thegreekdog wrote: I think you missed my point. My point is that you say comparisons are invalid, yet you continue to make comparisons. Additionally, you say comparisons are invalid, yet the President and the Democrats in Congress continue to compare their own situation with that of President Bush's situation. Now, I'm not a "what have you done for me lately" kind of guy, but perhaps you should take one side or the other - either comparisons are valid and we all get to compare, or comparisons are invalid and we take each administration at face value.
It depends on the kind of comparison. Direct comparisons like saying our economy is worse now than it was under Bush or our debt is greater now than it was before, therefore Obama is doing a worse job, is not valid because it ignores the fact that Obama did not begin with the same things. Its like saying that you started the race 10 minutes behind, and lost, so you cannot be a faster runner... even if you only lost by 5 minutes. Most people would say that starting a race 10 minutes behind and winding up only 5 minutes behind at the finish means you are truly faster.. even if you did not win that race.
This is the same with Obama and Bush. Obama started way behind Bush.. and with one leg tied besides. Still, if you compare the relative IMPACT that Bush had versus what Obama has done, then it is a more fair comparision. Its still not exact, because the situations are not exactly equal. But, if you look at the IMPACT Obama has had in these 2 years, versus the IMPACT that Bush had over 8... what we see is that the divide between the rich and the poor has grown and just about everything that allowed the middle class to flourish, from low-cost education to safety nets for when things go wrong, reins on banks and credit companies, etc.. all of those were taken down under Bush. Obam has
begun to slow the reins
a bit. This is NOT to say that Obama did all I wish he had or that I like all he did, even. Also, there is a difference between trying something in desperation, with a fair consensus, but havng it fall short (as Obama can be said to have done with the Stimulus, etc.) and simply denying there even is a problem or even taking steps to make the problem worse because your cronies will benefit (as Bush absolutely did). Now, I am not saying Obama lacks cronies or made perfect decisions. I am simply saying 90% of the attacks on him are unjustified and based on fiction and not truth. He is a bit better than Bush, but that is not a high standard.
The one part I misstated or left out was that DS blames Reagan for this whole the "government is supposed to fix it" mentality. Democrats have NOT claimed much directly, in the past, that the government was supposed to "fix" the economy, etc. They have said that the government was supposed to protect small people from abusees in a very broad sense. The ones who look to government, ironically, are the Republicans and other conservatives. They see the "fix" as eliminating all controls brought by government. It may be a "reverse" concept, but still means that the government controls the economy and is responsible for the economic failures, not private business, etc.
So, this whole "look to the government to fix it" is really a REPUBLICAN creation. Neat box, isn't it. Its exactly the same as the far right wing defining only severe Christian extremism as "moral" and anything that doesn't allow that extreme view to be "intolerant of religion". And exactly as scary a principle.
THAT is the argument I thought you would find interesting.. from the original source.
