Comparing Bush and Obama

[NorthSideSox72]

It is striking to me, as time goes on, how similar the Bush and Obama Presidencies are (in current light anyway). Both were elected amidst fears from the opposite party that they would be extremists. Both were/are far more moderate than that, save one Big Thing. Bush's Big Thing was Iraq, Obama's is ObamaCare. Both have shown to be poor executives who don't do the most basic job well - managing the agencies of government effectively. Both don't work well with Congress. Both were re-elected despite historical parameters that seemed to indicate they should lose - both in part because their opponents were awful. Both made poor choices of who they surrounded themselves with - Obama's being incompetent and Bush's being scary warmongers. And to their credit, both were Presidents during particulary difficult times - 9/11 and all that came after for Bush, and the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression for Obama.

 

One key difference though. Bush's One Big Thing (Iraq) resulted in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of foreign citizens, and cost about a TRILLION dollars. Obama's One Big Thing (ObamaCare) will cost a fraction of that and it's failures appear to be not helping enough people and causing higher rates for others. Which is worse?

 

I'll give the nod to Obama, at this point, for being less bad. But I'll add the caveat that it will be a decade before we can look back and really get a complete picture.

 

[StrangeSox]

Bush didn't surround himself with incompetent people?

 

edit: also, how was Bush moderate?

 

edit2: also seems odd to give some lenience to Obama for coming in in the middle of a huge economic collapse, but fail to assign any of the blame for said collapse to the guy who immediately preceded him

Edited November 11, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

That is solid analysis.

[Jake]

Bush also implemented the PATRIOT Act, which will rank up there with the Alien and Sedition Acts in history.

 

No Child Left Behind, which anyone in education knows has had far-reaching and terrible effects on our public education. This was an Obamacare-like law in its scope, but has been far more damaging than just a bad website that will eventually give people discounted health insurance. Obama's Race to the Top Initiative did a very good job of bringing education back, but much of NCLB is still there.

 

Created Guantanamo Bay's prison for terror suspects, which is another international symbol of the loss of freedom. There is so much fear surrounding the people here that closing it is political poison.

 

Slashed taxes, lowering revenue to its lowest since income taxes were first implemented. These cuts added 1.6 trillion to the deficit by themselves. Cutting capital gains in half for wealthy earners was a particularly redistributive measure that led to a troubling growth in income inequality and generally helped lead to the recession that began in 2008.

 

Deregulated the banking industry, another fun and redistributive measure that had an even clearer role in the system failure in 2008.

 

Meanwhile, he vetoed multiple attempts to enact stem cell research and prevented expansion of the children's health insurance program.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Don't forget the torture!

[NorthSideSox72]

Bush didn't surround himself with incompetent people?

 

edit: also, how was Bush moderate?

 

edit2: also seems odd to give some lenience to Obama for coming in in the middle of a huge economic collapse, but fail to assign any of the blame for said collapse to the guy who immediately preceded him

 

I'd say Bush surrounded himself with generally more competent people in his inner circle than Obama has - just my opinion. However, what Bush also was, was a weak leader who surrounded himself with neo-cons that talked him into things. Different issue than Obama, but similarly bad result.

 

Bush was more moderate than feared - that is how I described it. He was still a Republican, and Obama is still a Democrat. Look at what, at the time, were the big fears Dems and liberals (even centrists) had about a GOP President at the time he took office? Social issues including abortion, affirmative action was big at the time, how big a deficit hawk he may be, etc. Reality is he did almost nothing in terms of social issues, and his spending levels were actually pretty damn high.

 

About the recession thing, to be clear, my post wasn't meant to have anything to do with blame, really. I was just pointing out the parallels. I said BOTH Presidents had a huge shock to deal with, which is true.

 

 

Bush also implemented the PATRIOT Act, which will rank up there with the Alien and Sedition Acts in history.

 

No Child Left Behind, which anyone in education knows has had far-reaching and terrible effects on our public education. This was an Obamacare-like law in its scope, but has been far more damaging than just a bad website that will eventually give people discounted health insurance. Obama's Race to the Top Initiative did a very good job of bringing education back, but much of NCLB is still there.

 

Created Guantanamo Bay's prison for terror suspects, which is another international symbol of the loss of freedom. There is so much fear surrounding the people here that closing it is political poison.

 

Slashed taxes, lowering revenue to its lowest since income taxes were first implemented. These cuts added 1.6 trillion to the deficit by themselves. Cutting capital gains in half for wealthy earners was a particularly redistributive measure that led to a troubling growth in income inequality and generally helped lead to the recession that began in 2008.

 

Deregulated the banking industry, another fun and redistributive measure that had an even clearer role in the system failure in 2008.

 

Meanwhile, he vetoed multiple attempts to enact stem cell research and prevented expansion of the children's health insurance program.

