Obama: Doubling Down on Incompetence

[Sam]

Forgot to address this. Please notice that these were all examples where there was significant Republican opposition and all things that you could expect at least some Democrats to support. Please give me an example of legislation pushed by Obama that is similar in nature -- something that wasn't designed to appeal solely to his base aside from some of the actions taken in Iraq and Afghanistan (and very recently taking action against ISIS) where he indeed did get his bipartisan support.

1) Stimulus; 1/3 tax cuts, necessary to prevent a depression

2) Auto bailout; saved millions of jobs, necessary to prevent a depression

3) ACA; utilized aspects of Republican health reform proposals to stay revenue-neutral, eschewed public option for Heritage Foundation's individual mandate

4) Immigration Reform; passed through Senate with bipartisan support, includes increased security and other GOP-preferred policies

5) Grand Bargain; comprised of 3:1 spending cuts to revenue increases, significant deficit reduction during an anemic recovery

And, again, that's just off the top of my head. The idea that the ACA is the dream-policy of the Democratic base is, of course, ridiculous — those people want single payer, not increased power to private insurers. There was no credible reason for anyone to be against the auto bailout, given the extensive economic damage it would certainly prevent. A 13-year path to citizenship with increasingly draconian border security is not a liberal base policy in the least. Calling the Grand Bargain designed as to appeal solely to the liberal base is ludicrous on its face.

So the facts support the proposition that Obama has been willing, if not keen, to work on centrist policies that can theoretically garner bipartisan support. As Bruce Bartlett argued, Obama could even be considered Republican, in the older, more respectable sense. All of this complaining about Obama not trying to work with Congress or being a hard-left liberal or not facing significantly more strident opposition than his predecessors is vacuous.

[robrecht]

Considering events since the US left, its presence was obviously helping.

I have no doubt of this, but still think we need answers to my earlier questions. I understand and accept your reservations about attempting answers from our limited perspective. But, in my mind, that same reluctance should also imply comparable reserve in the severity of our criticisms. It may very well be that there were no good options available at the time and even fewer now.

[One Bad Pig]

I have no doubt of this, but still think we need answers to my earlier questions. I understand and accept your reservations about attempting answers from our limited perspective. But, in my mind, that same reluctance should also imply comparable reserve in the severity of our criticisms. It may very well be that there were no good options available at the time and even fewer now.

That's possible - though IMO Obama's known desire to exit Iraq left no room for a good option. It's seldom a good idea to tip one's hand like that.

[robrecht]

That's possible - though IMO Obama's known desire to exit Iraq left no room for a good option. It's seldom a good idea to tip one's hand like that.

From a purely military point of view, I think most would agree with this. From a larger, geopolitical perspective, there was some value in making it clear that we had no long-term colonial objectives. IIRC, George W. Bush may have made the same point, ie, something like 'we had no desire to stay any longer than the Iraqi government wanted us'. Not sure if I'm remembering that correctly. Do you recall?

[One Bad Pig]

From a purely military point of view, I think most would agree with this. From a larger, geopolitical perspective, there was some value in making it clear that we had no long-term colonial objectives. IIRC, George W. Bush may have made the same point, ie, something like 'we had no desire to stay any longer than the Iraqi government wanted us'. Not sure if I'm remembering that correctly. Do you recall?

I recall something like that, yes. There's a difference, though, between committing to leaving when the job's done and leaving by date x regardless of situation.

[robrecht]

I recall something like that, yes. There's a difference, though, between committing to leaving when the job's done and leaving by date x regardless of situation.

My recollection was that Obama wanted to leave a significant 'noncombat' force, ie, etwa 3k troops. Large enough to intimidate if necessary, but no longer leading combat missions. As I recall, Obama was critized from the left because they feared his military leaders' plan would be essentially the same as Bush's. Until there was no status of forces agreement, then it seemed to me everyone was surprised that all of the troops left so quickly.

[Truthseeker]

1) Stimulus; 1/3 tax cuts, necessary to prevent a depression

I don't recall cuts of such a magnitude, whether proposed or actually enacted. Reference? More than that would be good.

2) Auto bailout; saved millions of jobs, necessary to prevent a depression

I remember that one. Obama stiffed Chrysler bondholders to reward the unions. Anyway, I very much doubt the bailout saved millions of jobs in the long run. If you think it did, care to demonstrate it clearly and understandably? As for preventing a depression, the best remedy is for the government to stay the hell out of the economy. Massive tax cuts for starters. Spend less. If you don't agree, you have to demonstrate that all the government spending did result in a world that is better than otherwise.

5) Grand Bargain; comprised of 3:1 spending cuts to revenue increases, significant deficit reduction during an anemic recovery

Deceptive! There was no actual spending cut. The federal government spent more in a year than the previous year, year after year. A budget would be proposed to spend X, then people would say in private, let's cut that to Y. Even though Y is MORE than last year's spending, they would run around saying we cut X - Y from spending! We saved (1- Y/X)%!

And, again, that's just off the top of my head.

OK, but you should back up your assertions with authoritative references.