Why didn't Obama try to emulate Clinton's successes?

[Anarchist420]

I think it's mainly because he's always believed the government is a solution for every problem. The fact that the Republicans don't want to work with him has some to do with it, but his proposals to the Republicans are too much of what he wants.

Here are a list of his biggest mistakes and what are ultimately going to make him a one term President:

Not listening to Paul Volcker. Volcker was only one of a few Fed chairman who really knew what they were doing and was not reappointed by Reagan because of that. Dodd-Frank, which was championed by the President, was really nothing more than regulatory welfare for Wall Street. He should've vetoed it and simply said, "I want Glass reinstated and that's the only banking regulation I'm going to sign". Other than that it's against States' Rights, I wouldn't care whether Glass was reinstated, and one would think someone who campaigned against corporatism would support reinstatement of Glass... as of which isn't all that painful for conservatives.

Re-appointing Ben Bernanke and promotion of the zero interest rate policy from the beginning. Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan are both totally incompetent. ZIRP was not the right thing to do. P Volcker was against it. However, Obama didn't listen to him because the Obama just had to have loose credit policy to wage more wars and to keep as many people on the government payroll as possible. If the Federal funds rate were not at zero percent, then the government would not be spending so much. The private sector would definitely be hiring more if the USD wasn't so unsound and if Obama had bothered to cut some public spending like Clinton did.

Stubborn refusal to leave Afghanistan, which is incidentally one of the few things he has a really strong backbone on. The militarism is deeply unpopular, and it's causing him to lose almost as many votes to Gary Johnson as Romney is.

Hiring Eric Holder and then defending him at every turn. There is no denying that has cost him at least of some support he's lost among whites. Holder has also given the President a lot of bad publicity then the President just makes that publicity even worse by doing stupid like invoking executive authority to defend the deeply unpopular Fast and Furious shit he did. He would've been best off never appointing Holder, but not apologizing is beyond redemption.

In conclusion, I used to think Mitt Romney was going to be Mitt Bob Dole Romney, but every day it seems like Obama does something stupid. I doubt that Obama's intelligent (I know I'm not), but that's no excuse for what he's done, most particularly his militarism and his constant defense of Eric Holder.

 

[xaeniac]

because the people in charge would not let him. Politicians are puppets that do what others that are really in power want them to do otherwise the results are not what one typically wants; see JFK.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's because he and Clinton are different people in different times and in different situations. It's like asking why a cat doesn't imitate a dog.

 

[TheBlackRabbit]

I think it's mainly because he's always believed the government is a solution for every problem.

Why do you believe that? He obviously believes the government at least has some role in economic affairs, but solution to every problem? Try naming some examples...

I doubt that Obama's intelligent

Why do you put asinine garbage like that in a post that I was starting to take seriously? Obama is likely smarter than the majority of people on this board, which is also completely irrelevant in this circumstance. There comes a point where you are "smart enough", and whether your IQ is 125 or 170, it doesn't really matter on the majority of decisions.

I agree with you on Glass-Stegall except he should have also pushed for prosecution of the bankers, broken up the banks instead of making them larger than ever, curbed executive pay for a longer period of time and not tied it to the bailout money, and instituted the financial trade/anti speculation tax.

Afghanistan is confusing as F too. He would gain at least a few % points with independents by just pulling out with disregard for any strategy, IMO.

 

[Incorruptible]

Why do you believe that? He obviously believes the government at least has some role in economic affairs, but solution to every problem? Try naming some examples...



Why do you put asinine garbage like that in a post that I was starting to take seriously? Obama is likely smarter than the majority of people on this board, which is also completely irrelevant in this circumstance. There comes a point where you are "smart enough", and whether your IQ is 125 or 170, it doesn't really matter on the majority of decisions.

I agree with you on Glass-Stegall except he should have also pushed for prosecution of the bankers, broken up the banks instead of making them larger than ever, curbed executive pay for a longer period of time and not tied it to the bailout money, and instituted the financial trade/anti speculation tax.

