The Obama Legacy

[HuskerNation1]

Obama never claimed he was going to "fix income inequality."

 

Even if he addressed income inequality, Congress has to be on board, unless you're OK with Obama doing everything by edict, which I doubt. If you're OK with the president acting unilaterally without the aid of Congress, I'd like to know what form of government you're OK with (here's a tip - it's not Democracy).

 

If you're not OK with the president acting unilaterally, how do you explain Congress' lack of aid in helping Obama fix income inequality? Or if you're not OK with that, where's the denunciation of Congress on that subject?

 

Well for you and LOMS, you guys may have a point. Obama does a lot of talking on topics, but has few results to show for it. In this video from 2013 he talks a lot about the challenges of income inequality, but maybe you are right that he talked about it without wanting to fix it.

 

http://www.wsj.com/video/obama-income-inequality-threatens-the-american-dream/D49E9D4D-C565-4CFA-94DD-F8EF4479A925.html

 

As for blaming Congress, all Presidents deal with a difficult opposition, and good leaders find a way to bring folks together. That is where his ineptitude in leadership 101 comes into play. Also, did he not have a fully Democratic Congress in his first 2 years in office when he could have address this topic (along with gun control). If he was able to get Harry Reid to change the Senate rules to push through Obamacare, what would have stopped him from putting in those policies he felt confident would help income inequality. Had he done that we would be seeing an improvement by the end of his administration.

[Landlord]

but maybe you are right that he talked about it without wanting to fix it.

 

 

 

Maybe there's space between the two ends of your made up dichotomies

[zoogs]

I wasn't as in tune with things at the time, but there's only so much political capital to go around and Obama invested a lot of it in passing the ACA. As a result, a lot more Americans who couldn't be insured at all before, are insured today. Even still, I'm hopeful that one day we'll have a better system than now -- but that could take a few decades. Political accomplishments are always fraught with conflicts and compromises, and then bloated, flawed half-measures are the rest of that.

 

I don't see a clear way to rise above all that. Whether there are two parties or many parties, there's always something to be gained from denying an opposing party a victory -- even if it comes at cost. People treat those costs as abstract, while party and politician fortunes are more immediate and concrete. Practically speaking, they aren't wrong.

 

For all the many important protections an open democratic process affords us, it does encourage maximal opposition.

[cm husker]

Obama never claimed he was going to "fix income inequality."

 

Even if he addressed income inequality, Congress has to be on board, unless you're OK with Obama doing everything by edict, which I doubt. If you're OK with the president acting unilaterally without the aid of Congress, I'd like to know what form of government you're OK with (here's a tip - it's not Democracy).

 

If you're not OK with the president acting unilaterally, how do you explain Congress' lack of aid in helping Obama fix income inequality? Or if you're not OK with that, where's the denunciation of Congress on that subject?

I don't think a POTUS can "fix" income inequality, but to be accurate, Obama did talk a lot about it as a policy plank (I recall more than one SofU mentioning it).

 

That said, income inequality is a total red herring.

 

If people want to talk about wealth inequality being protected by rich people welfare, that'd be a more interesting discussion.

[zoogs]

Let's talk about that!

[cm husker]

Here's an article on point: http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/10_tax_dodges_that_help_the_rich_get_richer_partner/

 

 

It's important to note that this doesn't just apply to the "ultra rich."

 

Bernie Sanders, for example, benefits a ton from policies that require poorer people to subsidize his wealth preservation. Lots of 60+ year old people have effectively implemented policies that require younger, less wealthy people to fund their lifestyles.

 

For example, someone with $150k in loans (a negative net worth) may make 1/3 more than a Bernie Sanders (who is worth at least $500k, and probably more than that), but pay 3x more in income taxes - leaving aside the home value preservation policies that make ownership untenable for most middle income, low wealth people.

 

That's a screwed up system on several levels.

[cm husker]

Maybe it requires a new thread.

 

Or maybe it's uncomfortable to talk about how upper middle and upper class people get more in tax breaks and subsidies than lower middle class and even poor people.