Patriot Act had a few provisions that were pretty bad, though I think your comparisons to the Alien and Sedition Acts is far-fetched. In any case, I suppose I shouldn't have lumped some of the post-9/11 stuff in with Iraq (Gitmo, Patriot Act). But the reality is, Gitmo was a tool to deal with a new problem - and a tool that the current President continues to use. Yet another commonality to reinforce my point.

 

Your idea that Bush "deregulated the banking industry" is fairly absurd - most of the dismantiling of rules and laws around banking came under Clinton (whether you like them or not). What Bush DID do, which was patently not a Conservative thing and was in fact quite liberal, was attempt to use the housing market in the mid-2000's to "create" wealth by giving out huge incentives financially. Again, this only reinforces my point - this was yet another centrist or even liberal policy change.

 

Good point on stem cell research, I had forgotten that, and he did indeed take a very conservative stance on that which had an effect. Thanks for pointing that one out.

 

[StrangeSox]

Everyone involved with Iraq was stunningly incompetent. Many of his appointments were stunningly incompetent (heckuva job, brownie!).

 

He was bad on social issues, and his court appointments have been disastrous for them (Roberts decision gutting the vra is appalling, and I'm sure we'll see aa ending shortly with s***some upcoming rulings.)

 

His fiscal policy has left us with a permanent gap in basic government funding. His tax cuts left a giant hole, and he even tried to go down the path of privatizing social security.

 

The parallels really aren't there. 9/11 wasn't a pre existing condition for Bush, and his administration completely ignored that potential that in favor of obsessing over Iraq from day one.

[Jake]

I think the most progressive thing we saw from Bush was his funding of AIDS-related initiatives in Africa. With little to gain politically within his own party, that seems to be a thing that simply meant a lot to him.

[NorthSideSox72]

Everyone involved with Iraq was stunningly incompetent. Many of his appointments were stunningly incompetent (heckuva job, brownie!).

 

He was bad on social issues, and his court appointments have been disastrous for them (Roberts decision gutting the vra is appalling, and I'm sure we'll see aa ending shortly with s***some upcoming rulings.)

 

His fiscal policy has left us with a permanent gap in basic government funding. His tax cuts left a giant hole, and he even tried to go down the path of privatizing social security.

 

The parallels really aren't there. 9/11 wasn't a pre existing condition for Bush, and his administration completely ignored that potential that in favor of obsessing over Iraq from day one.

I was talking inner circle. His appointment of Brown to head FEMA was laughably stupid, no argument there. But you are getting into narrower stuff there.

 

He had two SCOTUS nominees. Roberts, despite your dislike of him, I think has been pretty consistent in how he reads things, and he has not been a conservative rubber stamp. Alito has been, and I've said all along he was a terrible nomination. But I didn't get into SCOTUS with my comparison.

 

Bush's fiscal policy and Obama's fiscal policy have both been heavy on spending, adding in a sprinkling of tax breaks. Both have also overseen big deficits, though Obama has actually done more to reduce them than Bush did. Either way, that is more Congress than the President. But yet again, very similar there.

 

He didn't privatize Social Security, did he? Both candidates talked big games on things they didn't actually do. I'm focused on their actions here.

 

The parallels are quite strong, you are just trying to focus on the differences. Of course there are many. What I pointed out is that, looking at many high level trends, the similarities are striking. I am not saying they are identical.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Roberts, despite your dislike of him, I think has been pretty consistent in how he reads things, and he has not been a conservative rubber stamp.

He's been a big business rubber stamp more than anything. That's where he's really made the difference - if you bring a case conservatives might care about against big business...he votes along with the Chamber of Commerce almost every time.

He didn't privatize Social Security, did he?

I'd say he certainly put a heckuva lot of effort into it, but couldn't get the Congress to go along.

[NorthSideSox72]

He's been a big business rubber stamp more than anything. That's where he's really made the difference - if you bring a case conservatives might care about against big business...he votes along with the Chamber of Commerce almost every time.

I'd say he certainly put a heckuva lot of effort into it, but couldn't get the Congress to go along.

I don't agree on Roberts being purely aligned with big business. What he is, is aligned against certain extensions of regulation. By nature that is often pro-business, however, his PPACA decision was certainly the opposite of that.

 

Presidents want, and try for, lots of things. You can get into what plans Presidents have, but I am dealing with what was actually accomplished.

 

[Balta1701]

I don't agree on Roberts being purely aligned with big business. What he is, is aligned against certain extensions of regulation. By nature that is often pro-business, however, his PPACA decision was certainly the opposite of that.

Here's some actual numbers if you want to see how far the court has lurched in favor of the Chamber's positions in the last decade. Yes, that was pre-PPACA and that was one big case; the question is how you weight that one case against dozens of other ones.

 

Another big difference is the willingness of this court to overturn or completely change policy based on 5-4 decisions; I'm under the impression previous courts have shown much more restraint in doing that with narrow votes.

[Texsox]

I've always felt, and have mentioned before, that a big part of being a successful president is cheerleader in chief. Reagan owed some of his success to the times he entered. The scandal of Nixon, the WIN! economic policy of Ford, and the too timid Carter led to a bigger than life cowboy riding in on a horse to give America its swagger back. Clinton came rocking out of the gate after granddad one and two.