Afghanistan is confusing as F too. He would gain at least a few % points with independents by just pulling out with disregard for any strategy, IMO.

oboma is not intelligent at all, his incompetence has shown that.

 

[marincounty]

If I accept your premise that Obama is not intelligent and is incompetent, which I don't, how is it that he managed to beat the Republican candidate?
Either the candidate John McCain was so stupid and incompetent that Obama could beat him, or perhaps the previous eight years of Republican rule under GWB was so stupid and incompetent voters decided it was time for a change?

 

[dali71]

If I accept your premise that Obama is not intelligent and is incompetent, which I don't, how is it that he managed to beat the Republican candidate?
Either the candidate John McCain was so stupid and incompetent that Obama could beat him, or perhaps the previous eight years of Republican rule under GWB was so stupid and incompetent voters decided it was time for a change?

Obama was elected because gullible people like you bought into his lies. He will lose the 2012 election in a landslide of epic proportions.

 

[QuantumPion]

Clinton wanted power and prestige for himself. He wasn't a hard-line ideologue.

 

[Incorruptible]

Obama was elected because gullible people like you bought into his lies. He will lose the 2012 election in a landslide of epic proportions.

Well said, the man lied and people were stupid enough to believe him

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Clinton wanted power and prestige for himself. He wasn't a hard-line ideologue.

A key difference is that Clinton could work with others. Obama is glad to have others take his position, otherwise he's not interested.

 

[nextJin]

A key difference is that Clinton could work with others. Obama is glad to have others take his position, otherwise he's not interested.

"I won John, why are you even talking"

Back to the OP, an otherwise higher quality post from you but I seriously doubt (at this point in time) that Obama will lose to Romney. That said, they are actually very similar (Clinton had several hot conflicts kick off) and no one has given a damn about Volcker ever since Greenspan (who served during Clinton).

With the 'Ghan that is an extremely touchy issue because our pulling out in the 80's caused the Taliban and a certain other group to become dominant in that country. I'm a Paul supporter and a career military man but this issue is extremely volatile and I side with Obama to an extent on this. Maybe not anywhere near as long but to just up and leave would cause a serious power vacuum.

I agree with Holder, he should have asked him to step down at the least. However he is anything but a "The Buck Stops Here" president.

 

[Anarchist420]

Clinton wanted power and prestige for himself. He wasn't a hard-line ideologue.

I agree with that completely.

A key difference is that Clinton could work with others. Obama is glad to have others take his position, otherwise he's not interested.

I agree with that for the most part.

If I accept your premise that Obama is not intelligent and is incompetent, which I don't, how is it that he managed to beat the Republican candidate? Either the candidate John McCain was so stupid and incompetent that Obama could beat him, or perhaps the previous eight years of Republican rule under GWB was so stupid and incompetent voters decided it was time for a change?

That doesn't mean McCain was smart either... he was just more honest than Obama was. I'm not saying McCain was an honest man, but compared to Obama, McCain was 10x as honest. I'm not saying Obama's dumb like I am, but he's probably not much smarter than the average joe.

Why do you believe that? He obviously believes the government at least has some role in economic affairs, but solution to every problem? Try naming some examples...

His militarism and kill lists indicates that he believes every conflict in the world can be solved by govt and that extreme govt can provide security. He also believes that it's better to have treaties for trade rather than to just repeal all of the U.S. govt's own protectionist policy. His statism indicates that he believes government is more of a solution than neutral or a problem. I'm not saying George W Bush was much different in that regard, however.

Why do you put asinine garbage like that in a post that I was starting to take seriously? Obama is likely smarter than the majority of people on this board, which is also completely irrelevant in this circumstance. There comes a point where you are "smart enough", and whether your IQ is 125 or 170, it doesn't really matter on the majority of decisions.

