Comparing Bush and Obama

[Balta1701]

I agree.

 

The president is just one part of history.

But for that President in particular, I can point to at least 1 of his disasters and say "This was entirely his choice, to the letter".

 

You can spread blame around for the economic crash, 9/11, the drowning of an American city, the debacle in Afghanistan to some degree, the surveillance state, but his policies definitely played into all of those.

 

But the Iraq war, why-ever it was launched (a book is coming out soon/just came out trying to puzzle that out and still coming up with no good answer)...that was 100% his choice. How that war was planned, the torture campaign, the details...in 30 years historians will be telling that story as "his war" and "his failure" because it was. It may not have been at the level of the second world war, but that was just about the second longest war in American history.

[iamshack]

But for that President in particular, I can point to at least 1 of his disasters and say "This was entirely his choice, to the letter".

 

You can spread blame around for the economic crash, 9/11, the drowning of an American city, the debacle in Afghanistan to some degree, the surveillance state, but his policies definitely played into all of those.

 

But the Iraq war, why-ever it was launched (a book is coming out soon/just came out trying to puzzle that out and still coming up with no good answer)...that was 100% his choice. How that war was planned, the torture campaign, the details...in 30 years historians will be telling that story as "his war" and "his failure" because it was. It may not have been at the level of the second world war, but that was just about the second longest war in American history.

Vietnam, to me, was worse...I realize Iraq and Afghanistan are looked at as horrific mistakes in judgment, and I agree they were, but I also think we need to recall this was the first time since Pearl Harbor that we've been attacked on American soil (not that you could forget) and there was incredible pressure to react. I'm not saying what ultimately happened and the duration of it doesn't rise almost to the level of indefensible, but I think a LOT of Commander's in Chief would have fallen into the same trap. Then as soon as you get in there you're constantly making decision after decision to justify earlier decisions and casualties.

 

It's all too easy to criticize now, but to pretend as if the decision, at the time, was a simple one, is unfair. An awful lot of people voted to enter those wars. We can all say we were duped by the supposed evidence of wmd's but let's face it, people were going to see what they wanted to see to justify enacting revenge on the Middle East for having the audacity to attack American soil and to hit those targets in particular.

Edited November 11, 2013 by iamshack

[Soxfest]

Oboooooooooma will go down as one of the top 5 worst Presidents as time goes on. He may top the list of telling the most lies to the American people.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Soxfest

[Balta1701]

Vietnam, to me, was worse...I realize Iraq and Afghanistan are looked at as horrific mistakes in judgment, and I agree they were, but I also think we need to recall this was the first time since Pearl Harbor that we've been attacked on American soil (not that you could forget) and there was incredible pressure to react. I'm not saying what ultimately happened and the duration of it doesn't rise almost to the level of indefensible, but I think a LOT of Commander's in Chief would have fallen into the same trap. Then as soon as you get in there you're constantly making decision after decision to justify earlier decisions and casualties.

 

It's all too easy to criticize now, but to pretend as if the decision, at the time, was a simple one, is unfair. An awful lot of people voted to enter those wars. We can all say we were duped by the supposed evidence of wmd's but let's face it, people were going to see what they wanted to see to justify enacting revenge on the Middle East for having the audacity to attack American soil and to hit those targets in particular.

Frankly, I heard everything they said at the time in 2003 and I thought it was a very simple choice. I looked at their case and thought anyone who listened to them was a fool. I even gave them their fair shot, at least through Bush's speech in October 03 to try to sell the thing. Didn't join the anti-war segment until after that. It was 100% abundantly clear that they wanted a war and they were willing to do anything possible to get it.

 

And if "we needed to kill more people in response to 9/11 and Afghanistan wasn't good enough" was in fact the real reason for that war...well then the people who made that call are truly sickening. I know at least NYT columnist Tom Friedman endorsed that perspective and I think that's a fair word for it.

[iamshack]

Frankly, I heard everything they said at the time in 2003 and I thought it was a very simple choice. I looked at their case and thought anyone who listened to them was a fool. I even gave them their fair shot, at least through Bush's speech in October 03 to try to sell the thing. Didn't join the anti-war segment until after that. It was 100% abundantly clear that they wanted a war and they were willing to do anything possible to get it.

