• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama's Legacy

I agree with the ACA criticisms here. The "hope" that young folks would pay $2-3K/year for insurance with a $4-600 penalty when they don't was overly hopeful. I still think the yuge raise in premiums for folks like me hurt Clinton in the last 2 weeks worse than Comey did, though I may be in the minority there. We should have a single payor system like just about every other 1st world country, but now it's the Pubs' problem to fix because they have the president and both houses for the next 4 years. Repealing and doing nothing won't be a winning option.

I similarly wasn't a fan of the stimulus and believe that was a big factor in losing control of congress. While a stimulus was necessary, we spent the money on a bunch of local projects that mostly would have gotten done sooner than later. I was on the board of a local agency at the time, and it was like let's think of things we can spend money on. As opposed to using a stimulus to repair our decaying roads, bridges, levees and electrical grid. Had we concentrated the money on those items, at least we would have something serious to show for the spending.

Unfortunately, that's pretty much it on the domestic agenda because of Pub refused to come to the table at all. Obama had some nice ideas on immigration but was only able to do a few things via executive orders. And I do think he should get more credit for TARP as a presidential candidate. It failed on the 1st vote, with a lot on the left and right opposing it, including most of the black caucus, and he did his part by leaning hard on them to support it the next time around and acted as the calm adult in the room, contrasted with McCain at the time.

And I'm easier on him in foreign policy than some of you. His worst mistake was backing Maliki in Iraq despite the vote. Maliki proceeded to purge Sunnis from all government positions, leading to sectarian violence and ultimately to many Sunnis joining the IS. He deserves credit for bin Laden, especially when others at the table weren't in favor of the strike. Afghanistan otherwise has been an expensive mess, but it's not like Bush would have done any wonders with it. I think history will prove him to be on the right side with his policies on Cuba and Iran and with the sanctions against Russia. Insisting on regime change in Syria has proved problematic. We spent a buttload of money trying to back more moderate rebels who never materialized, and there have been no good options from our perspective. Though I can't say that a more pragmatic approach would have gotten us any farther toward a negotiated settlement. As for Libya, hindsight is 20/20. Most all Dems and Pubs and most everyone in Western Europe backed establishing a no fly zone on Qaddafi at the time. And it is a country where we have/had little influence, so further instability and civil war was always a possibliity.
 
RJKarl said:
No it doesn't. That's like saying you shouldn't blame the person who calls your wife a whore for doing so. This was both orchestrated and condoned by the right. There is no way around it.
Click to expand...

Chicken or egg, RJ? Who called whose wife a whore first? The world didn't start with (Bill) Clinton or Obama. Politics is as dirty a business as prostitution, and the namecalling goes back eons. In the case of the U.S., it goes back centuries. The only argument to be made is when did it first start to take that turn towards what it is today? It was when the electorate started reinforcing their opinions rather than expanding them, and that started in the mid-90s. Clinton happened to be President. It could've been Dole and it wouldn't have mattered. It is a larger societal issue, not a partisan one.
 
The Keystone is a dangerous scam. They lied about how many jobs it would create and it is a longer road to an ocean than going through Canada. Further, they haven't provided a reasonable way to clean up the inevitable spills every pipeline. In fact, they had a spill in another location and it still hasn't been cleaned up. None of the oil from Keystone will be used in the US.

They want to the US all the responsibilities and only get three dozen permanent jobs in return.

It's a terrible and cynical deal. Obama's mistake here was not being vocal enough. From Day One, it should have been no how, no way, never. Hillary should have done the same.
 