I probably shouldn't have and you're right about 125 vs 170 not making much of a difference on policy. However, I doubt his IQ is 125. I would say 105 which would put him in the average range. Some of his reasoning skills are very poor like when he said $70Bn was a significant portion of the deficit. Even if he wanted to income tax the highest earning 1% at a higher marginal rate to punish them (rather than to reduce the deficit), that wouldn't reduce inequalities in wealth significantly either, so his reasoning on taxes completely fails either way. Modern liberals just don't seem that logical when it comes to economics (especially when they do things like advocating higher marginal income tax rates for people with more income).

 

[fskimospy]

A key difference is that Clinton could work with others. Obama is glad to have others take his position, otherwise he's not interested.

I think you might be viewing Clinton through some rose colored glasses there, and it's pretty odd to say that Obama isn't interested, he's consistently viewed as one of the people in Washington most willing to compromise. (to me, irritatingly so) Also, the Republicans in Congress that Clinton had to work with were vastly different than the ones today, as the Republican Party has continued to radicalize over the past decade and a half. (their DW-NOMINATE scores are way way higher)

 

[QuantumPion]

I think you might be viewing Clinton through some rose colored glasses there, and it's pretty odd to say that Obama isn't interested, he's consistently viewed as one of the people in Washington most willing to compromise. (to me, irritatingly so) Also, the Republicans in Congress that Clinton had to work with were vastly different than the ones today, as the Republican Party has continued to radicalize over the past decade and a half. (their DW-NOMINATE scores are way way higher)

Obama doesn't compromise. He just fails to get everything he wants all at once. He either gets what he wants, or no one gets anything, like a spoiled child. Hence why nothing has gotten done in Congress since the republicans got the house.

 

[waggy]

If I accept your premise that Obama is not intelligent and is incompetent, which I don't, how is it that he managed to beat the Republican candidate?
Either the candidate John McCain was so stupid and incompetent that Obama could beat him, or perhaps the previous eight years of Republican rule under GWB was so stupid and incompetent voters decided it was time for a change?

well. on one hand you have a charismatic afro-american. who is championing "hope. CHANGE!", a transparent government. Closing gitmo, ending the wars.

At that time the people of the US wanted that.

on the other side you have McCain (who i was tempted to vote for until palin..) who was a War vet. pow and up until like about 6 months before the election didn't toe party line and told it like it was. then he changed

Also he chose the worst fucking running mate he could imagian. A stupid (but hot) bimbo.


I gotta say its no suprise Obama won. Question is now that people seen how he didn't live up to his promises during the election are they going to fall for it again? i say they will. people are stupid

oh and many don't care who is running they vote R or D

 

[waggy]

Obama doesn't compromise. He just fails to get everything he wants all at once. He either gets what he wants, or no one gets anything, like a spoiled child. Hence why nothing has gotten done in Congress since the republicans got the house.

he has gotten stuff done. he just goes outside of the law to do it.

 

[QuantumPion]

he has gotten stuff done. he just goes outside of the law to do it.

as I said, nothing has gotten done in congress. And that further proves my point - he doesn't compromise with congress, he just goes around them to get his way.

 

[fskimospy]

Obama doesn't compromise. He just fails to get everything he wants all at once. He either gets what he wants, or no one gets anything, like a spoiled child. Hence why nothing has gotten done in Congress since the republicans got the house.

This is just totally divorced from reality. Not only should you go check Obama's actions since the Republicans took the house, but go check the polls. While neither side gets good marks for compromising (a false equivalence in my opinion), Obama soundly trumps the Republicans on willingness to compromise every time in every poll.

There's a reason for that.

 

[QuantumPion]

This is just totally divorced from reality. Not only should you go check Obama's actions since the Republicans took the house, but go check the polls. While neither side gets good marks for compromising (a false equivalence in my opinion), Obama soundly trumps the Republicans on willingness to compromise every time in every poll.

There's a reason for that.

Name one thing Obama has compromised on.