 

And if "we needed to kill more people in response to 9/11 and Afghanistan wasn't good enough" was in fact the real reason for that war...well then the people who made that call are truly sickening. I know at least NYT columnist Tom Friedman endorsed that perspective and I think that's a fair word for it.

Yeah, there were clearly some folks that were level-headed enough to think ahead and realize what an error in judgment this would be...far too many of us were not.

[Jenksismyhero]

But for that President in particular, I can point to at least 1 of his disasters and say "This was entirely his choice, to the letter".

 

You can spread blame around for the economic crash, 9/11, the drowning of an American city, the debacle in Afghanistan to some degree, the surveillance state, but his policies definitely played into all of those.

 

But the Iraq war, why-ever it was launched (a book is coming out soon/just came out trying to puzzle that out and still coming up with no good answer)...that was 100% his choice. How that war was planned, the torture campaign, the details...in 30 years historians will be telling that story as "his war" and "his failure" because it was. It may not have been at the level of the second world war, but that was just about the second longest war in American history.

 

9/11 and Katrina were partially the fault of Bush policies? Really?

 

And Iraq is still no Vietnam. Just add it to the list of failed US military intervention. That's how it will be viewed in the eyes of history.

 

[BigSqwert]

Oboooooooooma will go down as one of the top 5 worst Presidents as time goes on. He may top the list of telling the most lies to the American people.

^Telling it like it is with thoughtful analysis since 2006

[Jenksismyhero]

Frankly, I heard everything they said at the time in 2003 and I thought it was a very simple choice. I looked at their case and thought anyone who listened to them was a fool. I even gave them their fair shot, at least through Bush's speech in October 03 to try to sell the thing. Didn't join the anti-war segment until after that. It was 100% abundantly clear that they wanted a war and they were willing to do anything possible to get it.

 

And if "we needed to kill more people in response to 9/11 and Afghanistan wasn't good enough" was in fact the real reason for that war...well then the people who made that call are truly sickening. I know at least NYT columnist Tom Friedman endorsed that perspective and I think that's a fair word for it.

 

I think it was more about preventing an overly exaggerated threat moreso than trying to pile up bodies in revenge. Saddam was the only enemy we had with the means and hatred to smuggle WMD's to terrorists. Faulty or not, I think that was Bush's ultimate goal - preventing that from happening.

 

The gross misjudgment was that it was going to be an easy, short war. Clearly a huge mistake.

[Balta1701]

9/11 and Katrina were partially the fault of Bush policies? Really?

 

And Iraq is still no Vietnam. Just add it to the list of failed US military intervention. That's how it will be viewed in the eyes of history.

On 9/11 his administration absolutely played a role. I'm not hanging this entirely on them, so let me be clear, but the 9/11 commission report could not have been more blunt on that fact.

 

They came into office weeks after the organization responsible for the Cole attack had been understood. The Clinton team said they weren't willing to start a long campaign with only a couple weeks left in their administration and left that to the Bush team. The Bush team came in focused like a laser on national missile defense. By all accounts, the people in the intelligence community were begging them to focus more on Al Qaeda and screaming something was about to happen. I believe the phrases "summer of threat" and "all signs were blinking red" were used in the testimony or something like that, however, there was absolutely no efforts taken in response to those threats. I'm not sure if the quote "all right, you've covered your a**" that Bush supposedly said after receiving the August 6 PDB is factual or not, but it sums up their response during that year.

 

Now to add some of the cautions. They certainly weren't the first president to underestimate that threat. They certainly inherited an intelligence organization that was bloated and unable to process its own information rapidly enough. They inherited an FBI that wasn't thinking about that group. And they were absolutely hamstrung by long delays in the Senate getting people confirmed -a problem the 9/11 commission recommended we fix and a problem that has only gotten worse since. So don't get me wrong here, there's more than enough blame to go around.

 

Pick your fraction, they need a very significant portion.