Some reasonable opinions on this thread. For me:

1) Legacy will always be tied to being the first person of color to be president. He did nothing to embarrass the office, and quite to the contrary handled himself extremely well throughout his presidency in difficult situations
2) ACA is the second thing he will be remembered for. I am of the clear opinion that while it was born out of excellent intentions it was not a well formulated piece of legislation. He used all of his political capital and pissed off the opposition to such an extent in the first few months that even if they wanted to reconcile (which most didn't) it became almost impossible.
3) He governed with a completely uncooperative legislature. #2 and #3 go hand in hand, and the Republicans in Congress share equal blame for the relationship between the presidency and legislature. They were out to get him from the beginning of his first term and it was obvious. This made it very difficult for Obama to effectively implement anything.
4) Foreign policy was really poor. We have been through this before, but his drone usage took W's to a completely different level (actually killed an American citizen without due process), Iran was a disaster, and it was during his presidency that #Benghazi! occurred. Russian reset was no bueno, and outside of relaxing relations with Cuba (which I think is a good move) there aren't very many wins to point to. He had MASSIVE international capital following his election (I was in Italy 1 month after he was elected) and he really didn't do anything with it.
5) Michelle was an awesome first lady. Haters are gonna hate. She was the bomb. Loved her focus on health and diet. We need more of that from our leaders and role models.

Those are my first thoughts. In general I will view Obama's presidency as a disappointment, but not a disaster.
 
Last edited:
lets let the liberals and media on here that predicted the election and the Hillary landslide tell us what Obama's legacy is going to be. #undeterred
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Chicken or egg, RJ? Who called whose wife a whore first? The world didn't start with (Bill) Clinton or Obama. Politics is as dirty a business as prostitution, and the namecalling goes back eons. In the case of the U.S., it goes back centuries. The only argument to be made is when did it first start to take that turn towards what it is today? It was when the electorate started reinforcing their opinions rather than expanding them, and that started in the mid-90s. Clinton happened to be President. It could've been Dole and it wouldn't have mattered. It is a larger societal issue, not a partisan one.
Click to expand...

When political leaders are doing bitherism and not calling others out for other acts of racism, it emboldens others. No POTUS has been treated as poorly or as much of an "other" as Obama. It done by and with the support of the GOP as well their total lack of class in not saying anything.
 
Obama's Legacy

Lots of big talk... little in the way of action or results.

Come to think of it... This strategy meshes well with many posters on OGBoards.com.
 
Last edited:
simosfrostyone said:
That's just silly. Of course he had a major role in the division. Obama is the master of the straw man tactic. He has governed in a very partisan manner. He always catered to his base, who love him, but that has the opposite effect on those who don't agree with his policies.

One example is the Keystone Pipeline--he could have thrown his opponents a bone but he wouldn't stray from his environmentalist supporters. On the BLM situation, he could have spoke truth to power when their leaders were over the top, but he wouldn't do it. Eight years of this takes a toll.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is an example of the "divide" in this country, but I disagree with literally every point made in this post.

ETA, going point by point.

The president's role in keeping the country together is really complex. The fact that he was at odds with Congress for the better part of 8 years made it damned near impossible, but he was a centrist with a cool head. I don't think you could name a straw man argument he made.

I would like an example, too, of catering to his base.

Keystone was hardly partisan. Plenty of conservatives (the original conservationists) who weren't funded by oil hated Keystone. Being pro-environment and pro-business should be a conservative's dream. Instead, they've decided to ditch the former to worship at the altar of the latter. Obama got us moving in the right direction on energy independence and alternative energy. Pipelines are objectively a step in the wrong direction on energy.

And as for "speaking truth to power about BLM," I sincerely question when people say things like this if they were listening when Obama talked about race and politics in America.
 
Last edited:
Aside from a few attempts to derail by the usual suspects, this thread has been very enjoyable to read. Nice job all, and thanks for the contributions. :golfclap:
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Chicken or egg, RJ? Who called whose wife a whore first? The world didn't start with (Bill) Clinton or Obama. Politics is as dirty a business as prostitution, and the namecalling goes back eons. In the case of the U.S., it goes back centuries. The only argument to be made is when did it first start to take that turn towards what it is today? It was when the electorate started reinforcing their opinions rather than expanding them, and that started in the mid-90s. Clinton happened to be President. It could've been Dole and it wouldn't have mattered. It is a larger societal issue, not a partisan one.
Click to expand...

But Clinton knew how to throw the other side an olive branch and that made him seem less partisan to his opponents, which helped cut his losses in Congress. Obama just doubled down after he got "shellacked", which is his term IIRC.
 