[zoogs]

Go for it, cm.

 

You sound like a socialist

[cm husker]

Go for it, cm.

 

You sound like a socialist

Haha. Well, I'm just for no one being allowed to manipulate the system to their own benefit. I just can't be a socialist because it literally requires a group of someones to manipulate the system - and that's almost always unfair, even when well intentioned.

[TGHusker]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-finds-unlikely-support-group-000000885.html

 

Interesting article. The relationship between Obama and GWB. Regardless of their differences, they a part of a very small club. And only a few know and understand the weight on their shoulders. It is easy for us back-seaters, including me, to be critical of a president. But we've never carried the weight they have carried. I think it is ok to be critical of policy but be restraint in personal attacks on motive and intent. We often have no idea. I'll confess that I have been guilty of this too often.

[knapplc]

Bill Clinton & GWB have worked together for a while, as Clinton did with GHW Bush. It'll be no surprise to see Obama and GWB, probably with Bill in tow, working on charity projects in the future. Jimmy Carter, poor president though he was, has done America great service since his presidency as an ambassador of goodwill.

 

I agree about the "small club" thing. These guys know stuff Joe on the Street will never know. They're also done with the game once their presidency ends, and it's probably a lot easier to be buddies with guys across the aisle when you're not fighting tooth & nail on a daily basis.

[TGHusker]

Bill Clinton & GWB have worked together for a while, as Clinton did with GHW Bush. It'll be no surprise to see Obama and GWB, probably with Bill in tow, working on charity projects in the future. Jimmy Carter, poor president though he was, has done America great service since his presidency as an ambassador of goodwill.

 

I agree about the "small club" thing. These guys know stuff Joe on the Street will never know. They're also done with the game once their presidency ends, and it's probably a lot easier to be buddies with guys across the aisle when you're not fighting tooth & nail on a daily basis.

Maybe for Carter the presidency wasn't the climax of his career - but just a stepping stone to something more important. Like for so many of us, that "perfect job" ends up not being not so perfect but it changes us to be better in some other way. I've had that experience. That perfect job wt the title, responsibility and ungodly stress that goes wt the responsibility, after its less than perfect ending (I exited on my own to a less stressful position wt a smaller company) became a spring board for me to do other things that I enjoy better than climbing the career ladder - I now can teach college classes on the side which energizes me far more than my 'day job' and it was something I wasn't expecting would occur. Moral of the story : Don't be so quick to judge people or circumstances. We can look over the fence and think the grass is greener there but it still has to be mowed. We may think the presidents have 'it made' wt all of the perks but there is some very heavy mowing going on that most of us cannot or are not made to shoulder.

[zoogs]

Political theater tends to magnify and exaggerate our differences. My stance on Bush's mistakes has hardened, if anything, over the years but he has always seemed like a fundamentally decent, well-intentioned person. Even the best of us can start unnecessary, probably illegal, massively wasteful wars, I guess.

 

I do think, or hope rather, that the presidency isn't the peak of Obama's career. The guy is 54. He's a strapping young man, and he has a lot to offer to the world. The office of POTUS isn't necessarily the best seat from which he can contribute, either.

[TGHusker]

Political theater tends to magnify and exaggerate our differences. My stance on Bush's mistakes has hardened, if anything, over the years but he has always seemed like a fundamentally decent, well-intentioned person. Even the best of us can start unnecessary, probably illegal, massively wasteful wars, I guess.

 

I do think, or hope rather, that the presidency isn't the peak of Obama's career. The guy is 54. He's a strapping young man, and he has a lot to offer to the world. The office of POTUS isn't necessarily the best seat from which he can contribute, either.

He may want the Sec General of the UN spot.

[HuskerNation1]

Here's a very well written article regarding the perspective of a young American regarding the Hope and Change Obama promised in 2008. It's not a bitter partisan article but a nice read on why so many millennials and younger Americans are disillusioned with politics.

 

http://theweek.com/articles/629891/im-19yearold-democrat-heres-how-lost-faith-obama