 

And on Katrina...yes...a whole lot of that failure hangs on them. Again, not all of it...you can blame Nagin for not having a plan to get people out, etc. But the Army Corps of Engineers could have fixed those levees years beforehand had money been available and had it been a priority. It wasn't, tax cuts were. And the only organization in this country who can respond effectively to a multi-state, war zone level disaster is the federal government. That job was left to the former head of the Arabian Horse Trading Association.

[StrangeSox]

I think it was more about preventing an overly exaggerated threat moreso than trying to pile up bodies in revenge. Saddam was the only enemy we had with the means and hatred to smuggle WMD's to terrorists. Faulty or not, I think that was Bush's ultimate goal - preventing that from happening.

 

The gross misjudgment was that it was going to be an easy, short war. Clearly a huge mistake.

Saddam didn't have the means and groups like aq were not his friend.

[Jenksismyhero]

On 9/11 his administration absolutely played a role. I'm not hanging this entirely on them, so let me be clear, but the 9/11 commission report could not have been more blunt on that fact.

 

They came into office weeks after the organization responsible for the Cole attack had been understood. The Clinton team said they weren't willing to start a long campaign with only a couple weeks left in their administration and left that to the Bush team. The Bush team came in focused like a laser on national missile defense. By all accounts, the people in the intelligence community were begging them to focus more on Al Qaeda and screaming something was about to happen. I believe the phrases "summer of threat" and "all signs were blinking red" were used in the testimony or something like that, however, there was absolutely no efforts taken in response to those threats. I'm not sure if the quote "all right, you've covered your a**" that Bush supposedly said after receiving the August 6 PDB is factual or not, but it sums up their response during that year.

 

Now to add some of the cautions. They certainly weren't the first president to underestimate that threat. They certainly inherited an intelligence organization that was bloated and unable to process its own information rapidly enough. They inherited an FBI that wasn't thinking about that group. And they were absolutely hamstrung by long delays in the Senate getting people confirmed -a problem the 9/11 commission recommended we fix and a problem that has only gotten worse since. So don't get me wrong here, there's more than enough blame to go around.

 

Pick your fraction, they need a very significant portion.

 

And on Katrina...yes...a whole lot of that failure hangs on them. Again, not all of it...you can blame Nagin for not having a plan to get people out, etc. But the Army Corps of Engineers could have fixed those levees years beforehand had money been available and had it been a priority. It wasn't, tax cuts were. And the only organization in this country who can respond effectively to a multi-state, war zone level disaster is the federal government. That job was left to the former head of the Arabian Horse Trading Association.

 

That 9/11 commission was horses***. Go watch the HBO documentary on the team that was hunting Bin Laden for decades and all of them were SHOCKED that he was able to plan a domestic attack like that. They suspected he might be planning something, somewhere, but no one in any intelligence community thought he would crash 2 planes into the WTC. The 9/11 commission and all those hindsight conclusions are no different from a corporate injury report that lists a "cause" of an accident. 99.9% of the time it's not proof of any negligence, it's just trying to attribute blame so that people feel better about safety.

 

The Katrina claim is a joke. The state and local governments are to blame. They had all sorts of money for public improvements over the last how many decades and they never fixed the levees. They lined their own pockets. Seriously, if all you have is "the government cut taxes and didn't spend more money!" is all you have, that's a really weak claim.

[Jenksismyhero]

Saddam didn't have the means and groups like aq were not his friend.

 

Was/is AQ the only terrorist group out there?

 

I agree the claim was exaggerated, but at the time i'm not sure it was out of the realm of possibility. Again, we just had 2 planes crash into a building. Security and threats in 2001 were unknown.

[Balta1701]

That 9/11 commission was horses***. Go watch the HBO documentary on the team that was hunting Bin Laden for decades and all of them were SHOCKED that he was able to plan a domestic attack like that. They suspected he might be planning something, somewhere, but no one in any intelligence community thought he would crash 2 planes into the WTC. The 9/11 commission and all those hindsight conclusions are no different from a corporate injury report that lists a "cause" of an accident. 99.9% of the time it's not proof of any negligence, it's just trying to attribute blame so that people feel better about safety.

 

The Katrina claim is a joke. The state and local governments are to blame. They had all sorts of money for public improvements over the last how many decades and they never fixed the levees. They lined their own pockets. Seriously, if all you have is "the government cut taxes and didn't spend more money!" is all you have, that's a really weak claim.

