment gains have finally gotten us to the point that wages have been forced to rise in order to satisfy the demand for labor. Imperiling the current economic status quo is just insane.

 

[Agent327]

I would assume that's how a lot of people feel. Happy that Hillary lost, but unhappy that Trump won.

Possibly, but he was talking about Obama.

Many think Clinton is wealthier. Many also think Trump's wealth is a facade. In any event, it's close.

What many people think is quite irrelevant. You won't see the Clintons (either of them) in the Fortune 500 anytime soon.

 

[Traitorfish]

ISIS and ACA are the big ones. Both are entirely owned by the Democratic party and the Obama administration. His foreign policy was worse than Bush's which says all that is necessary. He was positioned to have a favorable impact on race relations. If anything, they are worse. Economics gets a C-. On the plus side, there is a lot more oil exploration and fracking.

I am hard pressed to think of another area of significance. He sponsored just one major law, the Affordable Care Act. That alone is an indictment.

J

Quite the coincidence, that all of his self-evident and objective policy failures are the same points on which conservatives disagree most vehemently with his actual policy.

To me, USA is in a really terrible state, torn apart by class and race conflicts.

That's not really true, not compared to the 1960s, say, or the 1930s. It only seems that way because the 1990s and 2000s were periods of exceptional social peace. Occupy was not the IWW, BLM is not the Black Panthers, and heated rhetoric is not social unrest; that's simply hyperbole.

 

[onejayhawk]

Quite the coincidence, that all of his self-evident and objective policy failures are the same points on which conservatives disagree most vehemently with his actual policy.

Why do you say that? The conservatives being right is not unusual. It happens about half the time. It's unsurprising that the President's greatest failure is when he does not recognize that he is in the wrong.

J

 

[Mouthwash]

That's not really true, not compared to the 1960s, say, or the 1930s. It only seems that way because the 1990s and 2000s were periods of exceptional social peace. Occupy was not the IWW, BLM is not the Black Panthers, and heated rhetoric is not social unrest; that's simply hyperbole.

Finally, an intellectual capable of such astounding feats as 'remembering.'

Anyway, my contribution to the thread is this awesome interview about his foreign policy. It's rare to see presidents speak so candidly.

 

[onejayhawk]

Finally, an intellectual capable of such astounding feats as 'remembering.'

Anyway, my contribution to the thread is this awesome interview about his foreign policy. It's rare to see presidents speak so candidly.

This is the sort of reference I hoped top see more often in this thread.

That said, candid is the wrong word since he is defending his record. Perhaps insightful since he lays out more reasoning.

J

 

[Mouthwash]

He states plenty of opinions that probably wouldn't make it into the State of the Union.

 

[onejayhawk]

Two weeks old but I just saw it. There are several in the same vein for Pelosi.

 

[Agent327]

Why do you say that? The conservatives being right is not unusual. It happens about half the time. It's unsurprising that the President's greatest failure is when he does not recognize that he is in the wrong.

That's hardly part of his job description.

Nor is he the leader of his party, for that matter - cartoons notwithstanding.

 

[onejayhawk]

That's hardly part of his job description.

Nor is he the leader of his party, for that matter - cartoons notwithstanding.

If not the leader, a significant leader. Pelosi is another, hence the reference.

What is not in his job description? He was not only wrong, he insisted. It's one thing to persist through opposition. That's laudable if, and only if, you're right.

J

 

[Agent327]

Sounds like you're describing Mr Trump. Very persistent, and about 70 % of the time completely wrong. (But hey, what are facts in politics?) Speaking of which, the president's job is not to 'lead his party', but to lead the nation. We'll see how that works out with Mr Trump. At least he can't use Congress and House opposition and obstruction as an excuse.

 

[Commodore]

the president's job is not to 'lead his party', but to lead the nation.

That's not his job either. His job, as outlined by the Constitution, is to enforce the laws passed by Congress and act as the highest command authority over our armed forces. Nothing in the Constitution says the president is supposed to "lead the nation". And that was done deliberately because the concept of the US was that government is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around.

That's why I have to laugh whenever people say the US needs better leaders in government. No, we do not need leaders, we need followers. We need elected officials who will only do what the people and the Constitution authorize them to do, and nothing more. The less independent action a politician takes, the better.

 

[onejayhawk]

That is a cogent argument. However, the Constitution is not what the job interview (aka election ) presented as his responsibilities. Leadership is central to that.

J

 

[Agent327]

That's not his job either. His job, as outlined by the Constitution, is to enforce the laws passed by Congress and act as the highest command authority over our armed forces. Nothing in the Constitution says the president is supposed to "lead the nation". And that was done deliberately because the concept of the US was that government is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around.

I'm not sure how anyone would extrapolate that from the US constitution. FWIW, even the president is an official. Not o f'the people', but of the state. If a president wasn't supposed to lead the nation (as opposed to his particular party), there would be no need for a presidency in the first place. secondly, being supreme commander of the US armed forces already implies that the president is indeed the leader of the nation, and not some automaton that executes 'the will of the people'. The problem with the latter is that 'the people' rarely are of one opinion. Hence the need for decision making officials.

I could also say that the president needs to lead the state. But I understand 'the state' is a bit of a dirty word in some circles, so I used 'the nation'. Which means exactly the same.

That's why I have to laugh whenever people say the US needs better leaders in government. No, we do not need leaders, we need followers. We need elected officials who will only do what the people and the Constitution authorize them to do, and nothing more. The less independent action a politician takes, the better.

That's not really an argument about the administrations, but about politicians needing to be populists. Which is an opinion, but not one found in the Constitution.

 

[Commodore]

I'm not sure how anyone would extrapolate that from the US constitution.

By reading the Constitution. It clearly outlines what the duties and responsibilities of each branch of government is. In the strictest sense, that is their "job description".

 

[metalhead]

You realize that the constitutional job duties are extremely broad, right? I mean, peep this from Article I, Section 8, pulled directly from Congress' job description:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So, I mean, yeah the constitution lays out the job description, but in many cases it is extremely broad and open to an unlimited array of interpretations. The president's oath of office is to protect and defend the constitution, which is also an absurdly broad job description. I mean, if you're attempting to look to the constitution for some sort of limiting job description, you're going to be disappointed. It's just not in there.

Legacy-wise, Obama's job approval is now in the mid-to-high 50s across most of the polling asking about it. This is pretty high for a president leaving office. Once the Trump tax cuts work their way through the economy and cause widespread job losses, people might be more apt to recognize that the slow-and-steady economic comeback was the best approach.

 

[onejayhawk]

Legacy-wise, Obama's job approval is now in the mid-to-high 50s across most of the polling asking about it. This is pretty high for a president leaving office. Once the Trump tax cuts work their way through the economy and cause widespread job losses, people might be more apt to recognize that the slow-and-steady economic comeback was the best approach.

Hence the cartoon. The Democratic party crashed and burned, but he did not. To the extent that he is a leader of the party, this is a mark against him.

J

 

[Traitorfish]

The Democratic Party didn't just elect a presidency whom the majority of its voters distrust and a majority of its elected official despise. Time alone will tell which party is burning.