An example of what I am talking about: Obama wants tax increases. Republicans want spending decreases. What do we end up with? Neither. That does not mean Obama compromised because we didn't get tax cuts. It means he blocks anything from being done if he doesn't get his way.

 

[fskimospy]

Name one thing Obama has compromised on.

An example of what I am talking about: Obama wants tax increases. Republicans want spending decreases. What do we end up with? Neither. That does not mean Obama compromised because we didn't get tax cuts. It means he blocks anything from being done if he doesn't get his way.

This is in fact a wonderful example. Obama wanted more tax revenue, Republicans wanted lower spending. Obama offered them deals at various points where spending would be cut at an almost 5:1 ratio, giving Republicans $5 in cuts for every $1 in revenue. This was rejected. What Obama eventually signed was a bill that included $2 trillion in cuts and no revenue increases. This is clearly not what he wanted.

Perhaps you can explain how this is not a perfect example of not only Obama's willingness to compromise, but complete Republican unwillingness to compromise. There's simply no way a Republican congress in the 1990s would have walked away from an opportunity to cut spending at a ratio of 5:1 over tax increases.

 

[cybrsage]

Yeah, the reason is you cannot compromise with a man who demand he gets everything he wants or no one gets anything. It is like Israel trying to compromise with HAMAS when their non-negotiable demand is the destruction of Israel.

Obama, not compromising, means it does not matter what anyone else does - there can be no compromise.

If Obama wanted to be as successful and popular as Clinton, he should have followed Clinton's play book - sans the personal life disaster.

 

[QuantumPion]

This is in fact a wonderful example. Obama wanted more tax revenue, Republicans wanted lower spending. Obama offered them deals at various points where spending would be cut at an almost 5:1 ratio, giving Republicans $5 in cuts for every $1 in revenue. This was rejected. What Obama eventually signed was a bill that included $2 trillion in cuts and no revenue increases. This is clearly not what he wanted.

Perhaps you can explain how this is not a perfect example of not only Obama's willingness to compromise, but complete Republican unwillingness to compromise. There's simply no way a Republican congress in the 1990s would have walked away from an opportunity to cut spending at a ratio of 5:1 over tax increases.

Uh what Obama offered was fake spending decreases where he basically said he would only increase spending by $10 trillion over 10 years instead of $12 trillion over 10 years, and called that a $2 trillion cut. Republicans rejected this because it was a scam and Obama knew it. Just more "give use tax cuts now and we promise to cut spending 10 years from now". Offering bullshit fake deals is not compromise. It's a political ploy.

 

[piasabird]

If you look at how Obamma has handled everything since he has been in office, it seems from a logical standpoint that he has an agenda to turn the United States into a completely socialist country. He disrespects the supreme court every time something does not go his way and then he just makes policy without discussing it with congress. He wants to be a King, not a president.

 

[fskimospy]

Uh what Obama offered was fake spending decreases where he basically said he would only increase spending by $10 trillion over 10 years instead of $12 trillion over 10 years, and called that a $2 trillion cut. Republicans rejected this because it was a scam and Obama knew it. Just more "give use tax cuts now and we promise to cut spending 10 years from now". Offering bullshit fake deals is not compromise. It's a political ploy.

This is simply factually false. First of all, spending cuts are always referenced in regards to the baseline numbers. There's no other rational way to do it. When Republicans talk about spending cuts, including the spending cuts they were fighting for in the debt ceiling debate, they were doing the exact same 'fake spending decreases'. The idea that they would reject something because Obama was using math in an identical way to them is baffling.

Regardless of the spending issue, Obama signed the debt increase bill with no revenue increases at all, clearly not what he wanted. You wanted an example of compromise, you got it. Will you admit it?

 

[feralkid]

Obama was elected because gullible people like you bought into his lies. He will lose the 2012 election in a landslide of epic proportions.

Right after the Cubs win the World Series in four games.