IrishSlim said:
There'd have been some grumbling and some rockets and some car bombs but nothing like it's been since we left. And since when does America actually act in accordance with other countries' wishes and desires, particularly ones we've invaded and occupied? Maliki deserves a lot of the blame, sure, but he gave the Obama administration the cover they wanted.
Click to expand...

In a country the size of Iraq, what could 5000 troops have done? Even 10,000 could have been sitting ducks or under siege.
 
Re: the economy, the GDP has recovered. However, when comparing the ACS 2005-2009 five-year averages and the 2011-2015 five-year averages:

- The real median household income has decreased.
- The percentage of households with earnings has decreased.
- The percentage of families in poverty has increased.
- Housing costs have increased as a percentage of income
- Etc.

For whom has the economy "recovered"?
 
RJKarl said:
In a country the size of Iraq, what could 5000 troops have done? Even 10,000 could have been sitting ducks or under siege.
Click to expand...

Well, for one, a token force w/ access to American airpower would've kept a bunch of goons in pickup trucks from seizing the Mosul dam
 
It strikes me his legacy may take a long time to sort out. He's leaving office with a high approval rating - north of 50%. But under his watch despite the GOP being viewed very poorly by voters the Democrats sit at ridiculous lows when it comes to seats in Federal and State government, never mind he's being replaced by a guy who has a 60 plus percent disapproval rating. Sort of speaks to a man people really liked on a personal level but whose policies they found harder to accept. In some ways he just seems off and in others he might prove to be ahead of his time.

General public perceptions.

- Economic recovery was viewed as tepid and slow.
- Was in office during a massive expansion of the national debt (despite running on a deficit neutral platform for the 2008 election)
- Mixed bag on foreign policy - killed OBL, seen as leaving a vacuum of power in Iraq, Libya, Arab Spring (positive but a lost opportunity?), rise of Russia, Iran Nuke Deal? Just all over the map.
- Extended unpopular surveillance programs of his predecessor. Hypocrit relative to the way he ran his first campaign.
- Immigration views are out of step with almost every public poll - an issue that played a roll in Trump's election despite Trump's bombastic rhetoric
- Started to really change and impact the national dialogue on energy policy. We may look back on this in 20-30 years and offer him credit even as he and the Dems, IMO, have paid a significant political price in the immediate.
- Was in office during a massive sea change in the public's view/acceptance of LGBT rights
- Brought significant attention to social justice issues although on a practical level he oversaw very little change - one thing that really baffles me is how you can have bipartisan support for trying to change mandatory sentencing for non-violent drug offenses but get really nothing done
- Obamacare is a big time immediate negative for him and the Democratic because it flat out does not work as we were told it would work due to poor design. But, again, if it is "fixed" instead of just completely scrapped we may look back in 20 years and he'll get more credit

He certainly is not going to be viewed like Carter was viewed - generally inept while in office despite being well liked personally. He'll fare better than that. And I think Michael Moore is way off in saying he'll just be viewed as the first black President.
 
Your averages don't mean anything. It's the difference between the position left by W and the position we are in now that count. It's like comparing Derrick Rose's performance before his injuries to after them.

Also by averaging those years you are dramatically lowering the depth and impact of W's recession. There's no point in responding as you have stacked the deck to avoid the reality of the position that W left behind.
 
I believe my good friend Irish has inverted his nouns.

American airpower, with access to a token force,....

As you were.
 
RJKarl said:
Your averages don't mean anything. It's the difference between the position left by W and the position we are in now that count. It's like comparing Derrick Rose's performance before his injuries to after them.

Also by averaging those years you are dramatically lowering the depth and impact of W's recession. There's no point in responding as you have stacked the deck to avoid the reality of the position that W left behind.
Click to expand...

LOL. I simply chose the data sets available to me via the US Census Bureau. The earliest and most recent ACS surveys. Would you prefer I use the 2006-2010 averages for Bush?

My comments aren't even pointed toward Obama, just the idea that the economy has recovered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top