Well of course no one thought they would "crash 2 planes into the WTC". You've just changed the game though. Everyone in the intelligence community knew "something big was about to happen". Something big happened. The intelligence community had every bit of information they needed to unravel that attack, including people in custody beforehand, but there was no one "shaking the trees" at a top level to try to put together all of the correct details.

 

The Army Corps of Engineers is 100% responsible for the construction of those levees, and the final reports found that the failures were 100% due to design flaws; lack of height and failure to understand sediment conditions. In ~2003, there was a report put out naming the 5 most likely natural disasters to hit the United States and its infrastructure over the next several decades. The earthquake on the southern San Andreas was #1; a storm destroying the Levee system in New Orleans was #2 on that list.

 

The night before that storm hit I got radio reception in the middle of the Beartooth Mountains. Every single person in my group of geologists said "well, that's it for that city". Everyone knew what was going to happen, the levees needed rebuilt to modern standards but the money was spoken for.

 

(Interestingly, another item on that list was a major hurricane striking New York City).

 

And as I said...when one of these disasters strikes...the only organization that is going to be able to provide aid is going to be the federal government. That's the case all the time; states can help but every single state and local agency is going to be completely overwhelmed. That's the rule, not the exception. The only ones who can respond to a disaster like that are the people at the Federal Level, and they spent the day having cake with John McCain.

[Balta1701]

Was/is AQ the only terrorist group out there?

 

I agree the claim was exaggerated, but at the time i'm not sure it was out of the realm of possibility. Again, we just had 2 planes crash into a building. Security and threats in 2001 were unknown.

Then don't launch a gigantic, full scale invasion of a country until they are known.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well of course no one thought they would "crash 2 planes into the WTC". You've just changed the game though. Everyone in the intelligence community knew "something big was about to happen". Something big happened. The intelligence community had every bit of information they needed to unravel that attack, including people in custody beforehand, but there was no one "shaking the trees" at a top level to try to put together all of the correct details.

 

The Army Corps of Engineers is 100% responsible for the construction of those levees, and the final reports found that the failures were 100% due to design flaws; lack of height and failure to understand sediment conditions. In ~2003, there was a report put out naming the 5 most likely natural disasters to hit the United States and its infrastructure over the next several decades. The earthquake on the southern San Andreas was #1; a storm destroying the Levee system in New Orleans was #2 on that list.

 

The night before that storm hit I got radio reception in the middle of the Beartooth Mountains. Every single person in my group of geologists said "well, that's it for that city". Everyone knew what was going to happen, the levees needed rebuilt to modern standards but the money was spoken for.

 

(Interestingly, another item on that list was a major hurricane striking New York City).

 

And as I said...when one of these disasters strikes...the only organization that is going to be able to provide aid is going to be the federal government. That's the case all the time; states can help but every single state and local agency is going to be completely overwhelmed. That's the rule, not the exception. The only ones who can respond to a disaster like that are the people at the Federal Level, and they spent the day having cake with John McCain.

 

I'm not changing the game, you said Bush is partly at fault because his policies (on terrorism, 7-8 months into his presidency...a poor claim to start) caused 9/11. How someone can be responsible for something that literally no one could have predicted is beyond me. You're grasping here over your hatred of the guy.

 

And ok, so you're blaming Bush for the failures of constructing levees undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers in what, the 60's? 70's? So for every road accident out there caused by faulty design you're blaming Obama because he didn't spend money to fix it? I mean, I get it, Bush is to blame for everything in the world from 2001 onward, but the 60's? That's a bit much.

[Balta1701]

I'm not changing the game, you said Bush is partly at fault because his policies (on terrorism, 7-8 months into his presidency...a poor claim to start) caused 9/11. How someone can be responsible for something that literally no one could have predicted is beyond me. You're grasping here over your hatred of the guy.

 

And ok, so you're blaming Bush for the failures of constructing levees undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers in what, the 60's? 70's? So for every road accident out there caused by faulty design you're blaming Obama because he didn't spend money to fix it? I mean, I get it, Bush is to blame for everything in the world from 2001 onward, but the 60's? That's a bit much.