 

Bush was electrifying after 9/11. The bull horn moment was magical and he proved to be a very strong leader during those times. He lost his way towards the end of that term and never really gained it back. Obama was swept in and gave a large segment of this country optimism. The "anyone could grow up to be president" promise was realize. That's gone, replaced with the realities of politics.

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

You compared Bush and Obama as equals? lol. The meltdowns will be epic.

[DukeNukeEm]

Im glad this was split off, definitely merits its own thread.

 

They were both pretty bad, but what makes Obama worse is a matter of expectations. Bush when he ran for his first term had what major policy goals? Privatize social security (he didnt) and build a big missile shield in Poland. He wanted to be a steward, just kinda watch America do stuff, do some favors and leave his stamp on some things the party wanted. Basically just wanted to Go Presidentin'. Then the towers fell and he had a little episode and went way off the rails. Had he just given up after his first term and not gone for reelection his presidency would really only have been marred by the Patriot Act. But the Republicans need him to go out and be a referendum on the wars despite being well overmatched for the job he was doing. No 9/11, Bush does fine... but there was a 9/11 and he did a mostly bad job.

 

Now Obama, he campaigned as someone who could solve this mess. He knew how f***ed everything was and he said he'd make it better. This isnt like Denethor absolutely losing his marbles when a few thousand orcs rained on his parade of just being Kingly, its more like Denethor thought he could stop the orcs so he made himself king to stop them. I mean, (FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARGUMENT) Minas Tirith falls anyways but to me then poor sob who walked in on an easy which turns brutally difficult has a lot more excuses for his failure than the guy who promises to fix everything but winds up making it worse.

[Jenksismyhero]

[bmags]

One key difference though. Bush's One Big Thing (Iraq) resulted in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of foreign citizens, and cost about a TRILLION dollars. Obama's One Big Thing (ObamaCare) will cost a fraction of that and it's failures appear to be not helping enough people and causing higher rates for others. Which is worse?

 

LOL.

[NorthSideSox72]

LOL.

Kind of my point.

 

[bmags]

No I know I thought it was funny. But as time passes and the wars wind down, I think people are re-thinking about the Bush presidency focusing on domestic policy. But going through those years, everything was about the wars. All focus was always on foreign policy.

 

So yeah, could Bush have been a good president if US continued it's 90s boom and 9/11 never happened? Sure. But so could every other president.

 

Bush also had democratic support on two of his major policy initiatives - Tax cuts and Education. There has been 1 republican vote on a major democratic agenda in 2 terms so far for Obama. And you can't point to that agenda being radical, this goes for stimulus as well.

[NorthSideSox72]

Bush also had democratic support on two of his major policy initiatives - Tax cuts and Education. There has been 1 republican vote on a major democratic agenda in 2 terms so far for Obama. And you can't point to that agenda being radical, this goes for stimulus as well.

 

That's definitely a key point. The GOP decided early on it would be a brick wall against Obama, no matter what he stood for, even if it was a previously GOP-held idea. Some Dems were that way with Bush too, but not the majority of the party, and certainly not the entire party.

[Texsox]

And most president have terms like Bush, Bush, Carter, Ford, and Obama. Nothing extraordinary, either bad or good. This nation is like a huge freight train lumbering down the tracks. A single president usually can't detour it too much. Obama is trying with health overhaul. We'll see.

[Balta1701]

Nothing extraordinary, either bad or good.

This is about the most incorrect description of the period in United States history from 2001 to 2009 I can possibly imagine.

[iamshack]

I don't follow politics like you guys do, but my thoughts are just that you can't compare Obama's Presidency to any in recent history...has anyone ever had to deal with this level of idiotic stubbornness from the opposition party before? Or since Lincoln anyways?

 

Seems to me like the game has entirely changed.

Edited November 11, 2013 by iamshack

[Balta1701]

I don't follow politics like you guys do, but my thoughts are just that you can't compare Obama's Presidency to any in recent history...has anyone ever had to deal with this level of idiotic stubbornness from the opposition party before? Or since Lincoln anyways?

 

Seems to me like the game has entirely changed.

2 presidents ago, we had a president impeached but not convicted, we had a completely unified opposition voting against his tax policy, we had a very long government shutdown driven by party out of control of the White House, and we had people coming up with literally insane conspiracy theories about the President non-stop (see; Congressperson shooting a watermelon to demonstrate how the President arranged the murder of one of his staffers).

 

A few differences might well be that I think the world is facing bigger challenges right now thanks to the wars of 2001-2009 and the darn near complete economic collapse. The expansion of the filibuster/shutting down of the normal judicial nomination and appointment nominations processes probably deserves to go on the list in favor of your point as well.

[Texsox]

This is about the most incorrect description of the period in United States history from 2001 to 2009 I can possibly imagine.

 

I agree.

 

The president is just one part of history.