The country has been _run_ by fools for 26 years. Congress has had 26 years to do something about the fiscal situation, and we've had four presidents, and the fiscal responsible side of the electorate is never listened to.

Both sides are to blame - neither will fix the problem. Obama could've made that his goal - he was competent, had a lot of political good will, and many people were frustrated at the bailout policy Bush did, but instead it was inflationary printing (quantitative easing), Obamacare and Cash 4 Clunkers (which the used car market still hasn't recovered from).

I never voted for him - I didn't view him as honest, nor did he seem to indicate that he liked America, but was rather just a good talker - but I think he could've been a great president given a less radicalizing agenda.

He was probably the best situated president in terms of timing to fix the debt problem, but instead it was a good time for divisive politics. By the time Obama finished, it became clear neither party actually cared about the fiscally conservative Ron Paul supporting voting block.

▲

bothers an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Both sides are to blame

— the one side after they fsck the country sideways, every goddamn time.

▲

hsbalanxvxjsmab 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I would love to hear what was "radical" or "divisive" about Obama's policy. A significant portion of the country disliking him because of his skin color doesn't make his policies "radical"

▲

aftbit 5 hours ago | parent [-]

A universal health care mandate were both radical and divisive, and the popular nickname for the ACA today is "Obamacare".

I happen to think the policy was a good idea, and voting to keep it in play was the best vote of John McCain's career ... but it was definitely both radical and divisive.

Now, much of the "mandate" has been stripped away, health care remains a mess, and access is far from affordable, but you can't really blame that one on Obama.

	▲	doom2 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> A universal health care mandate were both radical and divisive It seems quite ironic, given the frequent complaints about the inability of Congress to either govern effectively or fix health insurance (for many and various definitions of "fix"), that the ACA was so divisive. At least it got passed! Yet given the opportunity twice (2017-2019, 2025-2027), a politically viable alternative hasn't been offered up by opponents of the ACA, let alone being able to fully repeal it.
	▲	hsbalanxvxjsmab 31 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Lol cool so health care is your definition of "radical" and "decisive". Hint: it's neither of these things and the only reason it was considered as such was because Obama was black (see tan suit). Seems like we need a few more years of woke cause you still can't see the obvious

▲

AnimalMuppet 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why specifically 26 years? I agree that Congress has been increasingly useless, leading to more and more rule by presidential decree in order to have a government that runs at all, but there wasn't a step function 26 years ago.

	▲	program_whiz 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		its because prior to that (2000 Bush era), congress and president had a plan to payoff debt and had a balanced budget plan in place to avoid over spending.