If a bridge fell into a river tomorrow and it had been removed from the list of "things that need to be repaired" in order to come up with funds to pay for the Medicaid expansion, you'd have a great point.

 

And literally everyone in that community was screaming "something big is about to happen please do something about it". That is documented over and over. The last time that happened in the intelligence area was the millennium plot, which the previous administration went into crisis mode in response to. When they got the first hints of a guy arrested that might have been connected, they rolled the plot up completely because they were watching for it.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm not changing the game, you said Bush is partly at fault because his policies (on terrorism, 7-8 months into his presidency...a poor claim to start) caused 9/11. How someone can be responsible for something that literally no one could have predicted is beyond me. You're grasping here over your hatred of the guy.

 

And ok, so you're blaming Bush for the failures of constructing levees undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers in what, the 60's? 70's? So for every road accident out there caused by faulty design you're blaming Obama because he didn't spend money to fix it? I mean, I get it, Bush is to blame for everything in the world from 2001 onward, but the 60's? That's a bit much.

For the record, in my view...

 

Bush deserves only a very small amount of blame for 9/11, if any at all. The wheels were already in motion when he was in office, and yes he (and more importantly his key security advisors) should have taken some signs more seriously. But it was so unprecedented, so unlikely to see something on that scale, that I can't really place much blame on him.

 

As for Katrina, the key thing that resulted in the destruction was stunningly poor civil planning. Most of current New Orleans simply should not be built upon at all. I WILL however put some substantial blame for the RESPONSE to Katrina on Bush, for making the epically stupid decision to put a political hack in charge of FEMA. That was incredibly idiotic. I mean, you need to give a guy a job? Fine, make him the assistant to the head of FEMA in charge of radishes or something. Don't put him in a position where he may have to lead a response to save thousands of lives, and oh by the way do significant damage to your Presidency.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

For the record, in my view...

 

Bush deserves only a very small amount of blame for 9/11, if any at all. The wheels were already in motion when he was in office, and yes he (and more importantly his key security advisors) should have taken some signs more seriously. But it was so unprecedented, so unlikely to see something on that scale, that I can't really place much blame on him.

 

As for Katrina, the key thing that resulted in the destruction was stunningly poor civil planning. Most of current New Orleans simply should not be built upon at all. I WILL however put some substantial blame for the RESPONSE to Katrina on Bush, for making the epically stupid decision to put a political hack in charge of FEMA. That was incredibly idiotic. I mean, you need to give a guy a job? Fine, make him the assistant to the head of FEMA in charge of radishes or something. Don't put him in a position where he may have to lead a response to save thousands of lives, and oh by the way do significant damage to your Presidency.

 

I agree, the response wasn't very good to say the least. That's not a "policy" though, that was just a piss poor decision. One of MANY piss poor decisions involving New Orleans, the first of which being that they built portions of the city in a freakin' bowl with the ocean 20 miles away.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

If a bridge fell into a river tomorrow and it had been removed from the list of "things that need to be repaired" in order to come up with funds to pay for the Medicaid expansion, you'd have a great point.

 

And literally everyone in that community was screaming "something big is about to happen please do something about it". That is documented over and over. The last time that happened in the intelligence area was the millennium plot, which the previous administration went into crisis mode in response to. When they got the first hints of a guy arrested that might have been connected, they rolled the plot up completely because they were watching for it.

 

The Bush administration was convinced that all of the fervor in early 2001 about Al Qaeda was really just a false-flag from Saddam. There was a pretty detailed article in the NYT early this year or late last year that I posted in the Dem thread.

[TaylorStSox]

First, Obamacare is neither a failure nor a success at this point. People don't understand it and the website has been a disaster. The policy itself needs to play out. With that said, comparing a social initiative meant to provide healthcare to millions of uninsured Americans to a war built on a lie is absurd. The only victims of Obamacare are Americans who will see their insurance premiums rise, yet receive a better policy. The victims of the Iraq war are the thousands of American and Iraqi citizens that needlessly died so that Bush could distract Americans while lining the pockets of his buddies as he financed the war machine.

 

This is a strange thread.

 

[Cknolls]

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.

 

Miguel Estrada says hello.

[StrangeSox]

"Remember that one judge that was blocked?? Proves both sides are equal always and forever!!"

[Balta1701]

"Remember that one judge that was blocked?? Proves both sides are equal always and forever!!"

Yeah, remember how they decided an appellate court didn't need a full slate of judges entirely and they were going to block any appointment to that court?

 

I sure don't.

[Jake]

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.

 

I would consider the ACA a quite pro-business law. Upholding the part that makes you purchase things from private insurance companies seems pretty pro-business to me

 

 

I get tired of everyone pegging Bush a far-right, conservative. Looking at how he expanded government and tossed money all over the place you cannot really classify him as a conservative.

 

Bush was quite representative of the neoconservativism alive and well at the time. Interestingly, he pretty much killed it. It was all about supply-side economics, big defense spending and war mongering, tax cuts, phasing out federal aid programs, and high federal involvement in polarizing social issues (stem cell research, gay marriage, abortion). These tendencies all still exist, but they are being framed rather differently. GWB seemed less interested in proving his conservative-ness than doing and saying the stuff he thought people and his party wanted.

 

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.

 

I'd say the state of the country when GWB took office and the state of it when he got out are quite different. Obama is going to be heavily criticized for the worst case scenario that it is only marginally better.

 

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.

 

Clinton did to some extent, this is where people learned these tactics can have some effect. That group lacked anything like a Tea Party though and came to power after Clinton was wildly popular. There are also weren't any historically big issues in the Clinton presidency and Clinton often took somewhat centrist stances on issues like welfare reform and crime policy

 

Saddam didn't have the means and groups like aq were not his friend.

 

But they were all Muslims!

 

That 9/11 commission was horses***. Go watch the HBO documentary on the team that was hunting Bin Laden for decades and all of them were SHOCKED that he was able to plan a domestic attack like that. They suspected he might be planning something, somewhere, but no one in any intelligence community thought he would crash 2 planes into the WTC. The 9/11 commission and all those hindsight conclusions are no different from a corporate injury report that lists a "cause" of an accident. 99.9% of the time it's not proof of any negligence, it's just trying to attribute blame so that people feel better about safety.

 

The Katrina claim is a joke. The state and local governments are to blame. They had all sorts of money for public improvements over the last how many decades and they never fixed the levees. They lined their own pockets. Seriously, if all you have is "the government cut taxes and didn't spend more money!" is all you have, that's a really weak claim.

 

A war based on an obvious lie that wasn't believed by the international community at the time and is believed by nobody now is a weak claim?

 

A record surplus and thriving economy upon entry to the second worst economic crisis in the country's history is a weak claim?

 

A trend toward the loss of privacy, habeas corpus, and personal freedoms is weak?

 

First, Obamacare is neither a failure nor a success at this point. People don't understand it and the website has been a disaster. The policy itself needs to play out. With that said, comparing a social initiative meant to provide healthcare to millions of uninsured Americans to a war built on a lie is absurd. The only victims of Obamacare are Americans who will see their insurance premiums rise, yet receive a better policy. The victims of the Iraq war are the thousands of American and Iraqi citizens that needlessly died so that Bush could distract Americans while lining the pockets of his buddies as he financed the war machine.

 

This is a strange thread.

 

Indeed. Obamacare can go really badly and be nowhere near as bad a policy decision as the Iraq war.

 

Along with the many lives lost and permanent damage done to relations in that region, which could eventually lead to world war, the cost at home has been significant. Recent estimates say the current costs are over $2 trillion and may add up to $6 trillion by the end of our lives due to financing costs and the extended care of soldiers who wouldn't otherwise have needed it.

 

Obamacare will not pose those costs and is based on a good faith premise to stop people's suffering. The very worst case scenarios at this point are still better than the status quo.

 

I'm not thrilled with how this presidency has gone but it is nothing like Bush's. Of course, much can change in three years! Who knows what can happen. Another recession, war, or other major national event and you never know what will happen.

 

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, remember how they decided an appellate court didn't need a full slate of judges entirely and they were going to block any appointment to that court?

 

I sure don't.

Appointing judges to vacancies is "court packing" now, apparently.